 Faf, wrth i g hufnwyrnau. Ffwy ffwrdd y 12 gynllenlliannol o'r Fysq 对 Sadd, yn ysgoledig, susgrifol, yn 2017. Gwyddoch chi yw'r Fysgr Prif Yn Thradd, dyma, yw Ysgrffur ASS, ond rhai bwysig i'w gweld addysgfaenol Cymru ynír hadnau, a'r Tyniad Nghyrchu Llywodraeth dysgu, a'u defnyddio am y Ffwrdd sgoledig Fyth yng Nghyrch. Fyddai chi'n fawr yn y ddechrau, Diolch. Tyw'r chwnes a gweld y prifedig o'r ffordd o'n ddiddordebol o'r cangolwyr yn cael ei ddodol, ac wrth hyn oedd yn rhaid i'r prifodol o'r peth yn cael ei ddodol. Ysgol agendaeth fferer i ddidd applaud yn gwneud o'r gwerthfawr o'r cangolwyr pwyllwyr yn cael ei ddodol parodol. Ilio i ddiwedd i Calum Steele gyda sgol ffederaci, yng Nghymru addysg DMA Andrew AllanAM ddiwedd dda i ddodol ymddig yng nghymru. Superintendent Nick Topping and Assistant Chief Constable Mark Williams from Police Scotland to the meeting. I thank the witnesses for providing written evidence to us and to Police Scotland for demonstrating how the body worn videos are used. Can we move straight to questions? I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clark and paper 2, which is a private paper. Can I start by asking our witnesses to outline in general terms the benefits and drawbacks of a force-wide use of body worn video cameras? I notice from the submissions that we have received that the public are generally supportive, but the public feel safer. There is also an issue of the saving of time in the court process in a previous inquiry that we have done in the Justice Committee. We have heard a lot about churn and about the costs of police spending time in court. I note again from the submissions that body worn video cameras often result in a far more early guilty plea. In general, if our witnesses could explain the benefits and if there are any drawbacks, who would like to start? Perhaps I could set the scene. I am sure that my colleagues will add more detail to it in due course. I think that you have very well summarised that in terms of some of the benefits that, certainly in an Aberdeen context, have been seen since we have been using body worn video cameras. Undoubtedly, the benefits in relation to the criminal justice process in terms of officer time at court and the early guilty pleas that you referenced there are a noteworthy element of the benefits. It is important to perhaps stretch them even further and take them out with just the policing context. Not only does it potentially offer police officers a greater opportunity to be out and about doing their job in communities as opposed to at court, but it also very importantly means that less victims are having to go to court to give evidence, which can be a traumatic experience. In terms of the victims of crime, there are potential benefits there, too. Of course, in the wider piece around the taxpayer and the money that the criminal justice process takes to run, less court time is good and it is a more effective and efficient way of operating. Certainly, the indications from our work in Aberdeen are positive in that sense. There are some other very important positive elements to bring out. Officer safety, which you have also reflected on as an important part, is less likely that officers are physically assaulted while they are wearing a body worn video. That appears to be what the evidence suggests from Aberdeen. Equally, there is a piece in relation to best evidence and using body worn video as another layer of evidence to add to the officer's own evidence that they obviously are still absolutely required to present when presenting any case to the Crown for prosecution. All of those things are important. If we add in the reduction in relation to substantiated complaints against officers, there are certainly a number of noteworthy benefits that appear to play out when we are using body worn. In terms of those benefits, our problems, our hurdles, superintend topping, articulated in some of the teething issues that we have had in relation to getting the cameras to the right spec, the right build quality that we would want. That has been a very minor issue, but one that we have had to address and has been addressed. Of course, there is then the wider piece, if we were to roll it out nationally, about ICT infrastructure for the organisation, the digital ability of the justice system as a whole to cope with that sort of evidence and how we move forward in those areas, because they will take investment, they will take time, they will take collaboration and that will have to be considered and thought through carefully as part of that process. I think that in very general terms that would be some of the benefits and some of the challenges that we would face moving forward. I suppose that there would need to be quite a substantial investment if it was to be rolled out force-wide, but then you would have to balance that against the savings in police time and in court time and the benefits to recording evidence that you would be absolutely sure was 100% accurate, so it's a kind of a balancing act that you have to perform. Absolutely, and if this were to happen there would be not only a full public consultation in relation to this in terms of civil liberties element of it, which of course happened at the local level in Aberdeen and in the north-east, but in a wider sense that would obviously have to be undertaken, but equally we would have to look at the cost benefit of doing it and get as much assurance as we possibly could that this would pay dividends, not just financially but in terms of trust and confidence of the public, the criminal justice system and its efficiency, the benefit of the evidence that it provides and its quality, all of that would have to be taken into account because I daresay it wouldn't just be pound, shillings and pens that we would want to measure, we would want to measure other things too and that would include public trust and confidence. Okay, Mr Topping, do you want to comment? Yes, I can maybe give some context from some of the trials. When it went mainstream across a division which is in north-east of Scotland, I did a review over a 13-month period where cases submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal were body-worn video form part of the evidence, all that I could identify that 91% of the cases resulted in an early guilty plea, the national average is about 40%, another important aspect is that 51% were at first calling now for a police officer, that means that there's less requirement to submit paperwork in relation to full statements, so there's a time saving there, the national average is 31%, and also it's important that 697 officers were not required to attend court to give evidence, which can normally be their full duty. So firstly, from a wellbeing point of view, that means that officers aren't having days cancelled or shifts changed to attend court, and this is importantly that's officers that are left working within the local community, so that was an important aspect. And again, 453 civilian witnesses were not required to attend court, again that can be a fairly traumatic experience for somebody who's not been through the process before, and for a number