 I welcome everyone to the 8th meeting of the Justice Subcommittee in Policing in 2015. I can ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely as they interfere with broadcasting even when they are switched to silent. No apologies have been received. Item 1, decision on taking business in private. The subcommittees invite to agree considering item 3 and our work programme in private. Are we agreed? Thank you very much. Item 6. I hope that we can go up to about item 6. Item 2, I6. I've compressed it too much. We've got really just till 1.15 or 2pm on this, so bear that in mind. It's an evidence session on the I6 programme, Police Scotland's national ICT project. I welcome to the meeting Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson, Chief Superintendent Haymes Macpherson, Program Manager for I6, and Martin Leven, director of ICT. We have your most recent update in the programme, so I'll go straight to questions from members who know far more about this than I do. I tried to look informed, but I'm just a punter as far as this goes, but I know others are. John, you're at the starting block, yes? I'm also a punter, so for that reason, an afternoon panel, can you tell us a bit more about why you needed to change the hardware and the most lay person's terms that you can find, please? I'm happy to start that, and if you want a bit more detail, then I'll pass to somebody that knows more technical sort of detail than I do. The bottom line is that this was something that was a vendor change, so in a sense hardware that was supplied by an external supplier, not Accenture in other words, introduced a change of conditions to that piece of hardware, which effectively meant that they were not going to support it in the long term. Effectively, that caused some concern for us moving forward with a brand new facility, with some hardware that was reaching end of life. It was unforeseen, nobody saw that coming, it doesn't just affect I6 or indeed Scotland, it's a global issue, and as a consequence we were faced with a decision of what to do with that. Clearly it was going to necessitate a change of that particular component, and the real question is, do we do that now or do we do it later? The assessed position around those things is that once you go live and bearing in mind the scale and length of the roll-out, the level of risk to the business doing it after we've gone live is pretty considerable, so for all reasonable measures it's better to try and do that before we go live. In essence, that was a decision that was taken. We will receive an alternative that will not affect us in cost-wise at all. In fact, the component that we will get in its stead is actually a higher specification than the one that we had planned. There is no other difference in terms of compatibility. That remains exactly as specified, but it did involve a change in the plan delivery. As you will recall, we had intended to do what we were describing as a pilot in K-division prior to going live, and that was ostensibly just to test some of the faults and make sure that the live operation was seamless before it actually went live. That change of hardware has meant that we couldn't do that according to the initial plans. That said, we have developed an alternative approach that we believe will be every bit as robust, so prior to going live we will have full confidence in the equipment. It is the same company that is providing the upgraded version that was providing the original. Has that been looked at? It is the nature of the industry that I am sure that things are upgraded a lot, and there is always a newer, better, shinier model on the go. Has that been assessed across the range of other equipment that has been bought? Is there any potential for this to happen anywhere else, given the scale of contract and the time that it is taking to run through? That is not a criticism, it is just that there can be a lot of developments in a fairly short period. It is a perfectly valid question. I mean, I guess, the reality, the gentleman on my right and left will know far better than me, it is a reality of the delivery of any kind of ICT capability that things are subject to change and they evolve all the while. We could not have foreseen the change that we have just talked about. It was out of our hands. It is one of those things that you occasionally will be confronted with and you just have to make sure that there is sufficient flexibility that you can adapt to these changes and ensure that you can still move forward according to plan and without significant change to your intended outcomes. We have been able to do that on this occasion. I cannot promise that we will not be faced with anything else in the future, but according to our assessment, and again, there are some safeguards there in terms of the contract, because, again, to be clear, it was not us who procured this piece of hardware, it was the company that we have contracted to do this, albeit that we were involved in the agreement about what kind of hardware was required. Ultimately, there would be safeguards in place so that, if we were faced with that kind of eventuality, there would be discussions that could take place to mitigate our exposure. Does it show the contract is robust, the contract that is in place then? I believe that our contract is very robust, yes. Which company is it? That you have contracted with, who have now contracted with the other company? The supplier for i6 is at Centra, and that is our primary partner. Any losses, any problems that are all borne by them? I would not go first to say that. There is a robust contract in terms of making sure that we take our own respective responsibilities for