 FfesgMA Huluduniais Ffaltia. Fy enw i gyd yn bryd i'n fawr. The Justice Subcommittee on Policing is our second meeting of 2019. We have no apologies. Liam McArthur is going to join us, he is a bit delayed with other business. Agend item 1 is the decision to take business in private and that's our work programme and members agree with that. Agend item 2 is Police Scotland's priorities 2019-20. Felly, rydw i'n mynd i glwbeth eich companyd i ddwylo,icking einyr partners nefyn nhw ddim i ddylim ni i gyd am gyd eu cael i ddeumos i fynd mewn. Felly, ddim ffwrdd i gyd ar gyferodau, ac yn rha i ddod i ddiwrnod, phobl sydd wedi gweld bwysigai'r cydnod, ac fyddwyd yn ddiwedd i ddod i gyd. Felly, ddych chi'n gwybeth i gyd fel iawn mewn cyfeithi! Felly, rydw i'n gwybod i gyd arweinydd i ddwylo sydd y rydw i'r cyfwlad i ddydd yn oeswaith o gwnaes yr oedd y cwestiwch. Mae fawr yn dda i gweithio i gweithio i gwirio'r llwg, oedd yna yn through-upol fân, rydym yn gweithio'i ei gweithio gweithio'i gweithio. Yn iawn, rhai. Gws Future Association yn ôl eich cyfrif heeligau ystod i hwnnw i'w wneud hynny y mynd o'r maes cyfrifigiau ystod chyrw yng ngheithiau, i gwybod, petrwad yn ei eithas gweithio'ch cyfrifigiau'r cwestiwch, ac i gweithio'i cyfrifigiau'r cwestiwch yng Ngwngor ond wrth y ffiguredd mewn dweud, ac mae'n fawr i'r ffordd gyda ddechrau oedol, ond mae'n rhaid i'n gwneud, ac yn dweud, gen grapes. Byddai'n ddweud adoch chi ddweud i ddadechrau'r defnyddio'n ffordd. Rwy'n dod yn ddweud i'r llum o bryd, ddych yn fawr i wellwgol. Fy gyd, mae'r ffordd o dda i ddweud i ddweud eu ffordd yn dweud, gan hunain i gael financial service that we need to eliminate for the revenue deficit that we have been carrying for a number of years, and there are a number of reasons for that, but I will not delay my response at that point. We had had a plan for productivity to reduce our officer number by the end of 1920 to approximately 16800, so it is 300 down from where we However, because of the vast uncertainty surrounding Brexit and its potential consequences, I was not prepared at this stage to start that reduction because, obviously, you would start your recruitment profile and allow the run-down, if you like, to get us to that position. My position was to maintain our officer numbers, as they are, at 17,134. Rather than reduce by 300 after we establish productivity, we need to keep that capacity so that we can flex it into any demands such as there may be that may arise from Brexit. The issue about the 120—which is actually less now than 120—is actually only 100. I have tried to bring a tranche of recruitment forward. We recruit quarterly and there was an intake due to come in at the end of March, but really because of what was imminent, I wanted to see how many of that anticipated 240 we could actually recruit in February. That often takes delays through people who are in employment, people who have commitments or vetting issues. In actual fact, we are going to bring in about 105 at the end of February, which will put a revenue pressure on to 18, 19, but it will actually only be a month's salary for those hundreds because they are coming forward from the march intake. In essence, the plan is not to reduce, as we had intended to do until there is greater clarity if that arises soon, simply because I felt prudent to maintain that capability that Police Scotland has for the numerous and varied challenges that might arise. Would your plans include any recently retired officers—some that might have retired just before hand to ask them to come back or the figures that you are talking about? I have heard that put forward, but you will find that a lot of officers, when they come to 30, over 30-year service, the decision to retire is not taken lightly. It is a massive impact on their families and on their personal lives and their status. In truth, for a whole host of reasons, changes to tax rules and various other things. Once people make up their personal decision to retire, that is very much a matter for them. As ever, we would seek to maximise all our resource, which includes youth volunteers and the special constabulary, but there is no intention to do anything specifically regarding retired officers. That is very much a personal decision for that individual officer and his or her family. I wonder if you will be profiling succession planning through your personal arrangements. The pay award, has that had any impact? Is it likely that officers may wish to, given the way that pension arrangements are configured, likely to stay on longer? Is that going to alter the profile? Are you going to be retaining officers longer, perhaps two years to benefit from the increased pay award? Potentially, there is no indication of that as yet. I think that what is more likely to happen is that we are going to see in relatively short time the significant impact on the changes to the pension scheme. The vast majority of officers who now serve will serve for 35 years, work until the age of 60. The length of a police officer's career will absolutely get longer. There are advantages and disadvantages of that. We have a more stable workforce, but it definitely means that officers are perhaps taking more time as they develop their career, rather than the pace of development that perhaps happened in the past. The impact of the pay award is, as you are right, that people might seek to get to the head of the increments, as it were, but there is no evidence at this stage around that. I think that I have muted on the idea at the last of bringing in retired officers. I was thinking of it more on a temporary basis during any potential transition period, as a contingency plan. I understand what the chief constable says about any effect on pensions, but I suppose that, with everything in Brexit, we are in new territory and, presumably, then tax laws could be changed to allow that to happen for that period of time. A year coming in the voluntary basis recently retired people. If they were going to do that, it is a possibility to explore, perhaps, which would not have the drain of trying to bring in full-time officers when they may not be required that number later on. I am at the stage where everyone needs to be in terms of being open to anything in regard to how we respond to Brexit. I do think that there would be challenges in that. I did hear that, and I considered the potential roundabout that. The profile of officers who retire, the age profile, the work that they may have been involved in in the past, my preference is to try to bring in new recruits trained and committed to the organisation that we will get a return on. You are right that there are a number of employment issues, the relationship between any contribution that they might make, tax, their on-going pension, pension arrangements. I was given a very bit of quick-time brief advice that there were numerous issues that would need to be resolved and that it would not be a short-term solution. In truth, genuinely, I think that the philosophical point that you make is right. We need to be as creative as we can to try to address what, at the moment, are a whole series of unknown potentials. I ask if there is any particular challenge unique to Scotland that you feel you might have to deal with in any Brexit scenario. The biggest long-term challenge in terms of any Brexit, because you are right that this could yet be a well-managed, structured approach, but the biggest challenge, undoubtedly from a police and security perspective, is the loss of legal mechanisms and measures that have developed over many years with the other 27 member states. Through Europe, through Eurojust, the use of the European arrest warrant, shengen intelligence