of them may have also meant time of work. I had a review of our crime file system because wellbeing is an important aspect for the officers to highlight how many officers were being assaulted while we were in a body-worn video, and it's 5% roughly and compared to the numbers, which that and the antidote evidence that I'm being told by officers where they have told me that the level of aggression they were facing, they are quite confident would have gone to physical violence if it hadn't been for the presence of the body-worn video. So for them, that's an important aspect for me because I first introduced this when I was an area commander, and it's about putting officers within the community where they can best provide that level of service, which is what the officers want to do. I've not had a police complaint being substantiated where the interaction's been caught in body-worn video. Again, highlights that unfortunately a number of complaints where the police have no foundation, the body-worn video clearly shows that. Again, it brings up a special aspect because it shows that our interaction with the public are with integrity and fairness and respect, so it's a protection for the public, it's a form of protection for the officers as well, and it's clearly a wellbeing point of view. So for me, they clearly have been a very, very positive piece of equipment for the officers across a division. We have 330 on a pool basis, enough across the North East of Scotland for every on-duty officer to have an access to body-worn video, and we try to encourage that purely by highlighting the benefits. You're less likely to be assaulted, you're less likely to have to go court and give evidence, and you're less likely to be complained about. So it's very important for the officer as a division and for Police Scotland. OK. Mr Allen, is there anything you would like to add? I've heard the benefits and would agree with those. The infrastructure has been discussed, and I think it's important to see that infrastructure in the context of the wide proliferation of devices in public. When you travel home tonight, if you look at the cyclists, look at taxis, look at buses, many of these already have camera systems in place. The justice system requires to move forward with the technology that the public are using on a day-to-day basis. The justice digital strategy is obviously on-going, as is the development of improved infrastructure between ourselves and the justice partners. So I think the benefits are substantive and the infrastructure improvements are absolutely necessary. Thank you. OK. Callum, is there anything you want to add? I think that in fairness with those that have gone before, it can be anodd, I would agree with everything that's been said, and I know that that's not something I see often at this forum. The benefits and advantages of body-worn videos are well understood, I think, not only by police officers, but by the wider service. I think the question is not so much whether there's benefits or dis-benefits, but there's questions should be whether there are benefits that we can afford and whether these benefits should be a priority at this particular moment in time. I think that's a more fundamental question, given that the realities of the finances facing the police service of Scotland and indeed some of the pressures that are as yet unknown in terms of the capability of other organisations within the justice sector. When we look at any elements of policing and isolation at risks, giving a false narrative us to the reality of cost benefits, we don't, for example, as far as I can see, undertake a holistic economic assessment of justice in the way that we do in other areas of public life, for example, in the health service where we have health economists undertaking huge, complex examinations of a variety of particular issues. While that is undoubtedly true, not least because of the experience that the police officers themselves report, that there have been savings in a variety of different fora, we do not know in absolute reality whether those savings would have been greater if the investment had been put into another area of policing to deliver the same results. The benefits for individual officers in terms of their confidence in how they record information, of course, is something that cannot be underplayed in any way, shape or form. But given an organisation just now that is looking at a £200 million overspend according to Audit Scotland over the lifetime of this parliament, it's already facing a huge budget hole this financial year, and whilst I don't want to get into that element of it, we do know that experience from across the rest of the world is that once you start along the body of one camera path, you're never getting off it. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, of course, is an entirely academic discussion, but the reality is that once you start on the path, you are engaging in a series of activities that are going to cost money in both revenue and capital terms on an annual, well, certainly, at least in revenue terms and an annual basis in capital terms and a periodic basis thereafter. And thus far, in the entire conversation and debate and discussions around body worn videos, no-one is talking about those on-going revenue costs. At this time, we know that there are a very small number of officers in the north-east of Scotland and a very small part of the justice system is exposed to the evidence issues in terms of body worn videos. But if and or when this becomes the norm, the justice system and those involved in it, including defence agents, will adapt to the fact that they're dealing with new technologies and their expectations and demands are to be placed upon, their requirements for drawing evidence from these systems is in its own right going to increase. So my concern is not one about whether it's desirable but whether it's practical at this point in time to be pursuing it because of the wider realities that face the service. That's been very helpful. Thank you. Just before I move on, I wonder ACC Williams, if you could give us any information on whether an evaluation is being done on the use of video cameras by the Football Coordination Unit. A specific evaluation of the cameras in the focus unit, as it's known, the benefits that we would perceive from those cameras are similar to the ones that we would perceive to be the case in Aberdeen. Of course, they're used in a narrower field of use. It is predominantly for policing football. As you've already articulated, there's only a small number of them, about 14 or 50 cameras in total. We think that they have a use and they are a further way of gathering evidence of crowd behaviour and so on at football matches and presenting that by way of evidence to the crown. However, we haven't undertaken the level of evaluation that has been undertaken both by a division itself and by independent evaluators of the work in the north-east. Of course, if we were to move forward with a wider roll-out of body worn video, we would have to very carefully consider all of the areas in which we would potentially use it. Obviously, in the