delivery, and that is all written into the contract. I did mean that if there were any hiccups caused by the person that they are contracted with, that is between those two contracting companies. They are your agents as it were working, so that I see that there is no cost to Police Scotland here in this. There is delay but not cost. How robust is that contract protecting you, as it is where the innocence in this, if I may put it that way? As you know and as we have discussed at this committee previously, there have been a number of twists and turns on this long journey that we have had. The contract has been pretty robust throughout all that journey, and it has kept us in a very strong position. I believe that that is still the case as we sit here today. Mr Leven, you would accuse the air somewhere to come in, whether you liked it or not. Negotiations took place between our distributor and the manufacturer of the kit that has been discontinued and the manufacturer of the kit that we are bringing in to replace it. It is two separate manufacturers of the kit. The company that it has been discontinued from has basically agreed to provide the refund that we originally was put towards that, and that money has gone to the other company to provide us with kit, which is actually of a higher specification than the original kit that came in. The decision for us to swap out in advance of launching I6 is absolutely the right decision, because the kit that we were originally going to use was going to come at the end of life, so support would have been withdrawn for that during the first year of I6's launch, so it was absolutely no-brainer for us to make sure that this was swapped out in advance, so we have got fully supported kit through the duration of the project. If I could answer Mr Finnie's question as well, as it is likely to happen to other stuff that we have got across the board, that is pretty unique. In all my years in industry, this is quite unique. It is something that is sold and developed as a flagship product, which has been withdrawn by the manufacturer. It is unique, but it is also a very unique component part of I6 as well. The hardware solutions that we have got have got full product life cycles ahead of them, guaranteed by the industry, and they are full product life cycles, so that was a unique situation. I would be very surprised if anything like that happened. Many thanks indeed. I have got Kevin, followed by Margaret, followed by Lane. You keep talking about hardware, components, kit. What is the actual piece of hardware that has been withdrawn? It is a part of storage. Within the I6 portfolio, we have got a part of the system that we used to search all the data that is gathered within the system. We know the size of I6. We have got the briefings in front of us, so there is an incredible amount of data covering people, objects, locations, events across every action that will be entered into that. We need a way to be able to search that when it is in the system. In order to do that, we need a big disk for it to spin on. It is storage, so it is trying to put it into non-technical terms. It is a big disk that we store everything on that will allow us to search for it fast and pull them back. If someone wants to look for a red car that was involved in an incident at this particular time, they will be able to look into that. It will pull the information straight back out for us, so it is a key component of the system, the searching facility. I hope that that was not either to patronising or to technical. I hope that that was not a big disk, rather than servers storing the information. Can you explain again to somebody who does not understand that there is a big disk? Does that require a bigger slot? I do not know this stuff. I have to say that it is a bigger slot to put it in a bigger container, so it is more than just a big disk? I am despecking the technical description of that. It is a storage array. When I say a big disk, it is actually several disks that plug into one big thing that controls it. That is the component that we have had to replace. It is a physical thing. It is not software, it is a physical piece of kit that we can then, in years to come, add more to it so that we can give it bigger storage. You are brilliant, I understood that. Thank you. I think that that goes a long way in explaining. Can I ask you in terms of the go live date and the roll out date, which are both listed as the 7 December 2015? Could you explain to us the difference between go live and roll out date and why it is both on the same date? That might well just be a matter of wording in the briefing note. The go live date is the 7 December. It has consistently been, and that is what we have been planning towards. Go live is the 7 December. Roll out is simply the term that describes the kind of period that will be the best part of a year, which enables us to ensure that the I6 capability is available across the Scottish geography. All policing areas would have access to and able to use I6. That is what is referred to when we are talking about roll out. Clearly, the roll out will start on go live, but it will not be completed for several months thereafter. In terms of the delay, it means that you have not been able to test the system as much as you would have liked before the go live date of the 7 December. How are you going to make sure that all of this is robust enough in terms of the 7 December go live situation? That is a good question. I will ask the programme manager Hamish to unpack that a little bit, but it would be wrong just to clarify that we are, as a consequence of that change of hardware, moving ahead without it being tested. That is not the