 We have apologies from Stuart Stevenson, who has another parliamentary commitment. The first item on our agenda is going to be the Police Scotland's draft budget, 2019-2020. It's our main evidence item today with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Hamza Yousif, on the proposed policing budget for 2019-20. I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clerk, and paper 2, which is a private paper. I welcome Hamza Yousif, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and Gillian Russell, director of safe communities, and Hilary Pearce, interim deputy director, police division Scottish Government. I thank the cabinet secretary and, indeed, all others for their written submission, which is, as ever, very helpful to the subcommittee. Cabinet Secretary, I understand you wish to make some brief opening remarks. Last month, the finance secretary published a draft budget that seeks to strengthen Scotland's economy, deliver long-term investment and to transform public services. I believe that, within the budget, there are a number of significant gains for policing in Scotland, not least the Scottish Government's budget for policing in 2019-20, rising to over £1.2 billion. We're providing an additional £42.3 million for the Scottish Police Authority budget, an increase of 3.7 per cent for 2019-20, compared with the 18-19 position. That means that the police revenue budget will increase by an additional £30.3 million, and the capital budget will increase by £12 million. That's a 52 per cent increase, which I hope will fund further improvements to ICT infrastructure. We'll support Police Scotland's efforts to introduce mobile working to police officers. Our hard-working officers continue to be the public face of policing in Scotland and have contributed to a 42 per cent fall on recorded crime since 2006-07. We are investing in both our officers and staff, including an additional £11.2 million to be invested in the workforce in 2019-20. That builds on the announcement of a 6.5 per cent deal on officers' pay, which is putting significant cash into officers' pockets, giving them and their families certainty. We have more officers than at any time during the previous administration, 17,147. That's still 913 more than the figure that we inherited in 2007. Furthermore, the chief constable has decided this week to bring forward a campaign for the recruitment of 120 officers in this financial year to ensure that capacity and resilience is in place to prepare against a range of contingencies associated with Brexit. We have also ensured that policing will fully benefit from being able to reclaim VAT of around £25 million a year previously paid to the UK Government. To date, 15 letters have been sent to the UK Government on Police and Fire VAT. We will continue to press the UK Government over the £125 million already paid to HMRC for police fat. However, convener, we must constantly bear in mind that, despite the UK Government's promises, the budget will be set against the backdrop of continued austerity and the shadow of the UK Government's, frankly, chaotic approach to Brexit. Brexit continues to hang over our economy, our public services and risks, frankly, making us all poorer in the future. I'm happy to take questions. Thank you for that opening statement, cabinet secretary. We have a considerable number of questions, and Brexit will feature in them. Can I start by asking you, excuse me, the rationale for the decisions taken in terms of the overall budget proposed for policing in Scotland and the Scottish Government's policing priorities, please? I suppose not to continue to re-emphasise my opening statement, but I suspect that they'll come back to some common themes that will help to answer that question. Protecting Police Scotland's revenue budget in real terms during this Parliament clearly demonstrates how much of a priority policing is. That will deliver, as I said, £100 million boost by 2021. In terms of the specific budget, it's worth looking at the fact that we're continuing to invest in reforms, so we know that there's still work to be done in relation to reform of the single service. Reclaiming VAT of £25 million being put into the core budget of Police Scotland helps to bolster that budgetary position, which is so important at a time of real uncertainty. I think that the capital uplift is quite important, and that 52 per cent increase in the capital uplift. My hope would be, although it will be for SPA and Police Scotland to determine, that most of that uplift will be used for mobile working. Again, making sure that a police service moves with the times in terms of technology will also be one of our policing priorities. Of course, the overarching priority is to continue to maintain the safety of our communities. We have a good record of that, as I've said, in the 11 years that we have been in government. We've seen crime continue to fall. Of course, a slight increase last year, but we wanted the overall trend to be one of recorded crime falling. Yes, bolstering the foundations, as we have them, continuing absolutely with reform investment in technology, are just some of those priorities. In their submission to, as the Scottish Police Federation says in pure cash terms, the revenue funding proposed for 2019-20 still represents a reduction on that available prior to the establishment of the Police Service of Scotland. Is that correct? Think about it. We've made no bones about the fact. We're proud of the fact that there has been efficiency savings. That was part of some of the rationale around the single police service. We know also that almost £200 million has been taken out of the cost base in relation to Police Scotland. We'll add that to the almost £900 million of efficiency savings. Police Scotland is well on track to meet those £1.1 billion savings. In fact, it will make those according to its own submission to the committee earlier than anticipated. I hope to make just shy of £2 billion worth of savings come 2025-26. When it comes to the savings that have been made, they have been absolutely vital at a time. All of us could recognise of extreme financial restraint, the time of austerity from the UK Government affecting our budgets. It was absolutely essential that those savings were found. Now, notwithstanding all of that, there will be revenue protection for the rest of this parliamentary term. In your opening statement, you mentioned the budget implications relating to Brexit. You talked about the 120 