north-east, that's predominantly community and response policing front-line police officers, but, of course, there are other elements to policing where body worn video, in a specialist sense, has a very purposeful use. For example, are armed officers. There are recommendations at the national level that, as soon as it is reasonably practical, armed police officers should be equipped with body worn video. That will more typically be done on a helmet camera because of the sensitivities of the environment in which they work and the need to protect both them and the public. There is a bigger piece in terms of all of the evaluation and all of the work that would have to be done prior to rolling out body worn video. That would undoubtedly be picked up and done as a process of scoping moved into the process of consultation, business case development, benefits, disbenefits and, ultimately, a full business case if it gets to that stage. I would like to, perhaps, if I may, contextualise body worn in the wider context around 2026, mobility, technology. Some of the themes that Colin Ridley was picking up on there because it is important to place body worn in that field and perhaps highlight where it sits. Next week, the 2026 10-year policing strategy will go to the Scottish Police Authority Board on 22nd. If it is signed off there, we will then move to a three-year implementation plan for some of the developments that we foresee taking place over the next few years. At the heart of that, it is trying to achieve an organisation that is sustainable operationally and financially. We recognise the challenges that we face financially and the planning around that is very much to try and deliver something that is sustainable. Within that, there is specific reference to technology. In consultation, there is reference to body worn video, but body worn video is a small part of the technology that we can bring to front-line officers. Of course, there will be costs associated with that. Calum's point about being on the path of having to sustain that going forward is absolutely accurate and that would have to be considered and have to be costed over the next three years and beyond as we make the best use of the finances that we have and ensure that we have an organisation that is financially sustainable. We foresee technology as being a key enabler to creating capacity for police officers, to better serving the justice system, to providing a better service to the public, and whilst, of course, there will be costs associated with that, any business case and any consultation will have to consider them and prove that there is a benefit to it wherever possible. As we move forward with mobility and mobile devices that officers can use to access data and information that allows them to remain away from a police station out and about in our communities. When we look at the sort of technology that is available through body worn, laptops, tablets, mobile devices, telemetrics and other such technology, we really need to start investing in our own infrastructure to take advantage of that because the advantages that the officers get can be directly translated to service delivery for the public. We need to keep up with that. We cannot afford financially or in terms of our service delivery to stand still. Calum is right that that needs to be carefully considered and that is something that we very much will do and it is very much touched upon in the 2026 planning and the work that will go on over the next three years. I have a couple of supplementaries, but I just wanted to ask you in context of using the body worn cameras specifically in the sphere of football. If it is on a one-to-one, the officer can explain to the person that has been stopped that they have a camera there about to start recording. If body worn video cameras were to be used in the context of a football match specifically for crowd control or for viewing a crowd, you would have a serious issue about explaining to any number of people that you were going to be recording them. The issue of data retention certainly comes into mind and I know that other members will raise that. I am going to throw that out there and when data is raised you can come back to me. All our data is retained and managed and dealt with under legislation, so any data that is not used as evidence is deleted and destroyed within the fixed period of time. In terms of CCTV in a wider sense, which is what body worn video is, of course at football matches there is CCTV running throughout the stance. Body worn video is no different to that, but if it becomes an issue with an individual or is to be used as evidence, then that explanation must—not legislatively—does not have to be made, but as Nick highlighted earlier, it is good practice to articulate that whatever the individual, for example, is saying and conversing with a police officer is being video recorded. When you are at a football match or walking down the high street in the capital or elsewhere, you are on CCTV and there is not a specific individual warning to every person. It is covered by signage and by other warnings of that nature on the entry and exit to, for example, a sporting stadium. I have a couple of supplementaries. Ben, first, and then John. If you could move on to your substantive point after that, Ben. Around the same theme, to Mary Fees' question, what capacity and potential do you think that there is here for the use of the devices within slow-time inquiries? Further to that, what has there been any evidence of the deterrent factor in terms of the occurrence of crime when there has been an awareness in communities that these devices have been deployed? I can give you one specific example about a protractive inquiry. There was a robbery on news agents in Aberdeen, where the assailant had his face covered but was wearing distinctive clothing. As part of the wider inquiry, there was a harvest of CCTV from the public space CCTV in a body-worn video. The body-worn video captured that individual involved in something completely different, quite distinctive clothing, but they face unmarked and that led to a detection, and somebody was reported for a robbery on news agents, which was important. That was your second point, sir, was sorry? Around the potential and capacity for the devices to provide a deterrent effect within communities if there is an awareness that those devices have been deployed? As part of the first survey and review that I did of the pilot in 2011, we targeted it in specific areas. We drew some stats from that three-month period in the previous year's three-month period. We had to be very, very careful because it was threatening cameras only over a three-month period, but it showed a reduction in antisocial behaviour and violent crime. It is like anything. If people know that there is going to be clear CCTV within an area, that, say, will act as a deterrent. It comes back to probably the assaults on police officers, they are clear deterrents because they know that it will be captured in relation to their interactions. There has been some small anecdotal evidence that there has been reduction in crime. Crime continues