system, joint investigation teams through the Europe structures and Police Scotland have been a great beneficiary of that and, when the single service came together, we immediately identified that perhaps over the years we would have been rather shy at stepping forward and seeking some of the European funds to assist our investigations. We have had a number of joint investigation teams, an awful lot to do with organised people trafficking and high-level crime threats to the people of Scotland. The use of the European arrest warrant is a great tool for not only criminals who are beyond the shores of Scotland in Europe but also European criminals who are in our jurisdiction and the ability to remove them quickly. The long-term challenge is around the loss of legal measures. Other than working within the European structure, we will now have to recreate a number of suboptimal work-arounds on a bilateral basis. We will have to have an agreement with the French, with the Portuguese and the Germans. That will be the biggest challenge long-term. In the short term, the biggest challenge is the uncertainty. I have publicly reflected—I think that it is right and proper that we do that—that the potential for disorder and serious public disquiet is probably—I say no more than that—less in Scotland than it may be in other parts of the south-east in terms of the channel ports and clearly into the border area of Northern Ireland. Therefore, as such, I think that Police Scotland's duties, my duties as chief constable, is to be prepared to support other chief constables and other communities across the United Kingdom to respond to those issues, as well as to ensure that we have sufficient safety and security within Scotland itself. There is a long-term removal of legal measures that the framework of justice in Europe exists within Europe that we will no longer be part of, but we will make efforts to minimise the impact of that, but it will still be suboptimal. In the second biggest threat, undoubtedly, is the uncertainty of what the consequences may be. I am understanding from what you are saying that you will have overall responsibility for any Brexit-related operations that take place, or is someone going to move in to do that side of it? As chief constable, I will have absolute overall responsibility. It requires my authority for any officer to be deployed on a mutual aid basis. The structure, the recruitment, profile and all matters will be my ultimate decision, but, clearly, we are an enormous, large organisation. There are enormous amounts of challenges. We have some real pressing operational matters that do not go away on a daily basis, so there is a structure and a dedicated team in place. That has been there for many years and there is clear governance and accountability, but the accountability and responsibility in the ultimate decision-making is mine. I understand with some technical issues, chief constable. Is it lower, a bit further back from the microphone, please? I can't get closer to you. I do follow on this. To your knowledge, are you aware of any discussions that have taken place between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding resources and funding? I am not aware of any discussions. I genuinely feel that, in terms of operational independence, it is not a matter for me. I have raised my concerns with the Scottish Police Authority, my governance body and I have put that in writing to them. I have had discussions with officials about what my assessment and the assessment of the team might be, but the actual final source of funding, if there is any to be made available, I have not been party to that. Are you able to tell the committee what extra resources you feel might be needed? I would need additional funding to ensure that the anticipated deficit does not get greater. If we do not get additional funding, I have taken decisions not to step back in terms of numbers, as I alluded to at the beginning of the session. As a consequence of that, that will put more financial pressure on to 1920. The £300 that I was going to reduce is roughly equates to £12.5 million, including that in the submission. However, our assessment of the requirement simply exceeds staying as we are. Again, I have included that in some of the assessments that were made. I have been asked what is your evidence base for that. Is Brexit—there is no evidence base—what I have been asked to do and what the UK are doing, driven through the Cabinet Office and other elements of business continuity? Is planning against a reasonable worst-case scenario—you have to imagine things that you really hope will not come to pass, such as significant interference with pharmaceutical supplies, food supplies and some public and political disorder if there are issues in terms of some of the more radical fringes in the political environment and the need to ensure the rule of law and the safety of the public? We have mapped a whole series of scenarios. Against those scenarios, our judgment is that we would need greater resource than we have got at the moment to ensure that the day-to-day policing—the very good day-to-day policing that happens in Scotland also continues during this difficult time. I know that you have other questions, but there are supplementaries on the issue. Daniel then Liam. First of all, can I just say what a pleasure it was to meet five of the hundred new officers that you are bringing when I was up at Tilly Island on Monday? On the Brexit issues, first of all, given that Police Scotland is the second largest police force in the UK, I take it that the assumption must be that Police Scotland will be one of the first calls to be made if there are requirements elsewhere in the UK. I was just wondering if that was your working assumption. Secondly, my understanding is that there is funding being created by the Cabinet Office for Contingency Planning around Brexit and transition. I was just wondering if that was your understanding and whether you would have any discussions with the Cabinet Office directly or with the Scottish Government about whether inquiries are being made as to how to access any funding if it is made available. I have not spoken directly to the Cabinet Office. I would always account through the statutory governance framework of the Scottish Police Authority and then back into the Scottish ministers and clearly the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Probably, like everyone else, I have heard a number of figures getting banded about what the Cabinet Office may have available. I know from public record that the police service on Northern Ireland has had an additional almost £17 million allocated to them. Obviously, their governance structures are different at the moment. They do not have a police authority in place and they do not have ministers through the Northern Ireland office. Where the relationship between Scottish Government and UK Government sits in terms of Brexit contingency funding is not a matter for me. I have not had direct contact with ministers or officials in Whitehall. On the mutual aid point, I think that it is a reasonable observation to make that, in this instance, when you assess the United Kingdom as a whole, there is the likelihood that we are, in this instance, more likely to be a net exporter than a net importer of resource. However, as I made very clear yesterday at the public meeting of the Scottish Police Authority, that decision is a matter of operational independence of the chief constable. I think that the criticality of that operational independence is clear to everyone in the legal system of Scotland. It is a decision that I would have to make, balanced against my duties