officers that Police Scotland is recruiting. Has there been an agreement reached with the UK Government as to what extra funding we can have? Is it going to be enough? In short, no, there hasn't been an agreement. From a Scottish Government's perspective, we have always been across a range of government departments, very clear that we would not expect the Scottish taxpayer to pay a penny for an additional detrimental impact of any Brexit deal, be it a deal or a no deal, because this is not a situation of our making, not a situation that we support, and therefore any detrimental impact. The budgetary terms should be covered by the UK Government. As members will be aware, some consequentials are coming our way. It would be fair to say that we are still in negotiations with the UK Government. It is not clear that the funding allocated to the Scottish Government will allow us to cover the full implications of the EU exit. The issue of police funding for no deal consequent management is still one of a number of issues that the Scottish Government is actively pursuing. With the UK Government now, I have to commend the chief constable and the SPA for taking prudent steps in relation to the recruitment of 120 police officers. On the VAT question that you mentioned, I have to move on that initial point. On the possible need for a number of extra policemen in the event of a no deal or a Brexit coming into force, I wonder if the Government has looked at the contingency given the concerns from the SPA about recruitment, the ability to train within a necessary time frame of perhaps recruiting retired officers to cover that period of time to bring them in. The expertise to be used in whichever way is deemed appropriate to make sure that they have that resource that can be used fairly quickly to make sure that there are no gaps in the service. I do not know if she is looking at the convener while she was saying that question or not. That would ultimately be a decision for the chief constable and the SPA to derive at. My understanding is that they effectively have quite a full pipeline of those who want to enter into Police Scotland, which is great for the reputation of Police Scotland. Essentially, they turn on and turn off the tap or slow down or speed up the flow of recruitment as and when they would like. My understanding is that they are in a good position to bring forward recruitment of those 120 officers. Police Scotland's ability to do that as the second largest force in the United Kingdom means that no doubt other forces across England and Wales and Northern Ireland will look towards Police Scotland for potential mutual aid requests. I do not know the honest answer about whether they are looking at retired officers. I have not seen that across my desk and I do not think that that is the case, but I would have to get further clarification for the member. My understanding is that they are in a good place when it comes to their ability to recruit relatively quickly. I was referring to the SPA's letter to MSPs on 11 December, where they said that it is not just 120. We may be looking at many more officers who need it very quickly, but there will not be time to recruit and train. Therefore, that might be a viable suggestion. As I said, it would be for SPA and Police Scotland to make that call. I have a further supplementary question for him. I have a further supplementary question to the issues around the Brexit bill. Is my colleague Margaret Mitchell based around recruitment? Has there been any analysis done, cabinet secretary, on any possible impact the Brexit will have on recruitment in terms of migration, EU citizen status and that type of thing? Yes. Police Scotland is working and has been doing a troll of staff and officers to determine how many EU citizens they have as part of Police Scotland. It is the Scottish Government's intention that for anybody working in our public services, the Scottish Government picks up the fee that we think is a dreadful thing for any EU citizen to have to pay in terms of their settled status. That is being done. I do not have the numbers of how many EU citizens are both officers and staff, but there is no doubt at all from earlier work that I have seen around Brexit planning that EU citizens make a great contribution to our police service, both in staff terms and also in officer terms as well. In terms of recruitment, I cannot tell you again that it would be for Police Scotland to be able to update you on that, but certainly from the passing out parade that I was at and lucky to be at in December, there was certainly from just a cursory glance quite a bit of diversity on show, and that is of strength to the Police Scotland as opposed to anything else. You mentioned in your opening statement too about the VAT and the fact that you have been pressing UK Government M4 sort of back pay on that. Do you have a figure about what that would amount to if we were successful in reclaiming that? 125 million would be the number. Having been persuaded of the logic of the argument and making a change in VAT having to be paid, it seems to me only fair that if you accept the logic of the argument that it was unfair to charge VAT and therefore they will stop doing that, it seems only logical that you think that they would then give us back or Police Scotland back what was paid. I do not need to tell the committee here or the subcommittee what a difference a 125 million could potentially make to IECD transformation or to the police service as a whole. Can we then take it that the 125 million that you feel is due the Scottish Government in back pay as it were of VAT, that further investment in IECD is contingent on that 125 million being reallocated? No, it would be helpful to make a big big difference. I do not have 125 million just at the back of the sofa and having that 125 million to be able to spend on priorities like IECD and other priorities in policing would be remarkably helpful. In terms of the DDICT case, which I know that the committee has examined very thoroughly, I have had a number of meetings with Police Scotland and the ASP on that. They clearly have an outline business case which we will continue to robustly test. The 52 per cent increase and the 12 million per cent increase in capital funding is that most of that will be spent on mobile working. That will mean that 10,000 front-line officers will be given mobile devices on the front line. You have not suggested to Police Scotland that their bids, whether