to fall, as we know, so there has not been a wider-scale specific drill down in relation to wider use because it is at officers discretion across the north-east of Scotland, so it would be quite a difficult survey to carry out, but that small three-month period, specifically within some communities within Aberdeen and Aberdeen City Centre itself, highlighted a reduction in crime. I will just roll them together, convener. It is a question for Mr Steele about your submission, both in your written evidence and earlier, Mr Steele, you did recognise the benefits that are associated with it. To my mind, that would be a substantive change in the workplace and, in your evidence, you talk about that the SPF is not cited in the work or aware of any issues under consideration with regard to 2026. That is very alarming. Can you expand on that, please? I think that it is important to put this in complete context. When the Grampian project was undertaken both in terms of pilot and the wider substantive roll-out, the then Grampian joint branch board of the Scottish Police Federation was heavily involved in the consultation for that and, through its offices, offered support and raised a number of different issues that the then Grampian police gave consideration to. In responding to the request for evidence, the letter from the clerk from the committee made clear that this was in response to scoping work that the Police Service of Scotland was undertaking in respect of body-worn calmus as part of the 2026 strategy. I think that one of the first sentences of the response was that we are not aware of what that scoping work is. We know that it is mentioned in the 2026 strategy as one of the many elements of it, but beyond that, we have had no communications with the service about that particular issue. You will know why I used the phrase substantive change in the workplace. This is a legislative requirement, Mr Williams. Can you comment on that, please? You are obliged to consult with the workforce on any substantive change in the workplace. Absolutely. I can give an absolute commitment that should we move to even consider an introduction of body-worn video, that would absolutely be done. I think that, going back to the point that Calum and yourself both raised at the moment, it sits as a small part of a far bigger piece of work, which is the 2026 work that is on-going and the Scottish Police Federation asps and other stakeholders have been widely consulted in relation to all that is within that draft 10-year policing strategy or plan. I hope that I speak accurately the case. What I was discussing earlier is very important to contextualise. The 10-year strategy is the 10-year strategy. Within that, there is going to be a three-year implementation plan, which will be what we are going to do specifically over the next three years to deliver and move us in the direction of the 10-year plan. That will be consulted on over the summer, assuming that it is approved and signed off by the Scottish Police Authority on the 22nd of this month. Within that, there will be a... I wonder if I can answer that, because obviously it is better to have the earliest possible participation and buy-in, as the phrase that is often used nowadays. If something is going to be signed off next week, should there not have been engagement in respect of that with the staff associations and trade unions? That has happened, that engagement has taken place and has been on-going for a number of months. I see Mr Steele smiling and I do not know whether that is wind, or he takes a contrary review. Is that the case then, Mr Steele? The Scottish Police Federation, like every member of the public, was invited to comment on the wider 2026 strategy. On that, the SPF provided a submission. On the specific issue of body-worn cameras that has not featured, other than a general mention within the strategy. I think that the definition of scoping perhaps is perhaps more the issue here then, because at this stage we have no dedicated staff doing anything in relation to body-worn video other than that that exists in the northeast of Scotland. What we do have and what we are building is a team that will work through the next three years to introduce mobility in the wider sense. Before we even get to thinking about bits of camera equipment that will be on the front of police officers, we need to get our ICT infrastructure, our co-operating policing systems in hand and in place. That is a substantial piece of work that will require substantial investment. That investment is being planned and will start this year. Once that has developed, we will be in a place to consider what equipment, like body-worn video, we might be able to make the best use of in the future with an infrastructure that will sustain it and support it. That is not the case at the moment other than the very localised area of the northeast of Scotland. We are not nearly at the point of considering purchasing body-worn video en masse. We are in the position now where we are preparing the organisation for the next 10 years, for the next three years and, importantly, right now to get our ICT infrastructure up and running in a more solid place, a reliable place, in a place that will allow us to take advantage of technology in the future. That will be the point at which we start a consultation both internally and externally with what that might look like in terms of the actual hardware. That is very reassuring. I do not think that we need to rake over the calls of I6, but clearly there is no point in having another dimension to policing if there is not the support back at base. The cynic in me goes that any automation can be seen as an opportunity by any cynical managers that may about or accountants. Would it be better to draw two police officers without body-worn camera or one with? We are in a position where we need to have a sustainable, financial and operational police service. That is very much what we are trying to do. Body-worn video is not an alternative to police officers. It is an asset that police officers use. It is about obviously protecting both them and the public and ensuring that we have the best evidence with which to pursue criminals. The cost benefits would be something that we would take account of and obviously have to articulate very clearly. Police officers require technology moving forward to do their job as effectively as possible. Body-worn is one potential element of that, not the only one. First and foremost, we need to give them, as you have pointed out already, solid day-in, day-out computing and infrastructure that allows them to do their job. We then look to the future in terms of what we can build on to that and how we can improve that further by any digital strategy, not just with the police service but with the criminal justice partners as well. Two very quick questions, convener. Officer safety will be paramount regardless of whether this kit is provided or not. Of course, officer safety is paramount. A final point, much has been made of the reduced level of complaints against officers where complaints had been made and officers were wearing body-worn cameras that