Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
168-198)
Councillor Mark Burns-Williamson and Bill Wilkinson
18 January 2011
Q168 Chair:
Just for the record, Mr Burns-Williamson, if we could have all
your titles. You are the Chairman of the APA?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Deputy Chairman of the APA.
Chair: You have appeared
before us before. Mr Wilkinson is the Treasurer of the West Yorkshire—
Bill Wilkinson:
South Yorkshire Police Authority.
Q169 Chair:
We have some quick, short, sharp questions to put you. I'm sure
you're used to it. May I start with a question to both of you?
What is your estimate of the number of police officers and support
staff that are likely to be lost over the next four years due
to the proposals that the Government has set out?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Yes. We're collating information as we speak from both forces
and police authorities. The current figures I have are something
like 13,000 staff posts over the four years, and somewhere in
the region of, I think—is it 5,000, Bill?
Bill Wilkinson:
Projected forward, and grossed up for the ones that we've not
had returns for, I think the police staff could reduce by anything
up to 14,000 over the four year period.
Q170 Chair:
So police staff, 14,000, and police officers, how many?
Bill Wilkinson:
The latest forecast from the service is just over 11,000 projected
from now forward.
Chair: Right, I'm confused
now. Let's take it in stages. Police officers, how many?
Bill Wilkinson:
Just over 11,000.
Chair: And police support
staff?
Bill Wilkinson:
About 14,000.
Q171 Chair:
So over a four year period we're talking about a loss of 25,000.
Is this before you've had all your bits and pieces sent in, or
is this as near a final figure as we can think of?
Bill Wilkinson:
It was based on returns to ACPO of around half of forces. So it
was a reasonable basis on which to gross up.
Q172 Chair:
Are you collecting these figures yourselves or is it going through
ACPO first? Who's doing the survey?
Bill Wilkinson:
We're both doing surveys. The police treasurers are doing a similar
survey on behalf of the APA. It's tending to confirm the results
and I think it provides a valuable check.
Q173 Chair:
Is this more than you expected or is it less as a result of the
settlement at the end of last year?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
It is probably slightly more. The front-loading doesn't help matters
as well, I think, in terms of the phasing of the cuts over four
years.
Q174 Mark Reckless:
For the record, I am a member of the Kent police authority. I
can understand why police authorities might prefer elected commissioners
to be doing more of the cuts than they are, but is there a case
for the phasing as it now is, in light of the pay freeze that
is widely anticipated for the early years, or the fact that, as
I understand it, a number of forces are seeing an increased number
of vacancies as officers move in before a potential review of
terms and conditions?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
If you compare it to the fire service, for example, where you're
getting the loading of the cuts towards years three and four,
there are parallels in terms of the types of services that police
and fire carry out. I am chair of West Yorkshire police authority
as well, in my other role, and it is making life very difficult
to plan a consistent service over the four years when we're being
asked to save roughly 70% to 75% or make the cuts within those
first two years. So I would take issue with the way the phasing
is being planned.
Q175 Mark Reckless:
Last week we had Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester,
and he was saying this was a particular challenge and the hard
decisions would be coming in year three. Haven't police authorities
had opportunity? Shouldn't they have been planning a long way
in advance in anticipation of these cuts rather than waiting for
the announcement?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
No, we have been planning. I can assure you, lots of conversations
with chief constables and police authorities have been taken up
and down. Again, coming back to the phasing, I think year two
is probably the most critical one because that's the year when
we're being asked to make the biggest cut of 7%, and that will
pose real difficulties.
Q176 Mark Reckless:
But wouldn't it have been better for police authorities to have
perhaps stopped recruiting a year before they did so, rather than
be rushing into using, say, regulation A19 now?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
I think in a lot of authorities and forces recruitment freezes
had already been put in place. We had looked at the potential
Budget announcements and taken decisions accordingly before these
announcements were made.
Q177 Chair:
You did say in your letter to me that the reduction in headcount
is not necessarily a bad thing.
Mark Burns-Williamson:
The letter from?
Chair: From yourselves
to me, did you not say a reduction in the headcount is not necessarily
a bad thing?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Is that the letter signed by Rob Garnham, the Chair of the APA?