and priorities to maintain safety and security to the people of Scotland. However, I think that it is absolutely right and proper that the Police Service of Scotland is part of that wider UK framework because, when required, we will and we have benefited from the support of our colleagues across the UK. Whether that is in regard to the G8 summit, whether it is going back as far as Lockerbie, the attack on Glasgow airport, the work around the Commonwealth Games, there is instance after instance the visit of the Pope when he came to Scotland in 2010, instance after instance where we have benefited from resource, specialist resources and core resources coming to support the Police Service of Scotland. I have publicly said that I want to be part of that UK framework. I will seek to support chief constable colleagues and communities right across the United Kingdom if I can, but my assumption and concern is aligned, as you said, Mr Johnson. As we are currently structured, it is more likely that we would be providing resource than receiving resource. Chief constable, by apologising for being slightly late in missing your opening remarks, I apologise for that. In response to Rona Mackayla, you were, I think, quite reasonably pointing to the difficulty in terms of scenario planning in the absence of key information and evidence, but have you been able to assess what the benefit to you in terms of providing some level of certainty would be where the UK Government to rule out the prospect of the UK crashing out of the EU with no deal? Is there a financial benefit in terms of the reduced cost that you have alluded to? Again, to be really clear and frank, as I always would be with colleagues, our planning has not as sophisticated as that at this time in terms of actually being able to specifically say, well, if a no deal is ruled out, that will then lead to ABCD, because simply saying that there's no hard, you know, if you like, no hard Brexit is going to happen, you then still need to have some contingency for other consequences that may arise from that. I think that in terms of the imminence, if 29 March was ruled out as a hard stop, it would certainly give us more time to start to look at other scenarios and look at other options and perhaps have more detailed planning assumptions built in to the work that we're doing at the moment. However, at the moment, we need to make plans for a hard Brexit on 29 March. We need to do that against worst case scenario. That is the stated policy of the Government in London, and therefore it's against that scenario that we're currently planning. I think that it's an undoubtedly reasonable thing to say that if that is ruled out, it would put less imminent pressure on police resources and we could start to look at what other scenarios may arise, again, depending on the nature of the Brexit arrangements. You've said that a reasonable worst case scenario is the benchmark that you need to use, and that seems entirely sensible. However, if a no deal option was ruled out, presumably the point at which that worst case reasonable scenario is set, it's going to be more advantageous in terms of giving you a degree of certainty. Therefore, the contingency planning that you're doing has to encompass a less broad-ranging set of scenarios. It would give us more time, but my observation would be that it would create a number of other challenges. If a hard deal is ruled out, who can say, but there could potentially be a general election across the United Kingdom, there could potentially be another referendum, there's a potential likelihood that if there is a delay of the European elections going ahead, as I assess and have asked for advice on, all of these or any of these would then give us remarkable challenges. It would not be like an election as we would normally police it. The likelihood is more likely to be the referendum that we had in 2014, where the turnout is high, the need for the integrity of the process to be absolutely strong and robust and without reproach would be critical, and the police would clearly have a role in that. It would give us a number of other challenges that would also require resource. I think that your fundamental point is right. If it was ruled out of the 29th, it would give us more time and we would be able to be a bit more specific in some of our planning, but it would also, in my judgment, give us other challenges that we would then have to meet and make sure that we were in a position to respond to. Good afternoon, chief constable. It's following on from the point's furthers, but I come back to that comment that you made earlier about the bilateral conversations that we need to take place with other member states in the event of breaks about new arrangements. With that, it's obviously going to be a lot of conversations, but do you know yet if that will be a Police Scotland having those conversations, or if it will be done at a UK level? Both, perhaps. Both is the short answer. We have been at the forefront in terms of UK policing, in terms of identifying some of the potential vulnerabilities. We've had a dedicated team, not in terms of some of the contingency planning regarding additional resource and potential disorder and the need to support the United Kingdom, but in terms of addressing the point that I made earlier regarding the loss of legal measures and our exit from the European framework, we've actually been engaging with a number of the countries at a very early stage. I've had a number of my officers at different times over to the Baltic countries, to Latvia and other parts of Scandinavia, down into Spain, to Portugal. Clearly, the structure of policing and the structure of justice is very different in all those countries. That was great to be frank. That was a great value of Europe. You didn't really have to interpret whether it was at the police service, the prosecutor, the federal police or the local police, who you just went to Europe. It was an easy place to dock into and dock out of. We've started to map that already. We've looked at the countries that we have most of our business with. Again, it wouldn't surprise you. Portugal, Spain or Poland, there are a lot of countries where there is quite significant, almost daily contact between the police service of Scotland and those areas. Although the national crime agency has the lead for the United Kingdom, we work well with the national crime agency and they have a foreign network that we benefit from. I felt with Chief Constable that it was also really important to recognise the independence of the Scottish legal system and some of the specific challenges that exist for Police Scotland that are not always fully understood the role of the Lord Advocate and the relationship between the Crown and the Police, etc., is very different from England and Wales. The NCA is leading that international engagement and the structure and the framework, but we've also been doing a number of bilateral contacts and scenario plans from our own team with a number of those countries that you might imagine. The committee has heard on the issue of cyber-cursing. We have heard from the detective chief superintendent about the challenges that are faced in terms of volume and technicalities. We are keen to be supportive of the police having all the necessary resources to address them. Do you want to explain to the committee how just short of half a million pounds was spent on equipment, which was then rolled out without any assessments? I'm aware of the very legitimate and helpful interest that this committee in particular has had in regard to the roll-out of cyber-chiosks. I do think that the team acknowledged and I acknowledge that there