case. What we had done is planned to do what we described as a pilot, but, as I say, that was effectively rolling out the capability within a defined operational area in order to test that what it says it can do, it actually does, and we do that in an operational sense. We have had to pull back from that original plan, but we have replaced it with an alternative, which is, effectively, what we are describing as a model office, and perhaps on that I will ask Hamish to unpack that detail. I will probably try to touch both things, if I can, and members. The user acceptance testing that we discussed the past time has continued. It is obviously going to have within it a pause when we swap out the equipment, but the user acceptance testing will continue. The same number of scripts that cover every test condition that our test manager has identified is required to prove that all the requirements that were within the original contractor met will still happen. The bit that was problematic was that we were then going to do what was basically a pilot. What the pilot is, is not user acceptance testing, but having tested the application is then how does the application work in an operational environment, along with all the processes that underpin it. When you have a custody, you still print a custody form, and you will still file it. That is still quite an important piece of work before you are off to cross the whole of Scotland to make sure that it actually works with your processes, because frankly, we still have eight different processes across eight different legacy systems, across eight different legacy forces, so it is really quite important to be nailed the process part. We obviously are not keen to do that, whilst replacing the hardware, that would just be folly. We would introduce risk, so instead of that, we have replaced us with model office testing. What that is, if you like, is that we have a full custody bar with my office in Anderson, which is where the projects run from, etc. We have identified lots of different processes that we want to test and would have tested within K division in the go live, so we have replaced that with that model office testing. All who we scripted and staff will run through those scripts to ensure that all those processes are followed. Okay. If that makes sense. It makes perfect sense, but obviously you are not going to have the ability, as you hope to do, to run it live in a real life situation in one of the divisions. Is that a real impediment? I understand all of the model office situation and all of the other testing that you are going through, but to ensure that it is complete and utter robustness, it would have been better to have that live situation in one of the divisions, surely? My preference would always be a combination of both, to be honest with you. I quite like model office testing anyway, and I have done that certainly with previous projects and then supporting a go live within an operational division. For that reason, within the role of what we have done is reduced the first division in the next row, in the 7th of December. We were originally rolling out against two divisions at that time, but reducing that to one division and what we are doing is increasing the amount of business support resource that is in supporting that go live. I do not see that as introducing any further risk. We want to be able to support that risk when we go live with it. So go live on 7th of December will cover one division? Yes, indeed. And then how long will it take to roll out across all of the divisions? It is exactly the same period as before. The contractual period between go live and roll out finishing on 29 August next year is still within the same plan. So it is over a period of time where you will constantly be able to check to ensure that the system is completely and utterly robust? Yes. Every go live will be supported by the same resources. As we roll out, the business support resources roll with the project and we will move into the next division to support them. Each division in turn has identified a number of staff to support their own roll out as well who will support their own staff going through, if you like, higher trained people trained to actually floor walk during that period. So that is not no change from the original plan to be honest with you. That was always the intention anyway. Okay, thank you, thank you, convener. Margaret Stanley Lane, please. Good afternoon gentlemen. Kevin has touched on the user acceptance testing and there were a number of defects and that. Do you want to elaborate a little bit on what actually this involves because I'm a bit patchy on that and exactly what the defects were because it seems to cover a lot of very pertinent scenarios like missing people, vulnerable people, various crime, custody events? I'll let Hamish give some of the detailed answer to that but I'd like to come in and make a comment about that if I can as well to conclude. He was passing in the back. No, no, no, I'm quite happy to accept that question. User acceptance testing, I think last time I tried to take you through a test cycle and explain to you how a test cycle works within a software program where several parts of the test cycle are the responsibility of the supplier. So as something is built, the supplier will carry out a thing called unit test, it tests the individual components, they link the components carry out assembly testing, they then carry out a product test which is a factory acceptance test to the application. The supplier is responsible for that. User acceptance testing is then our responsibility which actually carries out test scripts which match operational environment. The point which