they were able to be rebutted. Has there been a consequential increase in the number of prosecutions for false accusation of crimes against police officers? That would certainly be another way of deterring. There hasn't been what's happened because it's been a localised and North East of Scotland. There hasn't been the stats pulled from the professional standards division in relation to what's happened, but my own understanding is that the organisation hasn't taken anybody forward for a false accusational waste in police time. The reason being, the ones that I have seen, they have thought they have had cause to complain through the investigation of the incident and the body-worn video has shown that that complaint has had no substance for it, so there hasn't been at the moment, Mr Funny, but it might be something that would be looked at as the future as we go through. Interestingly, I am aware from forces elsewhere in the UK that there are some interesting statistics that present themselves when body-worn is used. Callum may have a view on that, but what has often been seen is that there are a higher number of charges levelled of police assault and so on, because there is evidence—and officers trust the evidence that they can use to support the charge that is being made. I don't support that, but sometimes officers don't pursue a charge against an accused who has been abusive or potentially physically violent, because they don't feel that they will have the support or the evidence to see that through. The body-worn video offers something more in that sense, and it might not present as a reduction in police assaults, but it might allow for us to better evidence to those who take place. That might throw the figures in the other direction that has been seen elsewhere. That is not something to be scared of, but something to welcome. Iona, was your supplementary very, very brief? No. No, because you will be. I will just put a mark on, just for clarity, were the superintendents association consulted on the roll-out or the use of video cameras? As Mr Williams has described in agreement with Callum, the 2026 programme has been well consulted on. The superintendents are well cited on the work that has been discussed here. Nick and I have spoken about the work over the past couple of months, so we have probably been able to take advantage of our involvement in the process to be further ahead of the game, but I am absolutely comfortable with the consultation process that Mr Williams describes. Was that a no, Mr Allen? There hasn't been a formal consultation yet? There has been formal consultation on the stages that are already in place, and there has been informal and wider consultation because we are better cited on some of the development of this work. Mr Williams, obviously this is going to come at a considerable cost. What are your competing priorities? Well, of course, as I stated already, having a sustainable, operational and financial policing service is absolutely crucial. There are a great many priorities in policing, and one of the things that we do know looking to the future is that demand is changing. We know that the increase in demand around, for example, cyber, historical reporting of sexual crime, sexual crime itself, the competing demands that are placed on by the public for policing events and national security as well, all have to be addressed and all have to be managed into the future. What we hope mobility and body-worn video as a part of that offers is a chance to create more capacity for the police service. Although there are competing priorities financially, it is hoped that the cost benefit of something like body-worn video or mobility supports our ability to manage that changing demand and to serve the needs of the public. The reason that I asked that is because the evidence seems very skewed from you. No doubt that you are 100 per cent pretty well in favour of this, but I am less sure about where you see the other priorities and the adequate cognisance that has been taken of that. Probably that view has been confirmed by the very minor issues that you have raised, and in contrast to a recent freedom of information request where there were 300 issues logged by police officers, could you give me a kind of assessment of that? I am very happy to, and I will bring in Nick who is party to that. I think that, in context, the cameras are ultimately a very reliable piece of equipment, and that is the one thing that I want to stress, and that has been borne out across numerous police organisations across not just the UK. The number of faults that were reported were minor and are in context of hundreds of thousands of deployments of the camera, a tiny number. I will let Nick speak in a more detailed sense around that, but I have no personal concern around the reliability of the camera itself or the reliability that we have seen in Aberdeen. It has had to be refreshed and updated and we have had to buy new batteries and so on. That is natural in the life cycle of the product. That would of course have to be costed in the future, but there is no concern specifically about the technology being unreliable per se. Just on that, if I can, there were actually 288 faults, because some of them are duplicate reports and we do encourage officers to submit reports if there is an issue. We do not keep a record of how many times the body-worn video cameras are deployed, but even on a 50 per cent deployment of the 330 cameras that we have, that is over 180,000 a year. The 288 faults were over a 36-month period, so it is very insignificant. The computers and the desktops are assigned to run 24-7 right through the year, so sometimes the software has to be rebooted and there were some minor issues with the clip, but there was a trial clip. As the ACC has highlighted, we have had the cameras now for four or five years and there are some issues with the battery holding a charge, and that is where the refresh programme is coming through. All the cameras have been replaced, so there is a very small number of faults far outweith the wider benefits that we have seen. However, as has been highlighted, the cameras that we have are getting outdated and being refreshed. Is not that a problem in itself? Technology moves on, so regularly these plans. We had a demonstration for five minutes and already we were looking at a new model to replace the one that had been there. Difficulties switching on and off, the battery life being looked at, but perhaps only 20 minutes recording. The difficulty of ensuring that you are protecting someone who does not want to be recorded, you record an incident, if someone is in that footage, that does not want to be recorded. Is there a problem by using that footage? You explained that they could be worn if a police officer was a vest, a protection vest, they had on, but if they are dressed as you are, just like Mr Topping, they could not be. In terms of academic research, this apparently was contradictory. Yes, certainly there seemed to be evidence of reduction in assaults, but there was also a concern that they gave officers a false sense of security and perhaps encouraged risk-taking. Also