was a failure to fully assess and communicate what we were seeking to do with the capability that we were looking to introduce. It was a response to an overwhelming demand and a demand that the people who are least served by our poor response are often the most vulnerable. It's victims of crime, it's witnesses of crime who lose their mobile device for a number of weeks because we are unable to seek the evidence from that that would bring perpetrators to justice as quickly as we can. The amount of mobile devices that were coming into police custody or police possession was enormous. There's barely an incident that we respond to now that does not have a mobile device featuring within it simply because of how people live their lives. The work was paused, it was halted and I was very keen that that was done. There was an acknowledgement that we didn't reach out as broadly as we could, we didn't absolutely establish and articulate the clear legal authority and rights-based authority for the use of the equipment, we didn't fully articulate the benefits and, in my view, the ethical priority that we needed to have to introduce the equipment and it caused a loss of confidence around the table and elsewhere. I think that that's been rectified by the amount of engagement that we're now taking, I think that it's been rectified by acknowledgement of that. We haven't just continued to plow on and ignore the feedback that we've had and I think that it's been acknowledged by the fact that the roll-out has been delayed until a number of these key issues are addressed. Can I put a specific concern to you, chief council? That is that the particular figure was just 400 and it will be here somewhere. A few tens of thousands short of half a million, the trigger figure at which that would have required to be reported to the police authority, was there any attempt to avoid scrutiny of that by having a capital purchase just short of what would have required reference to the police authority? Absolutely not. The police authority are now a part of that engagement. It had an operational awareness around it, but I can give you my word as chief constable that that type of conduct or apparent sleight of hand would certainly and will not happen under my command and role as chief constable. Okay, thank you for that. The external reference group involving the Information Commissioner and Scottish Human Rights Commission, the most recent update that we had was that Police Scotland still hadn't heard from the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service about the legal basis for this. Can you update us on that, please? I have been informed this morning that the Crown has now written. I think that there are about three or four page letters that have come in. That is being assessed by the team, the individuals who have been here before. They have undertaken, as I think they have previously, and I again have ensured that this will be the case, that they will be in a position to inform the committee of the nature of that advice. They will share that with the rest of the people who are advising them on the reference group and the stakeholder group. They will work collectively to be clear on what that legal basis is. If they collectively identify that there is some gap in the law or that there is some ambiguity in the law, again they will work collectively to try and address and resolve that. Will you roll out that programme if you do not feel that you have comprehensive legal authority to do it? No. It will not be rolled out until I am confident that I, as chief constable, have the confidence of the community that we serve. I may think that it is the right thing to do, but I am clear that at this stage demonstrably does not have the over- and patent consent of the people that we serve. That is demonstrated by the input of elective representatives such as yourself and other legitimate groups. Until I am satisfied that we can be clear that policing by consent underpins the use of cyber kiosks, we will not be using it. That is why I was clear that the roll-out would be halted until those issues were addressed. On the issue, the status of that advice that you have been given by Crown Office, Procurator of Fiscal Service about the potential roll-out, do you feel that you could share with the committee? I have asked the team to carry out an assessment of it. I have not been in a position to digest it, analyse it and assess it. I have had a full day yesterday and there are many other factors on it, but I am aware that we have now received it. Again, we will work very closely with it. How definitive it is, we will see around that. I also think that there is the ability to take the advice from some of the groups such as the ICO and the Scottish Human Rights Commission and other groups to inform us. It is a really critical exercise, but the capability and the functionality and the utility of what we are seeking to do, the reason why we are trying to do it is to protect the most vulnerable and to make sure that the police service is discharging its duties. However, I accept that the roll-out was not done as openly and as engaged in a manner as I would have liked it to have happened. Jay Constable, the budget for the flitany estate management for the next financial year is the same as for this financial year, which represents a real-terms reduction. Could you comment on that and how sustainable it is that police continue to operate with a £6 million overspend in this area? As a service, and this probably is about policing as opposed to the police service of Scotland, as a service, our capital allocation and our capital investment has over a number of years been consistently less than the size of our organisation requires. In general terms, and I am speaking in generality rather than specifics on figures, but in general terms, if the police service of Scotland accounts for 3 per cent of the Scottish Government spend and members may correct me, we spend about £1.2 billion in revenue and I think it is about £33 billion that the Scottish Government revenue spend. If we are about 3 per cent of the revenue spend consistently over the last number of years, our capital allocation has been less than 1 per cent of the capital spending Government. I am aware, as a citizen in Scotland, as a public leader, that there are financial pressures on all Governments and that there are significant investments to be made in schools, hospitals, transport, infrastructure, but it is a statement of fact that in the police service our capital allowance and allocation has not kept pace with our revenue allocation. As a result, it means that, as a service, we spend less, and I have included that in the written submission, we spend less per officer and staff on capital than comparative figures. If £20,000 is spent per officer in England and Wales on capital, i.e. fleet, equipment, property, et cetera, we spend about £6,500. That is a significant challenge to make sure that, as a service, we are properly equipped. Our capital allowance this year collectively is about 40 per cent to 45 per cent of what we identified that we would need. There are different elements to that. There is a need to maintain the business as usual, exactly as you allude to, fleet, estate, and just things that every year we need to make some capital investment within. At the same time, we are trying to make capital investment to allow us to properly transform the organisation into one. It is well documented that the concave, misaligned, contradictory IT infrastructure that we inherited from the legacy arrangements has been remarkable for officer staff. The leadership in Police has been able to do with that system