The SNP’s Holyrood election manifesto pledged “1000 more police”. SNP ministers later dropped this to 500 and only reaffirmed their commitment under heavy pressure from the Conservatives.Earlier today, the SNP Executive issued a press release, claiming:
In addition to the 150 additional recruits which were recruited in 2007/08, a further 450 additional officers will be recruited by the end of this financial year, 200 additional officers in 2009/10 and 200 in 2010/11. This will bring the total number of additional recruits to 1,000 over the life of this Parliament.But the BBC today reported that on 30 June 2007, there were 16,265 police officers in Scotland. One year later, there were 16,339. That represents a net increase, not of 150 officers, but of just 74.
The difference between the SNP’s “150 additional recruits” (plus the 120 recruited by the forces themselves, itself lower than the promised 173) and the reality of a net gain of just 74 officers is of course explained by retirements and suchlike attrition.
The SNP government’s dismissive attitude is summed up by their spokesman:
We undertook to deliver 150 additional officers in 2007-8 and that is what we did. The number of officers recruited by the forces themselves and decisions on how many to recruit are strictly a matter for individual chief constables.During 2008/09 the aim is to recruit 450 officers, but according to this report, 271 will retire. Police retirements are projected to peak at 437 during 2009/10, and some 271 officers are set to reach retirement age during 2010/11.
So while the additional recruits may indeed number 1000, the evidence of this past year suggests that the actual net increase could be very substantially lower.
Well reported SU. Whilst I tend to condemn negativity and the constant talk of 'broken promises', this relates to those that provide little evidence to back it up. You obviously have provided ample evidence.
It's simply not enough to provide additional officers that don't even number up to the amount of officers that retire in that time. What the Scottish people expected to get was 1000 extra officers on the streets, not simply enough officers to top up those retiring. Either the SNP have deliberately misled or................they've deliberately misled.
Ah.
If only a thousand police officers could jump from Zeus' brow...
Yet they have to be paid for...Chief Constables budget anyone?
And of course the training, jeez how could we forget the training?
If you are over enthusiastic unionist you can...
These extra 1000 officers, are they shrinkwrapped merely waiting on a shelf to be plucked and dropped into action?
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1101/0064953.xls
The bottom column on the above link of Quarterly Strength Return- 30 June 2008 shows that there are currently 375 cadet officers in training.
Hi Conan.
Surely when the SNP thought up their wee policy of 1000 extra officers, they should have thought of the implications of recruitment problems and payment? They are the ones that deal with the budget allocation for these issues, so they should have known what they could do. If they hadn't properly considered the training and costing then they are complete fools.
-
Hi Murdo.
I'd like to throw the same towards your 'waiting on a shelf to be plucked' comment.
The problem at the end of the day is that we want 1000 extra officers - not 1000 additional, then minus the retirees. That's not what Scotland ordered.
Also, the statistics on cadet training. How many of those cadets go on to actually become officers? How many drop out? Without previous statistics (because there aren't any), these are virtually meaningless. Though it's a good sign that there are 375 in training, there may well have been a higher number than 74 in the June 2007 quarterly and then that number reduced for a variety of reasons. Non?
Conan
The 16,265 and 16,339 figures already include "all officers and staff employed by the force, including those on SPC training, long-term sick leave and maternity/adoption leave". Check Murdo's spreadsheet.
Let's not forget that SNP ministers had promised that 323 new officers (their 150 plus 173 paid for by the forces) would enrol for training at Tulliallan Police College. In the event only 270 officers were trained, a shortfall of 53.
And then we come to the SNP's attempt to abrogate responsibility for what chief constables are doing. For example, Tayside Police has admitted that it spent Scottish Executive cash in other areas, including taking officers from other Scottish forces to boost their numbers.
Tayside recruitment manager Paul Cairnie is on the record saying: "We didn't need half as many (recruits] that we thought at first. We also took six transferees from other forces which allows us to get officers on the beat a lot quicker. They are new officers to us."
Do you really think this is what the voting public intended?
Fair enough, the buck stops with the Government.
They have to make sure that the budget for those officers is spent on recruits and not "poaching" from other forces; if there is not enough money in the pot I'm sure Holyrood will vote for more eh? ;-)
Erm, Conan! This is a devolved issue. The buck stops with the “Scottish government”, not “the Government”.
But have you ever asked yourself why the “1000 more police” pledge is such a hot political potato?
Here's why. This is Alex Salmond, speaking in April 2007 about having set aside £78 million for 1000 new officers:
“It's top of the public's concerns and should be top of the budget priorities.”
So the disagreements about the size of the pot are irrelevant. To demonstrate that he's a man of his word, Salmond should have made sure that financing this pledge really was given top priority. He didn't.
Hmm. You admit it's a government now, not an executive;-)
From tiny acorns grow mighty oaks.
So you wish the Government (of Scotland!) to micro-manage Police budgets?
Yawn. Executive, government, administration - only you (plural) seem to care!
And it’s not about micromanagement but fiscal accountability. It shouldn’t have been permissible for funds given specifically to help achieve a worthy manifesto pledge to be diverted into simply poaching officers from neighbouring forces.
If I were to wonder aloud if those “redeployed” officers will be counted as part of the SNP’s 1,000 target you would likely accuse me of cynicism. But unfortunately it now seems that the SNP is more concerned with being seen to have delivered than actually doing so.
Simple example. Consider the SNP’s “record number of police” phrase from the press release they issued yesterday to counter recent reports of the broken promise in the Times, Scotsman and Daily Record.
But there have been record police numbers in almost every quarter since around the year 2000. Quick historical review:
30 Sept 1999: 14,676 officers
30 June 2007: 16,265 officers
Increase: 1,589. That’s an average of ~200/year, almost three times the 74 which the SNP has managed during the following year.
Quite right to point out the rise as being quite small SU - take a look at this. If you were to extend that graph to 2008 to show the increase, the graph would hardly lift - signifying a small increase compared with previous years.
Anyway, the argument isn't about really about how small an increase they're giving over the 4 years, it's about giving us an increase at all - and not twisting the figures.
So you have accepted that the SNP administration runs a government.
That's a step forward.Well done.
At the next meeting can you stand up and say proudly:
"It's been Thursday 3rd May 2007, since I voted for a Unionist Party...
Fair point, DT - although from 31 March 2005 to 31 June 2007 (a period described at your link as “broadly stable”) the numbers rose from 16,018 to 16,265. Even that modest increase is around 50% higher than the SNP's.
But we'll see. The public expects a genuine increase of 1,000 police officers. Not redeployments, reallocations or any other fiddling about with figures.
Whether the SNP will actually be shamed into delivering what they pledged or will continue to focus more on obfuscatory press releases remains to be seen.
How a devolved administration ever got to call itself a Government is a disgrace to the other elected represenatives.
Abstention is not democracy.