the aspect that I would like to ask about is in the recording of evidence. If we do not have footage, I think that we are referring to probably what Mr Steele said, once you have got these, then they really have to keep going using them, replacing them. Does that then downgrade the kind of evidence that we are normally taking towards this now? Just coming back on some of the points, the 20 minute battery life has only been over the last couple of months because the cameras are four years old, so that is part of the refresh. Part of the wider scoping and the specific issues of body-worn video would encapsulate where we will have a warranty cost, where there would be a natural refresh, because obviously technology vastly improves as we progress through time. In relation to the wearing of it, for instance, I would not deploy operationally like this because of not having an officer's safety equipment and it is a requirement to have it, so I therefore would be able to carry the body-worn video if I was out and about on my vest. In relation to some people not wanting to be recorded, officers are normally invited into a house because somebody has wanted to report a crime or under a legal requirement because there is an on-going disturbance. We have usually found that people who do not want to be recorded are the people who are specifically looking up because they are committing a crime, so again in fairness to all, it captures that interaction, so not only does it protect the officer, it actually protects the member of the public, or what we have found has been a lot of academic evidence. Domestic abuse is a very good example where, if we are called to house, one member may be a victim, one member may be a silent, the silent may not want to be recorded but it is clearly of benefit for the victim and for the wider criminal justice. All this has to be taken in context and the final result would be what is legally submissible and that is where the challenge would come because we just present the evidence to the court and it would be for the court to decide what they actually want to take as evidence and if a member of the public or a victim of crime has an issue about that body-worn video footage being used that would come through the defence or the procure of fiscal because we do not store any footage beyond 28 days if it is not going to be used for court purposes because under ECHR we have to justify why we hold the footage, so if it is not of evidential value, we do not keep the footage, it automatically deletes after 28 days unless we think there may be a police complaint where we would retain it slightly longer but we do not routinely hold the footage unless it is for evidential purposes. That would be competing with maybe police notes? The body-worn video is to supplement evidence, it does not replace the use of notebooks, it does not replace corroboration although corroboration comes from any forms and it does not replace the police officer's account of what has happened, it is just further evidence to show. Another example would be that the body-worn video might not capture fully and focus what has happened but it will pick up the sound so you have that facility where it might actually only be able to record verbally because if I am dealing with a member of the public and there is an on-going disturbance or there is a wider disturbance, we will not capture it all but it is just additional evidence to what is then given as a legal account by the officers through verbally and as part of the police statements. Any other comments on that long list of things that we have read? No, only perhaps add and it is in the written evidence that we submitted. There are seven guiding principles for the use of body-worn video and principle 4 is that the operational use of it must be proportionate, legitimate and necessary and that ACHR obviously is the lens through which that is assessed and officers are responsible in terms of their judgment and their use of it for that as they are day in day out for lots of decisions that they take. Those seven guiding principles that are laid out there are very specific and we do comply with them all and obviously we would continue to do so. Can I just ask one further question? That is the partners that may be using this footage. Do they have the necessary equipment to be able to utilise the footage from the body-worn cameras? One of the key elements looking to the future is that we want to, as Andrew has touched on, be in a position where our partners and us can transfer digital evidence and digital information to each other. We are not in that position as we speak. There is a Government strategy to make digital the justice system and of course the Crown Office wants to do likewise. We are working with the Crown and the Government and other partners such as the Scottish Prison Service to do that, but that is a journey that we are now on and it will take collaboration and work. What we do at present and again that can speak in detail about that is that the images from the body-worn videos are burnt onto DVDs and are delivered to the Crown Office for use as you would CCTV evidence from any public space environment. That is what happens in a number of forces elsewhere. Equally, there are some forces where they have a digital relationship with the prosecuting authority. That is where we want to get to. That will take some time and investment, but it offers benefits for the whole justice system, not just for ourselves. Can I just ask what training is given to officers to make sure that the use of the body-worn video is proportionate and reasonable and does not breach human rights? We have a guidance document that we give out. We have champions within each of the stations who will then go through practical aspects of using it. There is a power point that really is a very, very simplistic guide about how to use it. We have a legislative handout in case somebody has an objection, so the officer is well aware of what their justification is for using that. The actual use of the body-worn video as a system is very, very straightforward, but it is important that officers are trained and have that guidance to refer to. We have also, as you would expect, videoed how to use it. We posted that video and that was making use of the body-worn video, so they are very well trained in actual use. We have never had an issue of any problem with an officer using it, downloading it or presenting it to the Crown Did you have a supplementary before I bring Liam in? Touch is on that point downloaded. It is just for clarity and on a practical and technical basis. Do the devices record to themselves and then have to be downloaded on a desktop or uploaded to a server, or are the images transferred directly to a server, to an operation station? What happens is that they are downloaded on the hard drive within a camera that is encrypted. They are then downloaded to a standalone rad system that sits within each police office next to a docking station. Again, that is all encrypted. What happens is that they are burned on to disk and produced as a production, as we would for any other CCTV evidence. One