to make sense and allow us to police operationally, but we cannot go on like that. I think that there is recognition around that. My challenge is to balance the investment that I need to do into fleet, equipment, estates, and make sure that officers and staff have the right work properly and that I am equipped to do the work. At the same time, we are also investing in some of the transformational projects and pieces of work that are vital to make sure that the service is modernised. At the moment, there are challenges. I have been very clear and public about those challenges with ministers, and I am grateful to talk through them further with the committee this morning. That is part of my duties as chief constable, to try to meet those challenges and to balance those competing demands. However, our capital allocation falls short of what I assess that we need to move the service forward. It is not just capital, but with the fleet management, there are revenue implications, as there will be with the estate. Has it been argued in terms of preventative spend? That is an area in which things are frankly not going to get better and, self-evidently, are going to get worse as vehicles age, all the potential dangers that come with that and just not equipping our officers to do the job that we are asking of them. Yes, I recognise that summary as the challenge that we have. Ideally, we would seek to have a fleet that turns over on anything between a three and a five-year cycle, because, exactly as you identify, once you go past that, you then put pressure on your revenue budget in terms of the maintenance and the need for more mechanics and more work around that. I think that I have asked the fleet managers and everybody in the organisation to look as closely as they can, but at all times never ever compromising on safety or health and safety. The Scottish Police Federation makes a great contribution in that regard, because they often highlight issues that may arise across the country and then we seek to mitigate it. If we do not have that additional investment that I suggested earlier, the challenges that you have identified will become more acute into 2021, 2021 and beyond. I am giving officers and staff the equipment—that is what I am trying to do on both sides—to maintain in the business as usual the equipment, the estates and the fleet, but critically revising and improving the ICT infrastructure that we have. That is core equipment that the officers have as well. They need digital devices, they need properly functioning systems so that they can access data, and they need that so that they can do their jobs better so that they can protect the public. That is a challenge against the challenge in financial settlement that we have. That was just one final thing that I wanted to ask you about. The cabinet secretary has indicated that he may return to the capital budget mid-year due to the concerns that have been expressed, but given the urgency of that, I consider that to be a little bit short-sighted and inadequate. I wonder if you have a view on it. I have been cleared both with the police authority and with my own officers and staff. In public, as I am doing today, the service as a strategic vulnerability over a number of years has not had the capital investment that it requires. Equally, my job is to take whatever allocation that I am giving and make sure that it is used in a way that maximises the benefit of officers and staff and the public and balances the various demands that you have outlined this morning. I am sure that you would want that as soon as possible. I know that Daniel also said his question. Stuart, do you have a brief supplementary on that? No, I am going to move it. Chief Constable, you have made it quite clear that you think that your capital budget should be in the region of £90 million. The budget sets it at £35 million. You are 60 per cent short of what you say you require. On top of estates and vehicle fleet, what is it that you are not going to be able to do as a result of that capital shortfall that you feel you need to do given that you have asked for £90 million? At this stage, and clearly, those budgets are still in draft. It is a key matter at the Parliament today. I am aware of that. We are working through a series of quite challenging and difficult prioritisations about what we go ahead with and what we stop. We cannot even take it on a 1920 view. We need to think what is the best way to maximise the return. There are some projects that would be better not to start on them at all than to do some elements of them. However, some of the challenges that we will have are around a really key priority around the transformation of what we are calling our corporate services and what is being known as a back office. We need to integrate eight separate HR departments, eight separate finance departments, resource deployment, everything from sighting witnesses to court to paying officers and staff over time to moving people around in terms of when they move from one division to one department geographically territorial. We have an awful lot of people doing transactional, very traditional process and paper-driven processes or certainly misaligned processes across the country. There is enormous potential to invest in a proper corporate services change programme. We need to use some tried and tested ICT frameworks that other organisations utilise. In many ways, that type of work is not police specific. It is not to do with organised crime or having issues of operational security around it. That is essentially organisational transactional work. We will have to slow that, which is a frustration. We think that that could release enormous amounts of saving. We also think that it could improve the quality of the service that we give to our own people and to other people who deal with us. It would allow us to release funding capacity money to reinvest in policing. That is one example, but there are a number of ICT programmes of change that we are probably not going to be able to go ahead with if the capital budget stays as it does. £35 million represents some 3 per cent of your total budget and 3 per cent capital investment for any organisation on the face of it seems low, but I understand, according to the briefing that you prepared on a per-employee basis, am I right in concluding from the work that you have put together based on the Church Institute of Public Finance Accountants, that Police Scotland has the fifth-worst capital expenditure of all police forces in the UK? Is that correct? What should it be if we were looking to compare to forces such as the Metropolitan Police? We are at the bottom of that chart, if you like. As part of my answer to Mrs Mitchell, when I said about the non-pay costs per head, we are about 6,500 against an English and Wales average of 20,000. We have benefited from the maintenance of revenue budget to allow us to sustain officer numbers. Since 2000 and 2008, there is a net differential of over 20,000 police officers between what England and Wales had back in 2008 and what Scotland had in 2008. They have lost over 19,000 and we have gained a little bit less than 1,000, so I make that observation simply to say that that has benefited the organisation, the communities of Scotland, that has allowed us to make significant inroads into violence, significant inroads into the murder rate and greater community confidence and greater community cohesion, but it is not enough in itself. The ultimate would be to have all the people who you like, but if they are not equipped properly, if they are not resourced properly, if they do not have the vehicles that are properly serviced properly, if they do