Chair: Yes.
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Right. Well, in terms of efficiency savings, we can always look
to do that in terms of—when 80% of your—
Chair: We are talking
about a headcount here. We are talking about actual police officers.
On the one hand we can't say, "We're going to reduce all
these police officers" and then in a letter to this Committee
say, "Well, it's not a bad thing".
Mark Burns-Williamson:
I don't necessarily agree with that statement.
Q178 Chair:
Okay. What impact do you think the reduction in numbers is going
to have on the quality of work that the police and police staff
do? Do you think there will be an identifiable reduction in tasks?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Yes, again, in conversations with the authority and the chief
constable we are trying to protect the front-line services: neighbourhood
policing; response policing, things that the public would expect
to see and have a response from on a day-to-day basis. But the
reality is that, when you are losing the amount of staff that
is projected, the support services that sit behind the front line
will be much less and radically different. So my analysis is that
we're going to be asking those on the front line to do much more
than what they do at the moment.
Q179 Lorraine Fullbrook:
I would like to pick up on something that you said to Mr Reckless
a few minutes ago: that these savings have essentially been sprung
on you in the last year. We heard last week from the two chief
constables that they had started to make savings and efficiencies
under the previous Government more than two years ago?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
That's right, yes. We have delivered on efficiency targets over
the period.
Bill Wilkinson:
Yes, the police have been making very substantial savings of 2%
or 3% a year for 10 years now.
Q180 Lorraine Fullbrook:
So, why was this a surprise to you? Because they suggested that
the savings that they were making were more substantial because
of the economic circumstances in which the country found itself.
Bill Wilkinson:
The total savings target wasn't a surprise to us. We knew from
the CSR announcement there was going to be a 20% reduction in
police grant. The point that we are making is that the phasing
of that, by front-loading two thirds of it in the first two years,
risks not having the measured response to the cuts that the police
service would want.
Chair: We will come on
to frontloading a little later.
Q181 Alun Michael:
May I make my usual declaration that my son is chief executive
of the North Wales police authority.
What are the challenges that arise from the fact
that we will have the transition from police authorities to police
and crime commissioners part of the way through the four year
period that we're talking about?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Yes, of course the stated APA position on this is to oppose those
proposals. But, of course, we understand that this is now going
before the Bill Committee, starting today. We are on record as
saying we think there is a significant risk with these proposals,
not least with the cost of the elections at a time of huge challenge
around these funding announcements and with the Olympics on the
horizon, and also with the concentration of powers into one person
across huge force areas. So, in our view, it's certainly not the
right time to be making those changes.
Q182 Alun Michael:
Okay. Understanding that but understanding the fact that the Government
is intent on going ahead with it, you have the first elections
for police and crime commissioners in May 2012, by which time
budgetary decisions for 2012-13 will have been taken. So facing
up to practicalities, what is the best way of managing the transition?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Again, we are in dialogue with the Home Office regarding our submissions
around how we see which staff need to be retained and managed
in key positions, particularly chief executives, treasurers, and
key policy advisers. HMIC is currently undertaking a number of
challenge and prepare meetings, with police authorities and chief
constables, to make sure that the plans are in place to manage
the financial and other transition arrangements. So we think that
we are fairly well placed but, of course, when you've been told
that you are going to be abolished as a body it brings its own
risks around the management and retention of staff, who inevitably
will look elsewhere for other jobs.
Q183 Lorraine Fullbrook:
Last week we heard from Chief Constable Peter Fahy that the difficult
decisions would have to be made in years three and four. By shifting
the weight of the required saving to those years, three and four,
as you would like, wouldn't you be making those decisions even
more difficult?
Bill Wilkinson:
We favour end-loading the reductions because the initiatives that
will make real long-term savings in police budgets will take more
than a few months to develop. It is the transformational change
in the way the service is organised, and so on. In all honesty,
those savings probably won't be delivered until after year two
of the period we're looking at. That is why we are saying, "Give
time for the savings to be developed and the new structures to
be put in, then the service will be in a better position to accept
the higher rate of reductions". That is our thinking behind
that.