of the things that is very, very important is that there has to be a very secure signature throughout because the whole integrity of body-worn video evidence could be challenged if something was to be interfered with or was to appear somewhere out with the realms of the justice process. We have never had that issue because that was looked at right at the very, very start. They are very robust. They have been on-going now, including the pilot, for almost seven years, and there has never been any issues. Some devices go on to a SIM card. I did not think that that was secure enough. That is why it goes on to a hard drive. There is specific software that you must have to be able to download it. For instance, if an officer was to lose one of these or to be pulled from them and if there was any footage that was on it, you would not be able to download it unless you had the specific software that we have. That is only sold directly by the company to the police as part of the licence for it. Given that if a device was taken from an officer, that evidence would therefore be lost, would there be an ambition going forward to develop the technology so that it was a live feed to an operation centre? That technology does not exist with the cameras, but it comes back to the ACC's point about the scoping and what we want and what is best for it. It is like any form of technology. It is the same as your mobile phone that you have. They have Wi-Fi technology, and that will all be looked at, but the devices do have that facility at the moment. Just following up on that point, there were some concerns expressed in some of the evidence that we saw around earlier iterations of this being exceptionally data-heavy in the capacity within the system to hold that, which was struggling. Has that over the years, perhaps, of the Northeast pilot been addressed to an extent? Is it the burning on the DVDs? For example, does that ease some of the capacity issues? There has never actually been a capacity issue, because, as I mentioned before, we actually have to justify more why we retain it. It is only for evidence, but once it is burned to disk and then submitted to the fiscal, it is part of the criminal process, so we do not have to hold that. If it is not of evidence of value, it is deleted after 28 days. Each standalone hard drive is a tenabyte. We have never got anywhere near that capacity, so there has never been that issue of the volume of data storage that we have. Sometimes it is more—people get a bit the misunderstanding about the data storage or the data requirement to deal with the footage initially, so there has never been an issue with that at all. I am reassured by what you were saying in terms of the 28-day retention policy, because when we took evidence previously on matters relating to RIPR, I think that there was some anxiety within the committee about a six-year period. In a sense, that was the length of time that was allowed and it just ran its course, as opposed to the decisions that might be being taken earlier to delete and destroy that evidence. For that 28-day deadline, are there occasions where it has extended? What is the process for extending that? We cannot extend it. If an officer has an interaction and a member of the public says, I am going to make a complaint, he can come back and he can ask his supervisor because it is only with admin rights to select that footage and then to retain it for longer. What happens is that I have an admin right to all the systems that I can go in and look at the footage that has been retained, so we can retain it longer so that if a complaint comes in, a professional standards department can then pull that footage out and review it, because sometimes the complaint can take a number of months before it comes in, so it would fall out with the 28 days and that is about being open, because there is a point as well in relation to the earlier question about security. Officers do not have access to view any footage that is downloaded. They can only view their own footage and it is part of the security signature that goes throughout. As an admin user, I can view the footage and I can look up what is there and why it has been retained and we do ask them to serve questions. A couple of other questions, if I can. The issue of costs has come up quite a bit over the course of this afternoon's session. I notice in the submission put in my use to sales, Mr Allan, that it talks about considerations. I mean, its conclusion is that we need to be cautious about the overall on-going costs associated with the general roll-out. More specifically, it talks about data storage, quoting figures from the New York Times article from January 2017 estimating the on-going costs of equipment maintenance and data storage in the region of US$20 to $40 per officer per month, depending on the number of recordings made. I don't know whether you can sketch that out any further and whether there has been work done at this stage to quantify the overall costs. I suspect that because there will be various options that might be pursued, there will not be a single figure. Are you able to give us some indication of the sorts of order and magnitude of the costs that different options are likely to bring with them? I think that we would need to look at that in two parallel streams, both of which have been described already. As Mr Williams says, we are at the very, very early stages, so the actual selection of what product we were going to use, how we were going to use it, would be one component. Separately, we are working with the justice strategy team on the management of digital evidence between the justice partners. That is just what is being referred to as the alpha stage to look at the movement of digital evidence initially looking at CCTV because of its prevalence between ourselves and Crown. As work on that stream progresses, we will understand what economies of scale are available on that. Regardless of body-worn video, that will have to contend with the wider use of public gathering of video. It will have to look at the evidence procedure work about increased videoing of victim and child witness evidence. Regardless of what we as a service do, the volume of digital evidence is increasing significantly. We have to understand and manage that, and that should deliver economies of scale to the benefit of the product and usage selection that is the parallel work stream. However, in the simplest answer, there is no precise number at the moment that I could give with any confidence. I think that, as Andrew has articulated to some of those early, as he said, alpha tests that are called. I am no expert on the project management terminology, but that is what it is known as, which will move information between ourselves and the Crown digitally. We will start to allow us to cost what that looks like and then consider how that might expand in a wider setting. I have spoken at length with our director of ICT. He sits on the digital direction group, as it is known, with Government, with the court service and with Crown and others, and they are overseeing that work. In truth, in a policing context, although obviously