not have the IT that properly enables them, that becomes a false investment. It is that balance between making sure that we have the right capability, the right capacity in terms of numbers, but crucially that whoever we have, whether they are police officers or whether they are police staff, they have the right equipment to deal with policing in the 21st century. As an organisation, I am not looking for state-of-the-art sort of cut-and-edge ICT, I am looking for tried and tested ICT that any organisation would expect to function with. We are still working in not even an analogue age, we are still working with pen and paper in many areas and in many instances and I do not think that it is sustainable going forward. Just on the ICT point, we have obviously, in previous sessions, looked at some detail in your proposed £300 million ICT programme. Is that at threat given this budget settlement and where does that sit given the capital allocation that you are looking at? Clearly, we cannot realise all our ambition this year against that, the draft allocation, the overall programme and again it is eye-watering amounts of money, I accept and recognise that. What it was was a coherent single structure for the policing in Scotland. It is something that we have never had. Again, this is not a Police Scotland issue, we have never had that clear framework, that clear needs requirement, whatever language you want to use for policing in Scotland and we now have that and I think that Audit Scotland and others have recognised that that has been a step forward. The challenge for us now is looking at the pace of implementation and looking at the prioritisation of implementation and looking at the sequencing around that. That is a very hard, difficult challenge in work that is on going at the moment, both between people who are in finance and ICT but, crucially, we are also by operational police officers and those that lead operational teams in terms of what is the greatest priority, where can we get the biggest return on our investment but the full extent of our ambition cannot be realised, it may have to be delayed, deferred, reprioritised. Those are the challenges that we have. I have one last question about the revenue budget and police officer numbers. Forgive me that there may be a few numbers in this question but, my understanding is that, according to the Federation, they were saying that that 16,800 number, again a number that you used, was what the budget, which is from the draft budget, essentially enabled. You would need to reach that number in order to be within your budget. Given that you are now talking about having the level at 17,200, that is some 400 above that figure. Indeed, there is also the other concern that I have, and I know that that was brought up at the board meeting yesterday, that there are some 140 officers that are funded by local authorities. A number of local authorities, including here in Edinburgh, are looking at withdrawing that funding, which by my estimates is worth some £6.5 million. I am just concerned that those officer levels are going to lead you to an increased deficit rather than eliminating that deficit. Is that a concern? How big a concern or how do you intend to address that tension between officer numbers and revenue funding? Everything that you have said accurately reflects the challenges that we have. Just one point of clarification. I am increasing by 100. I am just bringing forward 100 recruits earlier. We are still working on what I have said in terms of the 2020 budget. At this stage, I am not planning to reduce by the 300 from 17.134 to 16.834, as I had originally planned. I am just going to bring 100 forward because of the imminence of Brexit. It may be that, if Brexit changes its profile, and as Mr MacArthur suggested, there are some intervening changes in the political settlement, I will then be in a position to turn down the tap of recruitment and slow recruitment and potentially try to readjust the budget in line, but it will be enormously challenging. That is what I said yesterday at the police authority. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it with you this afternoon. There is a real challenge and a real difficulty for us in reducing our deficit at the end of 2020 and, ultimately, reducing the deficit to zero at the end of 2021, as was our intention, if we are maintaining officer numbers. My judgment, and it is one that I have spent a lot of time reflecting upon and taking advice on, but, ultimately, my decision as chief constable on the operational independence that vests in that office is that my judgment is that it would not be prudent at this stage to work towards 1,600-1,800 until we get more certainty around the Brexit challenges, thus my request for some additional funding to support the organisation to make sure that the deficit does not grow as you correctly identify. If I may, just to put a number on that, you used the quote to the figure of £12 million for the £300 million that you would have needed to reduce by to meet your budget. Clearly, the community officers must be some concern, but if I was to say that that budgetary challenge is around £18 million, would that be the correct order of magnitude in terms of the budgetary challenge that you are facing regarding officer numbers and revenue funding? It would not be far off it. Again, I am not sitting myself with my figures, and as you said, there is an awful lot of figure assessment around that. The point about local authority funded officers is a relevant one as well, because that is an inheritance that, again, we inherited from legacy arrangements. They were very different depending on the 32 local authorities and on the legacy forces. At this stage, my assessment is that we have roughly 145 officers that are continued to be directly funded from local authorities. Therefore, there is an ethical duty on me to make sure that those officers are clearly seen doing community base work in the local authorities who fund them. However, it gives me a challenge if I need to exert the operational independence that I have to move those officers around the country or move them into different duties depending on emerging threat, risk and harm. It is another piece of funding rationalisation that I would be keen to try to address, but it is difficult because it is run over a period of time. We include it in our overall officer figures, but not all of those figures are clearly funded directly from the Scottish Government grant because there is that local authority funding. It therefore creates a bit of vulnerability when local government is under pressure and local government may seek to withdraw from that, but not all local authorities have, and a number of them have, thankfully, continued to support us. I wonder if you could clarify the additional money that you will have since the change in the VAT policy. Can you tell us whether that will go to capital or revenue? Would it perhaps help with the fleet management problem? What plans do you have for it? I know that you will have difficulty spending it, but what plans do you have for it? It is now mainstreamed into our revenue allocation, and we were grateful for that. Prior to that, the VAT that we could not recover, we were recompensated for it, if you like, through what was called the reform budget at that time. When the question is asked, I hope that I have outlined it, and if I have not, I can provide further information to the committee. What did you do with the reform money that you were given? It is a good question. The truth is that a lot of the reform money that we were given in the early years was to pay the VAT, so the Scottish Government gave us the