it is for DDICT funding or any other bid that they have made, are contingent on that 125 million? No, I have made it clear that it is contingent on funding and resource, and having that 125 million from the UK Government would go a great way in helping towards that. You have also said that, because the principle has been accepted by the UK Government, the logic would suggest that that back payment of 125 million pounds should now be made. Having accepted the principle that Orkney and Shetland's exclusion from road equivalent tariff was unfair, can we expect a back pay of eight years' worth of road equivalent tariff to be paid to the islands? No, I do not think that the same logic. We were always going to phase RET, for example, over the Western Isles, and we were always committed to looking at RET for Orkney. Orkney and Shetland Isles benefited for things such as air discount schemes and so on. I did the Western Isles. Yes, but it benefited from a number of various schemes, so I think that the logic is different. I am surprised at the member, because it seems to me that he is almost arguing against the 125 million. No, I am just comparing the logic. I am comparing the logic. I appreciate it was a liberal demographic that you have applied in this instance. Within the Treasury, at the time that withheld some of that money back, I would expect him, as I would expect most members, to come on board to get that 125 million for the police service. I am really surprised that he is against that. I am absolutely happy with that, Cabinet Secretary, but by the same token, I would expect the Scottish Government to then exercise the same logic and principle in the way that it allocates its own funding on the powers that it has a responsibility for. That is the point that I am making. To leave that one there, I didn't envisage ferries that would feature too much today. I have less confidence. That is maybe the legacy of your previous remit, Cabinet Secretary. I know that Margaret wants to win with a point on that. Just a short question, Cabinet Secretary. When the 25 million from the Retrieval Act was allocated in March 2018, that was specifically to ensure that policing would fully benefit from it. In your opening statement, you mentioned that it has gone to the core budget. Can you be more specific about how policing has specifically benefited from that 25 million? The member may know that the change in VAT policy, which took place to effect from March 2018, allowed the SPA to reclaim VAT, so that was broken down 22 million revenue VAT funding provided by the SG as part of the form budget. That was then added to the SPA's core revenue budget in 2018-19, with a corresponding 3 million added to the core capital budget. If I take that revenue budget, that 22 million has been utilised in a number of ways. 10 million was for the additional cost of officer pay awards, 5.6 million for the compensation related to SPRM, 2.1 million for SPA forensics outsourcing of some of the backlog work that existed, 5.4 million was a transfer of a portion of change posts to the core budget, where they became permanent posts as well. That total was 23.1 million, so it was excess of the VAT budget, meaning that SPA Police Scotland had to absorb around about 1.1 million within its existing budget. Given that the SPA overspent by 38 million in 2017-18, what is the cabinet secretary's view of what the spending deficit will be in 2018, based on that budget? I say to the member that no deal breaks at planning, and breaks at planning generally has been a complete game changer. The deficit reduction plans that the SPA had, having to now bring forward recruitment of officers, because no deficit reduction plans were predicated on, certainly from SPA's point of view, on reduction of officer numbers. That was predicated on being able to demonstrate enhanced operational capability, but none the less any reduction in police officer numbers, my understanding for the next financial year, for the first six months, for the first half of that financial year will be halted. Potentially it has the impact of having an impact on the deficit reduction plan, so until we know what kind of Brexit we are looking at, what kind of deal we are looking at, clearly that is going to have an impact on every single one of our public services, Police Scotland is not immune to that. Forgive me, cabinet secretary, but even leaving Brexit to one side, and I can completely accept it as a very large elephant in the room, but if we work from the basis that the SPA requested a revenue increase of 50.2 million, but only received 30 million, and if we start from the starting position that they asked for a capital increase of 90 million and only got 12, what is it that they are not going to be able to do as a basis of that budget settlement? Because you must have had those conversations and they must have asked for that money for a reason. You would have to ask Police Scotland what they can do within their settlement and what they couldn't do now that it is slightly different. I should go back to the revenue of 50 million, the reform that you meant 50 million, and I should say that the reform budget will stay the same as it did last year, or this financial year, but remember VAT and the reclaiming of VAT now goes into the core budget, previously that was paid via the reform budget. The additional asks, be it of capital or be it of revenue, my understanding is that that is not necessarily from where they devise their budget deficit reduction plans. What they can no longer do if they do not have what they had initially requested, there is something that you would have to ask the Police Authority and Police Scotland, but I go back and I maintain that if you strip all of this back, you are looking at a police budget that 2021 has 100 million pounds additional being spent on revenue protection. This or the next financial year coming will have a 52 per cent uplift in its capital and the funding includes, for example, a pay officer award that has been described the best in the last two decades, so we are providing a policing budget that absolutely reflects our policing priorities. Let me come to that pay award in a moment, but I have to say that I am very slightly surprised that the Government setting a budget and isn't discussing with the SPA what it will and will not be able to do with that budget. I would have thought that that was a fairly basic conversation to have, but if we look at that pay award, the revenue