I'm sure Mr Richardson will come back to just now was when we finished product test we should have had no critical or major faults. What we found and as we've said within the paper we've given you what we've found in user acceptance testing is we have a higher number of defects than we would have expected at this point in time and we also have a higher number of major and critical defects which are obviously we will never go live with major, minor or critical defects. Now that's an issue for the supplier so we've challenged the supplier to say how are they managed to burn down that defect rate in time to hold the go live date and that's basically with them. The result of that is bits of user acceptance testing have been problematic because we've had scripts blocked with errors on the supplier. You're saying that wee bit, I mean I understand that, tell us what, go back again and don't bother about patronising me, I can't speak my mum, you're all much better at me than this. What's a test script, give an example of a test script, I take it that an officer sitting with a route plan to put stuff into the system, is that what it is? That's exactly so a test script, I'll give you a basic example maybe that we record a crime, so enter the system, record a crime, test to make sure the whole of that crime recording works perfectly, having recorded a crime attached and accused to the crime, so the crime is detected and accused, attached, having attached accused we create a Scottish prosecution standard prosecution report and we test all that a prosecution report, having created a prosecution report we send it to the Procurator Fiscal and through obviously this is your interface testing and we would receive a statement request, having received a statement request, it gets split up to the officers, the officers complete their statement and that's just one example, we would have the same for a missing person, for a vulnerable person etc. Sorry? So what went wrong? Well we have a number of defects in there that's actually stopping those processes, so for instance part of the interface between our creation of a prosecution report and passing that to the Procurator Fiscal is actually faulty, so the data is not appearing in the right fields and the manufacturer as a result has to go back and sort the defects. You always get defects at this point in time but quite frankly the defects are of a higher magnitude than we would have expected at this point in time and actually a higher criticality, some of them are majors and actually stop the scripts from even running, that's the issue. Mark, I needed to know that, but I needed to know that. Yeah, I know that, but I needed to know that. For example, they're always good. And if I may just sort of, I'm supposed to top and tell that, I mean in terms of the committee's interest in I6, I'm very grateful for that and on an on-going basis I know you've sustained that interest. It's certainly been incredibly helpful to enable us to keep the profile and keep the momentum necessary and it helps to also reinforce the criticality of this programme. Why don't you tell us we're helping the police? We're not supposed to be here doing that. Indeed, but that's the reality from my perspective and again, you've heard me say before and I'll say again today that this programme as we've gone through remains on scope, on budget and on message and we are following a schedule for delivery and all of that is great. In fact Audit Scotland have picked that up by using I6 as an example and a recent publication they've brought forward, but as well as part of that and hopefully the committee will take some reassurance of the rigor that is put in around making sure that what we are doing delivers the outcomes that we're seeking, but I should also just on the context of defects highlight to you that we've always acknowledged the complexity, size and scale of this programme, there is no doubt about that, but at the same time we have an expectation that there is an effective level of contribution to address difficulties and overcome the unforeseen obstacles moving forward. It seems to me where we are at the moment that the supplier has not perhaps been delivering the performance that I had expected, certainly in breaking down some of these defects within the timescales that we expect, I expect and as a consequence there was a fairly robust board meeting, the last board meeting was the 28th of August, during that and again to be clear that they have been consistent in their messaging that this is resolvable, that they have got available resource to draw down in order to get this dealt with prior to go live. However, there is an experience that we've had so far where we have had caused challenge, quality issues and an overambitious approach to certain things and as a consequence I was not reassured at that board meeting that what they were bringing forward was a credible plan to enable them to do what is necessary to enable us to go live on 7 December. That's a fairly significant issue and as a consequence I've asked them to come forward to a special board meeting that I've asked for on 15 September and at that board meeting I will expect them to provide plans and an overwhelming assurance that what they have in place will enable them to do what we require them to do to enable us to go live on 7 December. It would be wrong of me to come to the committee and not flag that up but I suppose just to moderate that you know because of previous discussions this has been an incredibly difficult journey in 30 years in policing, this is the most complicated delivery programme I've ever experienced and that continues so in a sense I wouldn't want to put flags up