reform money, and it was also then to utilise for a VR system, as people left the organisation. We did not use it as wisely or as shrewdly as with the benefit hindsight that we would have liked to have done to invest in some of the change programmes that are now overdue. In terms of the VAT, it is now mainstreamed into our core budget. I am grateful and recognise the pressure on the public purse that there is real-time protection built into the police budget, but I think that it is important for everybody to recognise that that real-time protection kicked in at the end of 2015-16, after which we had already taken out, in real terms, about £200 million from the cost of policing. Prior to the single service, the cost of policing was literally £200 million more than it is now in real terms. That is the legacy cost of over three of the legacy forces. I am really grateful for the real-time protection, but I would also make a plea that there is a recognition made that the police service through the structure of reform has actually been able to save significant amounts of money of the public purse. Not all reform programmes are able to do that and point to that. It was difficult. We did not get everything right as we went through that. We did not always take our people with us. People were disorientated. Partners, communities and others at times were frustrated with some of the changes that were implemented. I absolutely accept that, but I think that it is really important to recognise that there has been significant savings made by policing that are now back in the public purse that would not have been there had we not created a single service. Have you or the Scottish Police Authority had any discussions with the UK Government about the back payment, or are you leaving that to politicians? I have not. It is similar to the question earlier. The only time that I would speak to UK ministers would be around matters that are reserved in terms of operational priorities such as counter-terrorism or national security. However, when it comes to funding arrangements, the complexity of it and the constitutional ins and outs of it, for what I have better phrase, are such that it is best left to the politicians and to the police authority to go and represent the interests of policing. Daniel, a brief supplementary on that. You just mentioned UK involvement in counter-terrorism. I think that there was a press report a few days ago that there had been discussions about changing Police Scotland's involvement in the counter-terrorism network. I was just wondering if you could provide any insight into what your thoughts or plans were or just to give you the opportunity to deny that. I am grateful for the question, I am grateful for the opportunity to absolutely clarify that there is no intention whatsoever for Police Scotland to step away from the UK counter-terrorism network. I myself was totally unaware of any thoughts or observations, but I do not discourage officers and functional heads and managers from thinking about options when they are faced with challenges. Again, as I said earlier, we need to be as creative and as open minded as we can, but any decisions such as that would ultimately come to me to make. I am extremely reluctant to move away from that network and that structure. The reason for that is that, in my judgment, the best way to protect the people and communities of Scotland is for Scotland to be part of that CT network and structure. We will benefit, if God forbid, if we are ever subject to a terrorist attack, but we participate in that. We work to common standards of interoperability, we work to common standards of intelligence sharing and operational practice, and that allows us to do as we did when Manchester was attacked, to immediately send more than 50 detectives down to assist in the short term. We send armed response vehicles in the short term to assist our colleagues in the safe knowledge that should there ever be a similar attack here, we will get the benefit of those resources. There is no intention on my part and it would be a decision for me and no one else to step away from the UK counterterrorism network. It is good to hear. Our intention is to conclude the meeting about the quarter past. A couple of questions to come, Stuart, and then Liam. The short answer is on three separate subjects, I have to say. Incidentally, in observation, I started my IT career in the 1960s and spent 30 years. I will continue to believe that there is still a place for paper and pencil, and I hope that there is not a headlong rush to automate everything until the technology is mature. Seriously, though, you talked about the diversity of IT systems, we understand that. You also made reference to diverse HR systems, where I think that IT was part of it but also process was part of it. Are there other as yet substantially incomplete parts of the integration system that should be being reflected in the finance that you are getting just now? Fundamentally, ICT is the biggest challenge. A lot of the operational practice has been aligned, the response to murders, domestic abuse, rape, terrorism, and social behaviour. We have common standards that are then implemented with a local flavour, depending on the needs, but the standards are common. It is mostly round about ICT, where the complexity of getting a consistent framework and a consistent product for each of the challenges, whether it is crime, whether it is missing persons, whether it is the handling of productions and property. That is the biggest challenge in brief. Thank you very much. That is quite clear. That is all part of reform and change. Of course, even when you have completed the process, I imagine that reform is a continuous part of the process. Would you like to say a little bit about what you are doing on that, since we are talking about budgets, whether you are getting adequate financial support to continue to improve the performance and operational efficiency? In my judgment, the quality of policing that goes on in Scotland is extremely high. I have just finished a Christmas in new year period, where I did not have to account for great difficulties at some of the public events that we had with its football matches, Hogmanay celebrations. We did not have really challenging outbreaks of crime in particular communities or unsolved homicides or a poor police response in difficult issues. The operational response that the men and women across Scotland are doing is extremely high. The challenge in terms of change, and I absolutely agree with you that simply introducing ICT systems or low vital in itself will not make the change. The biggest challenge for me is around building a common culture and a shared set of values. We benefit from that in policing in Scotland. We all have trained through the Police College of Tulley Island, but inevitably, when we bring eight legacy forces together, people come with their own background, which is right and proper in their own proud traditions. In the early years when I was there, I was part of it, but we prioritised consistency, conformity and standardisation. I would argue that we needed to do that so that everybody got to a common standard, what we expected a victim of domestic abuse would get, what we expected a perpetrator of domestic abuse would get in terms of bail visits and other investigative gatory measures. We have now established that. My priority, and I am absolutely committed to that, is now within that framework of common standards and high quality, allowing much greater autonomy at a local level. Officers and staff, local commanders and local officers, they know their communities best. They know their partners, whether