increase that Police Scotland is looking at is 2.8 per cent in cash terms, which is an equivalent of 0.7 per cent in real terms if you take out inflation. The pay award is 6 per cent. If you look at the cost base of the police, only 13 per cent is non-pay, so if they are spending 87 per cent of their budget on their people and you are only increasing their budget by 0.7 per cent, but you have committed to a pay increase of 6 per cent, surely that has a consequence on the numbers of people that they are able to employ? No, I am not a perfrena. First of all, the pay award is 6.5 per cent over 31 months. That was done, of course, in concert with Police Scotland, with SPA, with the Scottish Police Federation. It was described by the Scottish Police Federation as the biggest uplift in police officers' pay for 20 years. When it comes to the first part of his question, of course we speak to Police Scotland and SPA on a regular basis in the run-up to the budget. There is no doubt that they will have big asks, the DDICT perhaps, and therefore the capital budget being one of them. We have allocated every single penny of our budget, and within that we have a revenue protection, a capital uplift, a great pay award, hopefully not just for officers, but we will get the staff pay over the line as well. In the tight financial constraints that we have suffered, which is a £2 billion reduction in our revenue budget since 2011, I think that that is a good and positive budget. I am sorry that the cabinet secretary was not engaging with the numbers there, because I think that they were fairly clear, but he mentioned the Police Federation, and I think that they have been relatively clear on the budget settlement. They think that the funding essentially only makes alliances for 16,834 officers, and their commentary on the levels of funding was, and I quote, that it is really disingenuous of government to argue that the police service itself is arguing for a need to reduce police numbers, when in reality it is starving it of funds to be able to maintain them. I was just wondering what the cabinet secretary's thoughts were on those remarks. I work well with the Scottish Police Federation. I looked at their submission in great detail. Of course we have 913 more officers than we inherited in 2007, more than any previous administration. We know that Police Scotland is going to operate at a deficit in this financial year, and of course in 1920 we as a Government have to balance corporate pressures on a yearly basis. We want to see a more efficient police service, but we also understand and we agree with Police Scotland and the SPA that, in light of everything that is going on, particularly Brexit-related now, is not the time to make those reductions in the immediate short term. They are accepting that. They will do the job in balancing the budget, but where there is a deficit, we will have to work with the SPA and Police Scotland to try to manage that across the Government as we have done over a number of years, and we will continue to have to do so if that is the case. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the pressure that officers are being put under? Again, referring to the police federation submission, it was saying that, if you look at inspector level, that the number of hours worked by inspectors in Police Scotland is 30 per cent over the number of inspectors that there actually are. There is a 30 per cent essentially implied overtime that they are required to work because of the workload. Do you not think that that reflects the serious challenges that the police are under? Surely that means that any reductions from current levels would place further strains on those very same officers? Can I say a few things? One is that I absolutely recognise how hard our officers work. I deal with them day in and day out in the job and the role that I do, and I always put on recognition. That is why we think that the 6.5 per cent pay officer, the one pay offer that has been described as the best in 20 years in terms of an uplift of pay, putting cash into the pockets of officers is one that we made it. Of course, it did come with significant financial implications which we will rise to that, but the reason we have done that is because we recognise the pressure that officers of all ranks, frankly, are under and they have done an exceptional job in keeping us safe. The reduction in crime that we have seen so yes, we recognise that. I will continue to have a positive relationship with the Scottish Police Federation where we can do more, we absolutely will. It would be worth me saying to Daniel Johnson that neither his party nor as far as I am aware the majority of parties around this table committed to a magic number when it came to police officers in their last holiday manifesto. I think that it is absolutely right that the chief constable retains the flexibility that he needs in order to have a balanced workforce. Before we move on tomorrow, can I ask one of the difficulties that I certainly struggle with and you mentioned the figure, I think that it is short of £2 billion, I think that it is 1.9 or something as mentioned in the cumulative savings over the period. In this coming financial year is there an expectation that Police Scotland and the SP will contribute to that to the continuing fund of savings? I think that they will continue to accumulate efficiency savings, yes. Will that have any impact on operational policing? Again, it would be operational policing, I always leave to the chief constable but for me, chief constable makes those operational decisions on a day-by-day basis, depending on the context in front of Brexit being one that is at the absolute forefront of his mind. Of the 120 officers, clearly he is demonstrating his ability to be able to have that flexibility, but clearly the decisions that we make, revenue protection, uplift and capital, have an operational effect but I would hope that it would be a positive operational impact. Touching on the Scottish Police Federation submission to us where they talk about slack for the unexpected, is there slack for the unexpected settlement? I suppose that it goes back to my answer to Daniel Johnson that we know from SPA's own deficit reduction plan, a three-year implementation plan that they expect to operate a deficit in the coming financial year and therefore as a Government we will have to, as we have done in previous years, take that on as a corporate pressure of slack, I suppose, in that