around this. Accenture have been consistent in their message that they can do what's required, they also at that board meeting indicated in excess of 90 per cent confidence rating for delivery so what I'm describing to you is I suppose just the rigor of the programme arrangements to say we are not at the moment satisfied that what's being presented is of the appropriate standard on quality and therefore we will come together on the 15th. If on the 15th they manage to secure that confidence then we will carry on exactly as we've highlighted to you, if not then we might need to consider some revision and if that does happen I will clearly inform the committee. If there are further delays to the implementation and there's a knock-on effect to the training of officers and you've obviously considered that this could be a possibility, are there contingencies in place to negate that necessity? There are contingencies and there is kind of just because of operational realities where unforeseen things can happen that mean that we can't progress training, this is no different to that so from the outset irrespective of what I've just described there was a degree of flex built into the training requirement to enable us to kind of adapt to what I'm certain will happen anyway just in terms of life events and things that the police will need to respond to so there is perhaps Amish could provide some further detail around that. I certainly can members, I wouldn't be doing a job of it in building some kind of contingency so there is contingency in with for example the hardware swappa, we have contingency within there, we have contingency within the general plan that takes us up to the 7th of December and also we have contingency thereafter as well so theoretically we do have some movement which again as Mr Richardson's expressed the supplier says there's no reason to have that concern just now because they are you know they have resource and they have you know in the past we have had a high level of defects in product tests they very very quickly turned on resource and burned those defects down and held the date but however how do you foolish of us not to plan some contingency so we have contingency in training and as much as from the last person being trained or the first person being trained to the day to the go live we can actually extend that and still fall within best practice for training if that makes sense. Yes although burned defects down is a new one on me but I'll be a bit of a mind, Alison resolve. You really just a supplementary there when you talk about the board you mean the I6 programme board? Yes, that's fine thanks. I have other questions but I'll wait in the queue. No you're quite, you chair it if you like I'm quite happy suddenly on you go Elaine. Just on the you mentioned about the storage array which has been changed what sort of backup is there for your system? Yeah full backup we've got backup solutions that will safely guard against any data loss and will allow easy recovery of the solutions and obviously there's different legislation with how long we should retain data and then when we should destroy data so our backup solutions have got all that fully built in. There's backup elsewhere at a data farm or whatever that's accessible by crowd user? Yeah the I6 data model operates between two main data centers obviously I can't cover the locations of public environment but there's two main data centers that will replicate data between the two data centers. What about you know the progress being made with the transfer of legacy data? How's that going? So the transfer of legacy data you'll notice in your briefing papers that refers to something called the IDAP programme which is utilising some technology which allows us to access legacy data in real time so if anyone is looking for data records that for example are four, five, six etc years old then that information will access the legacy data sets and produce that as in real time on the system. There's no delays or anything? No the user wouldn't know they're browsing an external data set at that stage it will all be as if they were browsing the original I6 database I don't know if you want to expand on it. There's possibly some that there's no delays in there that's completely tracking on track what I would say is a rollout so the intention when I6 goes live that will cover specifically vulnerable people because we currently have a national vulnerable people database and it's quite important as I6 rolls out obviously some people will be on the existing system some people will be on the new system so it's important that the people on the existing interim vulnerable people database can see the stuff in I6 and vice versa so vulnerable people will be there for go live and missing people will be there for go live so we have a national view of missing people as the system rolls out and bluntly also on economics of when legacy systems software renewal was due etc etc we will replace the other data sets and then by the time the last of the legacy systems is due to be if you like decommissioned by that time the whole of iDAP will be formed and all legacy data will sit within there if that makes sense to members. And you were absolutely certain that the program will be fully rolled out by the 16th of September of what it was by September next year is it? There's no possibility because obviously been slippage in the past there's no possibility that can offer the slippage given that there's still some issues within the system. Well again notwithstanding what I've said already this is always subject to kind of variation and change and the journey so far has presented a series of challenges that we've had