Mark Burns-Williamson:
In addition to that, I think there is an assumption in the announcements
on the funding that precept rises of an average of 3.5% will be
levied in years two, three and four. If pay freezes and difficulties
in the economy continue at that stage, I don't think it's a given
that police authorities in year two will automatically set precepts
at 3.5%, which will increase the cost for those on static pay
and wages.
Q184 Steve McCabe:
I wonder if I can go back to Ms Fullbrook's question for a second
and ask, Mr Wilkinson, if you could give the Committee an example
of a phased saving that may realise some benefits in three or
four years, that you couldn't hope to achieve in the first 12
months or two years?
Bill Wilkinson:
One example that is being looked at in a number of areas is closer
links with the fire service. Both services operate in a very similar
area, community safety, and so on, and there is real potential,
we understand from chief constables and chief fire officers, to
integrate some of the community safety services. That will need
negotiating with the representative bodies. It's not the sort
of thing that you can say, "Yes, it's a good idea. Let's
have it in a couple of months' time". I would envisage that
taking two or three years to get to a state where it could be
implemented. The point I was making earlier on was that those
very transformational type changes that will deliver real permanent
long-term savings, will be the ones that will two or three years
to develop.
Q185 Nicola Blackwood:
The APA said in its letter to the Chairman—which you have
already indicated you don't entirely agree with—that, while
there is scope for further efficiency savings, the next really
significant wave of savings will have to be made by restructuring
and by innovative working models. What does the APA mean by that
in its letter?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Yes, if I could give you an example: Bill and I are from the same
region, Yorkshire and Humber, and we've had a joint collaboration
project under way for a few years now. We've identified a potential
£100 million worth of savings over a 10-year period but,
given the climate we're in, we're certainly going to try and bring
that forward over the next three to five years. So we have identified
about 11 areas and the first three areas we are taking forward
are procurement, scientific services and fleet. But there are
another seven or eight areas after that that we will take forward.
These are four police authorities and forces coming together to
provide not only specialist policing services but also some of
the support services, and you can't just make these things happen
overnight.
Q186 Chair:
Why didn't they happen in the last 13 years? That is the question
the Committee wants to ask. People seem to think there can be
these savings, but your are colleagues in neighbouring authorities,
so why are you buying your fleets together now for the first time?
Why wasn't this done 10 years ago?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
I think you will recall the mergers debate that was—
Chair: I'm not talking
about merging, I mean procurement.
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Some joint procurements are already being undertaken, but what
we're talking about here is a reduction in the number of procurement
units that currently sit in each of the force areas.
Chair: Right. You are
a local government councillor—
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Yes.
Chair: —and you
know about ESPO. Why didn't we do this a long time before and
therefore we could have saved even more money?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
I'm not a leader of a council, but I think, yes, the shared services
agenda has been around for a long time and I think there is much
more to do on that.
Q187 Chair:
Would it have been better if central Government just said, "We'll
negotiate a contract, and here is a catalogue and you buy your
stuff out of this catalogue because this is the best possible
price that you can get in the country"?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
I think there are some services that could be procured on a national
basis. I know the air support programme is one at the moment.
So, yes, I think in some areas it does make sense.
Q188 Nicola Blackwood:
You have mentioned innovative working models and you didn't give
any of those as your examples. I wonder if you could expand on
that. It does seem to me that, in the discussion about headcount,
we should be considering the fact that if there is going to be
a significant reduction in bureaucracy and the requirement for
police officers to spend time filling in forms, then surely they
would be freed up to do more work so you're getting more work
from a police officer even though there are fewer of them, is
that right? Is that being considered among these innovative working
models? Has that been factored in?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Yes. It is being considered. Again, I come back to the point that
when you are cutting the numbers that we have already talked about,
yes, we can ask officers to work more efficiently and smarter,
and we certainly will be doing that. But when you are taking out
lots of people in support services, from criminal justice support,
call handling, scientific support, we are going to be asking those
people on the front line to do more than they are doing now. I
think that is a reality.
Q189 Nicola Blackwood:
A lot of bureaucratic mechanisms are being removed, and surely
a lot of support services actually fulfil those roles at the moment
as well as police officers. Is that true?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Yes, the people doing those jobs now are clearly doing a worthwhile
job in terms of supporting our police services on the front line.