regard. OK, thank you, Margaret. I think I have some questions on that. Yes, on the SPA, whether the proposed budget for the SPA will cover the extra staff that is being proposed for this, which is going from well, I think it's already increased from 27 to 40 and the SPA chair is requesting an increase to a staggering 68. That's more than 100% of an increase in staff to SPA from the 27 number. Can the cabinet secretary quantify how much that is, how much that will affect the budget and if these are full-time positions? That would be for the SPA chair to answer that. It would be for the SPA to manage that element of the budget. SPA corporate, SPA forensics, SPA police budget would be for my understanding, I think that the SPA corporate side of it accounts for 0.4% of the entire budget, so it's a miniscule part. As the cabinet secretary, I haven't looked to micromanage that in any way or any sense. It would really be for the SPA chair if she feels that there's no evidence that she would have to manage that against the budget that's been given. Forgive me, cabinet secretary, I thought that there was a pretty basic question that more than 100% increased from 27, now up to 68 and there's no kind of dialogue on that at a time when our front-line police forces, we know, are facing huge challenges and have been not really to detail with a lot of evidence where these challenges are. I don't think that it's an unreasonable question that the Government should question the SPA as to the rationale behind this, if these are full-time posts, the need for this huge increase in staffing numbers in SPA. There are discussions on that but you either have to accept that the SPA has a role in managing the budget and your role in scrutinising that and the Government's role, of course, in my continued meetings with the SPA chair and indeed with the SPA board, which I will be having shortly. Of course, we all have a role in that but to absolutely micromanage 0.4% of the budget I have to be able to give the SPA chair the flex and the autonomy to get on with the job that she has been tasked to do. To 27 members of staff, my understanding is having spoken to officials around this subject. It was absolutely on the lower level of what was envisaged when SPA was set up. There were a number of vacancies at the time when they had 27 members of staff. It was always the case that the number was going to be higher, closer to the 50 to 60 marks. That wouldn't be out with the outrageously beyond the limits of what we would expect. Of course, we will continue dialogue with the SPA around the need for those posts and making sure that there is, of course, because we all know that there is intense, rightly scrutiny on the SPA budget. Equally, I think that all of us would recognise even the harshest critics of Police Scotland. The immense job that I think the chair of the SPA has done working extremely hard and has got the SPA in a good place in relation to its governance and accountability. I hope that there is an understanding of that for 0.4 per cent of the budget that relates specifically to SPA staff. Yes, we will question, yes, we will have dialogue, but I will not look to micromanage that and we will need to give the SPA chair the autonomy that she needs. I wonder then if you could just answer the question that I started with Cabinet Secretary, given that there is 46 million increased 17, 18, 42 million seems to be the increased proposed now from 17, 18 and then 42 million now. That is 88 million over the since 2017. Does the current and that is the original question whether a proposed budget for the ex-SPA proposed, does that cover the extra staff that this body is asking for? Yes, in the sense that there would be for the SPA to manage the budget but it would be for the chair to manage that budget if she wishes to increase her staff, she would have to do it whether it's for SPA corporate, whether it's for SPA forensics, whether it's a police budget it would be for her and of course Police Scotland to manage that. Can I finally ask you, you mentioned role in accountability, transparency, crucially important. Do you think that it was wise given the role of the SPA as it currently stands which is not only to oversee, suggest improvements but to scrutinise and sometimes have to criticise the police force that they chose to make a joint submission on the budget from Police Scotland and the SPA. Isn't that rather blurring the lines? I didn't think so, I mean I can see my officials picking, but what I've been quite refreshing and maybe this is counterintuitive about the submission or the joint submission was that they were really challenging Government and of course you have put some of those challenges towards me, any suggestion here that SPA or Police Scotland simply roll over to do what Government demands is clearly not the case if you look at the submission in terms of the requests and their asks and I think that's a positive idea that Hillary wanted to comment on that point. Excuse me, it's perhaps worth adding that the Accountable Officer for the SPA that is the chief executive Hugh Grover is responsible statutorily for the entirety of the policing budget so therefore strictly the submission should fall for the response to the draft budget should come from the Accountable Officer for the whole of it. Is nobody else answering? Liam? If I could touch on the issues in relation to fleet management in the estate for the avoidance it out this is not the police's ferry fleet we're talking about here although we may come on to that you'll be aware of concerns that were raised with the subcommittee previously expressed in our report in fact that Police Scotland's current capital grant of £23 million will not be sufficient to maintain its existing capital asset base and that it has an overspend of around £6 million per year on fleet management you've rightly pointed to the uplifting capital of around £12 million but as I understand it that's year marked for ICT and therefore it would appear that that £6 million overspend that Police Scotland identify is likely to continue for the foreseeable future is that a sustainable position for Police Scotland to find themselves in? I'm always open to dialogue with Police Scotland and the SPA around their capital asker I think that for the size of organisation they often point to the size of the capital allocation and the argument for them to advance hence the 52 per cent increase I would make the point that if we hadn't increased by 52 per