Three quarters of those hired are former police officers who were recipients of redundancy payments. That's 300 staff.
You may ask, 'why were they made redundant in the first place - what was the desired outcome?' The redundancies were the result of the Patten Recommendations to transform the former RUC into a new PSNI. Critics could argue that aspiration has not been achieved. Supporters could say there was a need to ensure business continuity and the terrorist threat had not gone away.
In addition, it was a condition of the redundancy scheme that if those made redundant were re-hired as police officers there would be a repayment of the redundancy payments. Was the contract designed to circumnavigate that requirement since the stipulation doesn't apply if those re-engaged are civilians; even, it seems, if they are carrying out broadly similar roles. Is this what is meant by the private sector taking up the slack from public sector redundancies?
If the intention was to re-engage as civilians, then the investigation needs to go beyond one contract into the whole category. Up until now no one has mentioned the contract for Outplacement Services. If you are fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with this service, it is a bit like a JobCentre Plus advisor which is supposed to help those made redundant adjust, and get back into employment. My experience of it was that it was a smoke and mirrors service which should have been paid by results. But if they were paid by results, I don't think they would exist and a grant to the Samaritans may be better use of public money - I may save that argument for another day. Nevertheless, how much was that contract worth and was its purpose merely cosmetic if a revolving door would have sufficed?
Now we face an interesting scenario which may resonate with others.
How does this sit with
You may ask, 'why were they made redundant in the first place - what was the desired outcome?' The redundancies were the result of the Patten Recommendations to transform the former RUC into a new PSNI. Critics could argue that aspiration has not been achieved. Supporters could say there was a need to ensure business continuity and the terrorist threat had not gone away.
In addition, it was a condition of the redundancy scheme that if those made redundant were re-hired as police officers there would be a repayment of the redundancy payments. Was the contract designed to circumnavigate that requirement since the stipulation doesn't apply if those re-engaged are civilians; even, it seems, if they are carrying out broadly similar roles. Is this what is meant by the private sector taking up the slack from public sector redundancies?
If the intention was to re-engage as civilians, then the investigation needs to go beyond one contract into the whole category. Up until now no one has mentioned the contract for Outplacement Services. If you are fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with this service, it is a bit like a JobCentre Plus advisor which is supposed to help those made redundant adjust, and get back into employment. My experience of it was that it was a smoke and mirrors service which should have been paid by results. But if they were paid by results, I don't think they would exist and a grant to the Samaritans may be better use of public money - I may save that argument for another day. Nevertheless, how much was that contract worth and was its purpose merely cosmetic if a revolving door would have sufficed?
Now we face an interesting scenario which may resonate with others.
How does this sit with