it is in health, social work, third sector community groups, allow them to go and police in their areas, exercise the discussion that comes with the Office of Constable, but exercise it within the framework that they are. That is the terms of the reform. In some ways, it is to use the great benefits that we have from the single service but to make sure that it is more agile, more flexible and more tailored to local needs. That is a significant challenge. You have now talked about local innovation, which would be the label that I might use. Given that that will have value in local communities, how is that local innovation being reflected and transferred to other domains in the police service, where it might be of some value? Have you distinct formal process for doing that? Absolutely. Again, we have strengthened the senior leadership team in Police Scotland. We have gone into the early part of 2019. It feels very different from where we were this time last year. There was a lack of resilience, there was stress and strain in the leadership team. We have been able to recruit a number of really high-value individuals. Fiona Taylor has returned to Scotland. Will Kerr has joined from the National Crime Agency, having served in Northern Ireland for many years. Will Kerr is now leading a structured discipline approach, exactly as outlined, to make sure that local initiatives, local best practice, is identified and not simply imposed somewhere else. By definition, it might not necessarily work there, but the principles, the capabilities and the tactics, if appropriate, are widely known. That is getting done in a disciplined manner. It is that relationship between having an overview and an oversight of the country as a whole and allowing best practice to flourish. Yesterday, at the public meeting in Kilmarnock of the Police Authority, there was a lot of work done that the local division is doing about trauma-informed policing and making sure that its officers and staff have awareness of adverse childhood experiences and how they work locally. We will take the learning from that, we will not simply impose it everywhere, we will take the learning from that and see how other divisions and communities can benefit. Finally, in the remaining 30 seconds, I think that the convener suggests that I probably have. You used the word agile. Are you specifically looking at agile project management techniques? Projects are inputs, outputs and time. If you can squeeze the time, you get the benefit faster and you spend less money. Are you deliberately looking at processes to do smaller projects more often and get the benefit streams running faster or other approaches that relate to agile project management? That is a very good question. You may wish to write to us if it is a very long answer. What I would say briefly relates to a question earlier about we had a plan for our digital investment. We now need to readjust it given our capital allowance. As part of that, part of the assessment is about achievability. If we can achieve that quickly, let us do that, as opposed to a more complex project or programme that might take greater time. I am grateful for all the assistance and advice that is available. We have talked earlier about police numbers and some of the changes in relation to paying conditions and pensions in response to Stewart Stevenson. You have just talked about the importance of training and reaching certain standards. We have had exchanges in the committee and outwith it about the issue of officer and staff wellbeing. It has been accepted that, in terms of the investment in the ongoing training and continuous professional development, particularly for those who are moving into more senior management roles and roles with greater degrees of responsibility, it has been accepted that, in the recent past, some of that work has not been done, that people have been put into roles, possibly on a temporary basis and are almost expected to learn on the job. Is there anything that you can point to in the past 12 months that suggests that some of that is being addressed? Probably more importantly, what are the intentions over the next? Three to five years to ensure that that shortcoming in terms of officer and staff wellbeing is being addressed? That summary that you provided as part of your question is one that I would identify with. I have said it either here or in other quarters. That is why people are an absolute priority for me and the organisation. People have ICT investment and greater flexibility, greater local profile of policing. Those are the three principles that I have overtly stated and will take forward in my role as chief constable. Over the last year, we have done significant work starting with the work around wellbeing. I have led that for the last two years. We have a network of wellbeing champions who are not distant figures in any departmental offices. They are all people who are well respected individuals within teams and operational units. People who are there to signpost people to employ assistance programmes, whether it is financial pressure, whether it is mental health, whether it is fitness issues, whatever it may be, and the commitment around that in terms of some practical support, but also just the personal commitment to wellbeing. I think that we have made significant steps around that. From a low base, I accept that there is more work to be done. On a formal basis, we have revised our leadership programme. We have now got a senior leaders programme that a number of our senior officers and chief superintendent rank have performed on. We have an emerging leaders programme for newly promoted inspectors. We are revising what we call a first-line managers course, which in old money is a sergeants course, but it also includes support staff members who provide that role. We are revising entirely our whole approach to officer assessment and appraisal and promotion. There is an awful lot of work getting done in that area. I personally are really committed to that because your summary about our under-investment around that in the early years is something that I feel very closely. As a younger officer coming through, I benefited from a lot of inputs, training opportunities that some officers have not had. We need to get that back on its feet in short term and we have begun to do that. Again, I am happy to provide further detail around that. That is encouraging, but a process in place is one thing. In early exchanges, you have been talking about the pressure that officers are under for a whole variety of reasons. The easiest thing often to do is to postpone or delay further training or whatever. What safeguards are you putting in place to ensure that that does not happen, that the training however difficult is to accommodate with the other responsibilities and demands on an individual's time? Is taking place in a timely fashion? It is giving priority straightforward. The language we would use is a duty parade and it is not optional. Given that priority, it allows local commanders and officers to know that it is not a matter of a feel guilty going away to this training course for this week because I know that my team is busy. We need to make that investment as an organisation. We need to make sure that, if additional support needs to go somewhere to allow those officers to go and take that training, it will take place. That is what we are going to do. We have no further questions. I thank you, chief constable, for your frankness. We have regular contact with Police Scotland and get updated information and I am sure that that will continue. Thank you very much for attending today. That now ends the public session of the meeting.