cent we hadn't given that additional £12 million then of the £23 million capital that would have been awarded they would have had to have no doubt to move forward with that mobilisation or mobility programme as well as their capital, fleet renewal and estate renewal and so on the increase of 52 per cent in the capital uplift excuse me, I think is significant it shouldn't be dismissed I know that the member is not dismissing it but it shouldn't be dismissed but in terms of the wider question around the capital asker I have committed to the SPHR in our last conversation to sit down with Herndon her team to look at this question in more detail of the next spending review of course money is tight all round and I won't rehearse the reasons for that but the argument around this I think is one that I'm certainly open minded to listening to I appreciate that willingness to continue the dialogue I think the point that's been made to us in relation to the capital uplift is that it falls short even on what is needed specifically for ICT but as the police for generation have pointed out the continuation of that requirement to overspend is going to see the fleet and buildings further decline over the forthcoming 12 months and that doesn't seem to be as I say a sustainable position for the police to be in on an on-going basis I will meet with the SPF as I do on a regular basis but I will ensure that the issue around capital is raised and discussed at our next meeting we did discuss it when I went to meet with the various regional committees and there were some questions around capital and some of the conditions of the estate and the fleet and I did promise to continue that dialogue going but I operate within a certain financial envelope he knows that the Government is self-restricted in terms of its finances again because of a variety of factors I'm pleased that we've got to a 52% increase I mean that was believe it or not, it was hard fought but I recognise the argument I have some sympathy with the argument around the size of the organisation versus the size of the capital allocation so all I can do at this stage is continue to engage with both SPF SPA Police Scotland on these matters and continue to update this Parliament on those discussions welcome that, I mean it's worth again putting on record what SPF have said in relation to the specific issues were they saying that they cannot emphasise enough how limiting this is for the police service so I think the urgency of getting some certainty over a longer period rather than an annual basis is absolutely imperative but I suspect we've had that on that matter thank you if the committee and the cabinet secretary forgive me for raising a constituency issue, I have to say a relevant constituency issue you'll be aware that Gatclash Crane Campus is in my area and the parking around it has been quite a local concern it's made it to the national news and to the chamber and I know the cabinet secretary will be aware that money is tight but given the concern that this has been raised around us and the impact it's having directly on the Gatclash community I wonder if he would commit to speaking to his officials based at the site or the heads of service to look at if there's any further solutions that can be found I don't know if the member was in the chamber or not but I answered a general question on this earlier in the afternoon there is in my understanding today which Scottish Government official is taking part around this I think there is a piece of land adjacent to Gatclash which is potentially a new site for Monclans' review going on about the consultation of that so we won't know but I suppose on both scenarios whether it does become the site for the new Monclans or not I've asked my officials to prepare options to potentially be used so if it was in the site of the new Monclans could there be a shared transport strategy which could assist the parking issue at Gatclash if it's not then as the owners of that land can we look at that or even part of that land being used to assist with that parking issue so I'm happy to take that away officials are to come back to me with options I'm happy to keep the relevant members on that I just missed the question in the chamber today but I was aware that it'd been asked to thank everyone for that response I'm not awfully sure how impacts on that are subject here but you've got that in there and I'm glad to hear you say transport strategy because hopefully that could be a number of bus stops rather than a whole lot of car parking spaces The reason then, I think, full to the question was pretty fair You're going to be you're going to be I was going to ICT Yeah, it's not ICT Okay, a couple of questions if I may please cabinet secretary on the ICT strategy and the impact of phasing it will have an expected efficiency savings and reducing the deficit Yes I mean the ICT presentation that I've received from Police Scotland there's no doubt that all of us here recognise the need to invest in ICT mobility and mobile working is certainly a part of that I think many of us really have a lot of sympathy for officers who are still having to use notepad pen, not having access or having to use their own mobile devices for a whole host of reasons that can't be right and isn't right which will invest in that On the wider question I think there is absolute truth in the argument that investing in ICT significant investment in ICT will help to realise further efficiencies I've got no doubt in that argument at all it is worth saying that without that level of investment Police Scotland have managed to or almost got to the figure of 900 million pounds of efficiency savings and in their own submission they expect to get to that 1.1 figure earlier and probably to the 1.9 billion figure if I remember it was 25, 26 per year 2025, 26 Although not contingent on that investment I think the argument for investment not just for future reasons is as important as that is but to keep our community safe to fight against some of the major technological challenges that we face in relation to cyber crime and so on and so forth I think that investment in ICT is certainly something we're open minded to now we have an outline business case I think that Kenneth Hogg came here to give you evidence in October he talked about the fact that each component will have to have a full business case and forward we really need to test some of those figures and the committee certainly with your experience collectively