But those services will have to be radically reorganised from
the way that work is done at the moment. I am having those discussions
with the chief constable at the moment.
Bill Wilkinson:
We could see increases in some aspects of support services over
the next few years, as a more effective way of delivering parts
of the service and freeing up the front-line officers to do the
real police-oriented work.
Q190 Lorraine Fullbrook:
You said earlier that you had both identified, independently from
the Government's requirements on efficiency savings, I think you
quoted £100 million over the next five years. How many people
would that have meant off your front line?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
That figure was in terms of collaboration.
Q191 Lorraine Fullbrook:
So you wouldn't have got rid of people on that £100 million
savings?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Yes, we will, but that is mainly targeted at back office rather
than front line, because that is—
Q192 Lorraine Fullbrook:
So why aren't you targeting back office now, then?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Well, we are.
Q193 Lorraine Fullbrook:
So in your model, before the Government requested you to do this,
you had back-office staff going but you were going to retain front-line
staff, is that correct?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
That is the stated aim, but the level of the cuts, the 20% and
the front-loading, we have to be realistic about—
Q194 Lorraine Fullbrook:
Okay, but the £100 million that you two would have saved
is more than you are being required to save now. Why don't you
bring your programme forward? I don't see what your problem is.
You have told the Committee that you had already, independently,
identified savings that you could make of £100 million over
the next five years, so why don't you just bring that forward?
If that was better than what you are being asked to do now, why
don't you do that?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
Well, we are, that's what we're doing.
Q195 Lorraine Fullbrook:
So what is your complaint?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
The £100 million is across a region of Yorkshire and Humber;
we have a £1 billion budget in Yorkshire and Humber. The
£100 million isn't going to go anywhere near meeting the
kinds of funding reductions that we're talking about. That is
just one part of the jigsaw.
Q196 Chair:
Final question, and a yes/no answer would be helpful because the
Minister has left the Committee and is about to give evidence.
Do you anticipate crime will go up in your area as a result of
these cuts?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
It is an interesting debate, isn't it? We had this debate on Friday
with the force, in terms of what targets we were looking to set
for the next year. I think our ambition is at least to maintain
the level of performance we have now, but—
Chair: That is not a yes/no
answer. I know there is a debate about it. I will accept, "We
don't know".
Mark Burns-Williamson:
I know from all the research and evidence into this that there
is not a clear-cut definitive answer. My guess is that, given
the cuts over the four-year period, performance and probably crime
levels will start to rise.
Chair: Do you agree with
that?
Bill Wilkinson:
Yes, that is my assessment and that is what is coming back.
Chair: Mr Reckless has
just one question as a result of a letter that was sent from the
Home Secretary.
Q197 Mark Reckless:
I understand that Rob Garnham wrote to the Home Secretary on 8
December advising her that APA counsel was likely to recommend
that police authorities cease funding ACPO. What is the thinking
is around that?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
This is a decision for each individual police authority. At a
time when we have to cut our budgets—as we've already heard—6%
this year, 7% the year after, we have got enough retaining our
own staff and subscriptions to the APA, let alone ACPO. So I think
it is unlikely that that funding from police authority budgets
will continue.
Q198 Mark Reckless:
Do you consider that police authorities are able properly to scrutinise
spending within ACPO and, if not, do you believe Ministers are
undertaking that function?
Mark Burns-Williamson:
We have tried to exert some pressure around counter-terrorism,
for example, which is funded by ACPO TAM, the terrorism and allied
matters budget, and we have an oversight group at the national
level. But in terms of ACPO Limited, if you like, I think there
probably does need to be more scrutiny. To be fair to Hugh Orde,
as the president of ACPO, the funding arrangements are far from
ideal, the way that they are at the moment. So I think there is
more to be done in terms of ACPO scrutiny.
Chair: This Committee
is preparing a report on the new landscape for policing. Mr Burns-Williamson
and Mr Wilkinson, thank you very much for coming to give evidence.
If there is any further information you think it will be helpful
for the Committee to see, please do send it to us before we conclude
our report. Thank you very much.
| 