to find a way to overcome but we have done that and we've managed to stay on message I suppose from my perspective and the committee is aware of this I6 represents a game changing capability and it is literally a generational shift for all police officers and staff delivering service therefore the prize is incredibly high and the priority around delivery is as strong as it can be so again I would wish to take some reassurance that we will move heaven and earth to make sure that this is rolled out and provided to staff across Police Scotland as expeditiously as we possibly can but again I absolutely guarantee will be around this table again in the future talking about some other foreseen, unforeseen changes that undoubtedly will happen. The experience of new IT systems throughout the public sector has not always been happy and there have often been unforeseen issues which have caused problems and cause delays and so on. That's absolutely right although again where we are in terms of this particular programme is that we've gone through a great deal of work and the system is constructed, it's built, it's designed and we are at the testing stage so there's a significant amount of momentum already there. Much of the change moving forward we should take some confidence again from although the K division pilot as described has been changed the work that was done by K division officers I think was exceptional they had themselves in a position of readiness, they'd done appropriate communications, people were ready to roll with that pilot and again observing from my perspective I took considerable reassurance that if that is an indicator of how the other divisions when they reach that point absorb the requirement then I think there's real reason for optimism. Can I ask you a daft lassie question? Is Accenture that develop the systems? Are they the systems people and the hardware providers? Are they the systems people? There's probably a blend, I'll let Hamish answer. Accenture are our primary customer. What I'm trying to get at is this, I think you mentioned Chief Superintendent McPherson the 29th of August next year is the date for the roll-out to be completed. Yes that's correct. I took a note of that but then and I quite rightly my colleague pressed you on what if there's further slippage and what I want to know is it's very easy for instance I see somebody to build a wall for me and they say I'll build it by the end of September and it's not built and there's slippage and it goes on and it goes on you know there's nothing perhaps I've got them in a contract that says you know do it by that time penalties come into place and you want to have me in the front foot so I want to know with Accenture that if it goes beyond that well you can't roll the whole thing out for right reasons are there any penalty clauses not just that you don't pay a bill but you have penalty clauses in place so that money comes back to Police Scotland because they've got a bit of elastic that can keep stretching in terms of the contract. Perhaps convener I can answer that yes the the go live date of December is actually it's a contractual go live date the previous milestones regarding I'm talking about the complete rollout I've heard that bit I'm talking about 29th of August if it doesn't if you can't manage for reasons that the system defects are something other penalties in place to funding to come back to Police Scotland because you're on all this hassle. Sorry convener that's what I was trying to come to to be honest with you. As soon as the date passes in December if it's not fit for rollout at that point in time in our first contractual go live the supplier is automatically liable for penalties so there are penalties can be attracted from that directly to Police Scotland. Yes. And are there further bits down further down the line in the contract with other penalties? Each of the milestones has penalties against them including the final rollout. I mean that's obviously commercial and yet they put it this way they would not want to reach that position. We would certainly not hope to cover that. The issue we have just now just for clarity for earlier on regarding the hardware if you like the hardware is it's a turnkey contract through Accenture and the hardware was specced by them but agreed by Police Scotland. No I understand that distinction I was just interested to separate the difference between there are no costs to you in terms of the pay out more what I'm looking to is do you have a sort of damoclies to some extent over Accenture who may have won over the hardware but so that you say here's a deadline now you don't have it by then you pay money to us. There are significant contract points shall we say which would make it particularly unattractive run past any of the milestone dates passed to go live. Because that makes people focus on delivering on time. I'm so sorry I just thought we were getting away with there's no additional cost too much and I wanted to know about the other way around. Margaret? Since we have a little bit of time I wonder if you could explain just now or confirm just now. I know that divisions are still using their legacy computers until I6 becomes operational and that the national element to the custody process has resulted in what they see as additional pressure on busy custody suites recording identical information both on hard copy and electronically. Now is that continuing just now? Is it likely to continue to roll out and will that be resolved when the new system is eventually rolled out? Yes, when I6 is rolled out fully obviously we'll have a single integrated custody system across the whole of Scotland and anybody in custody across the