you don't need me to remind you about the issues around I6 which again we don't want to repeat I wonder if you can stress are you aware that the committee looked in some detail at the issue of what's become known as cyber chaos and there was a considerable expenditure just short of a threshold that would have triggered it to go to the police authority that equipment which was trialled without any assessments being made following a couple of sessions at this committee it's the case that it's not being the rollout of that hasn't proceeded because Police Scotland don't have a legal basis have you done anything to ensure that there will be no repetition of that approach because it's we do hear about strategies we do hear about plans that's completely black to front and we don't know if you have a legal basis prior to deploying it a couple of things to say I understand that in November there was legal concerns raised by a number of stakeholders I had to say stakeholders I have an immense amount of respect and time for therefore Police Scotland are doing the right thing in terms of halting any further investment and reexamining the legal basis they certainly believe they have the legal basis to cyber resilience in relation to the cyber kiosk plan but it is prudent and correct for them to reexamine that and re-explore that now I would expect that and Police would only do this when it comes to seizing phones or other electronic devices that there would be a legal basis for doing so I certainly see the logic and I think most of the committee would we are most of us if not all of us on social media to some extent I don't doubt that most of us that are on social media have probably been targets and victims of a variety of abuse and trolling on that social media and therefore that is just one element of being able to tackle that kind of behaviour particularly abuse be it racial or homophobic or anything else it wasn't so much the merits of the equipment it was more the process that had been followed or rather hadn't been followed in relation to that and really probably seeking an assurance from you that with the figures that are in front of us, considerable expenditure on respect of ICT that approach that failed approach has been noted and won't be replicated My understanding is that the investment has been halted as I've said and the legal basis for that is being reexamined in order to give assurance and confidence but I think that the merits of the principle are just important to emphasise that this is the reason why what is being done is being done but I accept the convener's point around process Okay, thank you I understand Liam you'd wish to supplementary in this on cyber skills no? Just talking about the technology aspect Cabinet Secretary in the SPA submission it says that technology has lagged and continued to lag a long way behind England and Wales and specifically they refer to the financial plan for 1920 contains assumed productivity gains but it's clear that these purported gains are made in splendid isolation to the reality of the actual capacity and burgeoning demand that's a pretty daunting and worrying statement Can you comment on that? That's from the SPF submission That's from the SPF I reiterate and repeat what I said I work well with the SPF and I have a good relationship with them I would suggest though on their submission that there is a touch of hyperbole describing the settlement as a potential catastrophic funding settlement when we're protecting revenue uplifting capital by 52% in their own words providing a pay offer that is the best in 20 years to officers I understand the job that they on the job that they have to do I can see why they push Government hard on technology I go back to my answer to Liam McArthur that I accept the wider principle that we absolutely have to invest in ICT I think Police Scotland is not where they want to be clearly when it comes to the technology that is why the 52% uplift is certainly a statement of our intent but clearly as I continue to talk to SPA and Police Scotland about the DDICT the business case that they have as we continue to interrogate that I hope that we make progress over the coming years that is going to be absolutely important We both attend the awards ceremony for the Police Federation and they do put themselves day in day out in incredibly challenging and sometimes very dangerous situations and I think the least we can do Cabinet Secretary is ensure that they have the tools to do the job so I would just make a plea to you again that you look at that budget because that's intrinsic to ensuring that we have the tools I don't disagree with anything she says there I know that only feel well the risks and the dangers that police officers put themselves in having attended not just that award but the National Memorial Service as well as the Scottish Memorial Service and I think the member will have attended similar such events and they do bring to bear the risks that officers put themselves in in ICT and of course and that's why the 6.5% pay-off for over 31 months is also important, is a recognition of that bravery and you know as I say is in stark contrast to other Governments on this island that I haven't I think rewarded that bravery Also in the SPA's mission they make a very good point I think about the vulnerabilities created from the police service from maybe central funding and that some form of resolution was required for example the directly funded local authority police officers we know in Edinburgh for example then they're not going to they're not going to fund I think it was 25 might be 40 police officers Are there other local authorities in the same situation that they can't afford with the local government settlement? I mean I'll go back to the point that was made in the chamber in fact FMQs of course about a real terms increase in terms of local government budgets but I don't disagree with the point that of course over the years of the preceding years it has been a very challenging circumstance for local authorities I was quite heartened by the new chief constability when he first took post a number of months ago saying that he wanted to see the further devolution of decision making to local levels and to local communities I thought that was very encouraging I know that Police Scotland enjoy a very strong relationship at a local level with councils through the local scrutiny arrangements and community planning arrangements but ultimately I suppose that the