whole of Scotland can see the white board of the custody suite anywhere else in Scotland so but obviously to reach that point there's a rollout so as the first divisions go live they gain the benefit of I6 but the other ones don't but what we have is business processes in place to ensure they still maintain the visibility of people in custody across the whole of Scotland. I'm not going to claim I'm an expert in that area because that obviously belongs to custody division but obviously my business change staff if you like work with custody division to actually deal with those business change elements during the rollout. I think it was both the hard copy and electronically they felt was a duplication that was adding to to work when they're already under pressure so that's continuing and likely to continue to the rollout as a belt embraces is that the idea? I mean I think it's in terms of context there is absolutely no doubt that I6 underpins reform and in fact it's critically important moving forward to enable national capabilities but I6 isn't the only area and there are a number of areas where the forces you know interim measures had to be put in place and it will take time to move to a position where all legacy forces can communicate in a slick common fashion but actually that we've made significant progress around trying to address as much of that in a prioritised way as possible and in contrast to where we were before without kind of wagging fingers at all in relation to legacy arrangements but the reality around trying to deliver national solutions in the legacy setup was inordinately difficult because there was no single line of decision making so there were very few successful deliveries of national programmes under legacy arrangements since we've come into being as Police Scotland we've rolled out 21 national systems some of these being interim arrangements but they have enabled a communication and a flow of information and process across various business areas to enable the business to flow so yes there are still some areas where there is a less than optimal kind of reality for staff who might have to duplicate to some extent but we have plans in place to address all of that and once we get I6 coming on stream for example then much of that will be reduced but it's not just I6 there are other elements as well will enhance that but it is just important to stress that fact that none of this happens overnight I6 has actually been on the kind of books now for some six years it's taken us to get to that point of delivery and so I guess we need to be realistic and patient about how we can improve and address all of these concerns in a national way yeah I understand that but specifically on the custody process are they still having the hard copy and the electronic copy and how long is that likely to continue it's going to be different in different parts of the country but it's just it's difficult to know without an exact the Dumfries and Galloway system will get replaced when I6 rolls out and prior to that they will maintain the system they've currently got because it is you know as you say it is possibly not the most efficient way but it's definitely built in braces to ensure that people are kept safe within custody and if there's any chance of you know I think there's always a danger leaving that burden earlier and you're quite confident that would be okay you're always looking to do that we would always look at something what you don't want to do is introduce something which actually in itself creates a risk to create efficiency and there is always a balance okay give me I want to move on you got a last one have you what is topic two is I wonder just um finally convener um in terms of where you're at now and the entire process you've previously in Police Scotland well not Police Scotland but in the police forces had bad experiences with trying to create these kind of systems is Elaine pointed out earlier the public sector as a whole has had some pretty bad experiences with the rollout of new systems during the course of all of this and I know that you've had lots of gateway processes in place and all of the rest of it to make sure that this runs as smoothly as possible are you also at the end of this going to have a post mortem of where things went right and where things went wrong and are you going to share your findings not only with your own colleagues in Police Scotland but in other parts of the public sector as well in terms of the delivery of such a complex system I mean the simple answer to that would be yes we certainly are although we're not waiting until the end to do a kind of post implementation debrief this is almost an ongoing reality for us so at the various stages we are having a look at the learning that's come from different stages of this and making adjustments as we go this will continue to be difficult and it is going to take time before we get to the ultimate rollout position and so I have no no doubt that we will need to remain focused and continue to put the effort in to make sure that we get the outcomes that we seek I have on a number of occasions been in discussion with colleagues from out with policing around our general experience and I believe that that's something that is incredibly worthwhile actually just sharing in the kind of public sector context specifically some of that learning to hopefully safeguard others or give others a bit of a helping hand with regard to avoiding some of the pitfalls that undoubtedly are there thank you that's fine that's a good place to conclude thank you very much I thank you for your attendance so we're now moving into private session so i'd ask the public gallery to clear please