decisions about funding of local community officers by local governments are indeed a matter for each local authority Is the cabinet secretary aware of any other local authorities in addition to Edinburgh who are now saying that we can no longer provide the finance for these officers? I mean I know previous local authorities that I work with Glasgow MSP, Glasgow City Council have also raised issues about the possibility to fund local officers but I haven't had anything come into me as far as I'm aware from a particular local authority to have to go check over my documentations and correspondence but I don't think I've had anything specifically from a particular local authority saying that they're not able to fund anything in my role in the last six months but I could go back and have a look and come back to the committee Would you be able to share that information I wonder if there's a broader issue around that and maybe when finances were better in some authorities we've seen it's a good idea to fund officers but if that funding's withdrawn it subsequently leaves someone else picking up the tab can you also give us some clarity around the arrangements that have been put in place regarding contract service level agreement or the like please I know from some particular examples where Police Scotland have seen the absolute merit in particular additional officers in a particular locality then they have at times absorbed that cost and that is certainly my understanding but notwithstanding that I think the point that you make convener around this issue is one that absolutely I will reflect on and I will try to get you more information around where we have had any correspondence from a local authority particular issues around policing and the local government settlement Thank you, cabinet secretary, Liam Thanks very much, cabinet secretary you've already acknowledged on a number of occasions the extremely difficult position that Police Scotland finds themselves in in relation to their capital budget Police Scotland made clear that each component of that would be subject to its own detail business case which suggests that the picture over those nine years wouldn't be necessarily a smooth pathway in any sense but I think the uplift that we've seen of 12 million does appear to be some way short of the sorts of trajectory that we've seen we need to be on to hit that target around about 300 million over the nine years so the concern would be in Kenneth Hogg's view that the do nothing approach would still cost Police Scotland around £100 million to maintain increasingly redundant and less effective systems so if you had any assurance that the funding that you've made available Is Police Scotland going to be in the situation effectively where it's throwing good money after bad maintaining increasingly redundant and inefficient systems? I mean I think it's a really good question and I know I'm the one answering the questions but I suppose my question back in some respects would be that I don't think any member would expect the Government to fund a component part without a full and final and robustly tested business case that would be a hope reasonable as an assumption for us to make especially in the light of, for example, I6 of ICT projects but notwithstanding again that all of what the member says is absolutely right the funding profile wouldn't be linear I don't think we would have to we are in the process of really robustly testing that DDICT case that has come forward in its entirety now excuse me because of the financial settlement for 1920 it may be that SPA have to re-profile that spend whether it's over nine years to perhaps a longer period or even a shorter period just depends on the funding settlements that we are able to provide in the next few years but the immediate step has to be and is to really robustly interrogate and to test that outlaying business case that seems entirely reasonable certainly in relation to the detail business case I suppose the logical follow on from that is that making that kind of business case profiling the expenditure in whatever way is required is enormously more difficult indeed almost impossible without some certainty beyond a 12 month period and therefore I think the SPA Police Scotland and the SPF all at various stages have made a plea for a degree of longer term certainty around expenditure Yes, I think a very fair point and the member will be not unaware of the fact that my colleague Derek Mackay, finance secretary has been pushing the UK Government for a multi-year financial settlements which would be helpful for us in turn to be able to do the same here in Scotland but in lieu of that and absence of that it becomes very difficult for us to be able to commit particularly during these really uncertain times around the impact it brings it may or may not have Although it is an area I mean we've touched on this in other aspects of the justice portfolio and I know ministers Jean Freeman for example in the health portfolio has made commitments of the year cycles of funding so it may not be possible to suggest it but is this an area where there isn't a pretty compelling need for that certainty irrespective of the position at the UK level? So he's not, of course he's not incorrect at the other parts of Government they are able to make funding commitments multi-year I suppose whatever I say to the member cognisant of the discussion and very aware of the discussion we've just had the capital ask if it is even close to what is being asked for around the DDICT project then we're not talking about small numbers, we're talking about a really significant uplift in what the current capital expenditure and profile is of Police Scotland so if the question is would I be able to commit that multi-year I'm not convinced at the moment if his question is should the Government be open minded to that and if it has the ability to do that without a shadow without if we're able to do that then clearly we would like to do that but we're not talking about small numbers by any stretch we're talking about fairly significant numbers which would in turn be a significant uplift in the capital expenditure Okay Cabinet Secretary thank you very much indeed for your evidence you've talked about some uncertainty and people would understand that but you're indeed policing implications of that uncertainty because we'd be keen to understand that so can I thank you and your officials for your attendance and conclude the meeting thank you