there is a cost with the storage of data, cloud-based or otherwise, the more significant cost that we will have to assess and make business case for is how you manage the information and manage the data, the evidence itself, how it is stored, administered, clipped, kept, how we provide it for front-line officers, how it forms part of the bigger prize, which is giving officers information on the street when they are out working. That is crime intelligence information, vehicle checks information and other such things, stop and search database and so on. That will sit at the heart of any police information system. That is what is required to enable a lot of the other technology and requires far, far closer scrutiny at this stage around cost to enable things like body worn to work. That is, again, the very early stages of development. What comes first is the infrastructure within Scotland being made sufficiently reliable and sustainable to sit things like that on top of it. I am no ICT expert, but that is the case at this stage and that work is now starting. We are in the early stages. You talked earlier about the seven principles of usage. I note that, again, from the ASP submission, a reference to concerns expressed by the Police Executive Research Forum, albeit back in 2015, but at a time when the principles were in existence, we had cautioned that body worn video raised enormous questions about what is recorded, when to record, how to protect victims who do not want to be recorded, how you know what impact it will have on your relationship with the community, and how the Police will define the circumstances of when to turn the camera on and turn it off. We have touched on some of that, but those were clearly concerns being expressed at a time when those principles existed. We were seeing the roll-out in the north-east and earlier roll-outs in other parts of the UK. How would you respond to the serious anxieties that are being expressed by Perth? I think that it would be very important to stress that, before there was any roll-out, if it were to happen, the public consultation and ensuring that the public fully understood what we were proposing was at the heart of any development that we were undertaking. That would absolutely be the case and I would make that commitment here today. We would be very careful to ensure that the public were fully engaged in what was proposed, what it would mean and how it would work in practice. Of course, we have learned a great deal from Aberdeen in terms— From that north of Aberdeen experience, was the prior consultation of the kind that you were talking about with the public? Yes, it was. I'll let Nick articulate that. We did an internal and external consultation programme of work because it was important that members of the public knew that officers were going to be on about wearing body-worn video, and that was done through a number of outlets in the media that assisted greatly in that. What we did within the three months was that we ran a consultation, but we used a citizen's panel, so it was independent through Aberdeen's city voice. We went through a questionnaire through a thousand householders, and we also separately sent out a questionnaire to all local elected key individuals and key networks within the Aberdeen area. It was important that we had the feedback, and a vast majority supported—76 per cent supported it, but 0.1 did not. The rest were neutral in their views. 53 per cent said that we made our community safer, but less than 1 per cent said that it would not and the rest were neutral in their views. There was a public consultation. Even when there was support, was any of the support caveated? In which case, were there elements of the way in which you structured the pilot and the roll-out to reflect that, or was it really a ringing endorsement of what you were proposing to do anyway? It was an endorsement of what we were looking to do. I think that because of the way the majority of the members of the public now know that almost every single person carries a camera in their pockets as part of their mobile phone, so they live now in that digital culture and they did not have anything that raised any concerns with them, but it was important in Europe that it was coming in. It was quite positive, and through the interaction of the officers with the members of the public wearing the body worn video, it has been positive. Some people do not like it, but to be honest, that is usually the individuals that we are targeting in relation to the course of our duties. It has been very positive, both from the public, from the media and just as important from the officers themselves. On the feedback from those who say that they are targeting, perhaps they have been less effusive in their endorsement of it. Amongst their legal representatives and defence lawyers, has there been any concerns raised? No, there has never been a challenge. We have given some imputes to a number of defence advocates and various legal forums, but there has never been a challenge in relation to body worn video evidence, either prior or as court. Again, that is part of the disclosure, because it has access before it comes to trial, and I think that that is part of the reason that there are so many early guilty pleas. A wider point on the ethical point of view, as part of the Metropolitan Police roll-out, in 2016 there was a panel that was done through the local policing ethics panel that was chaired by Lord Carlyle, I believe that it was, with a number of independence who were there. They reviewed a number of aspects of the wider roll-out of body worn video, and what they came back with was that this device would improve that public interaction and trust. It has been washed through an ethical panel down in London with independence who have come back positively for it. It is very important that it is through the EIA and PIA that there is a much wider consultation with a number of partners and the community so that they know potentially what was coming and what the feedback is before there is any further floor. On the ECHR side, is that covered by asking the question, asking for permission? If, for whatever reason, the officer did not ask for permission, could that individual then say that it was a breach of their human rights? What if that individual, in another scenario, disputed the fact that they had given you their permission? What would happen then? The CCTV is overt, so they do not have to have that permission, especially within a public environment. If they walk into domestic premises, as I said, it is useless because they have been invited by one party or there is an on-going crime, so there is a legal basis to use that. If somebody has an objection, and that is where the body of video is of benefit, that objection will actually be recorded, so right up front we are aware that that individual has objected to it being captured. That is when it comes down to the legal process because if it goes to court, the defence will stand up and say that I or my client have an objection for that being used within a court of law because that is where that comes. If it is not for a court of law, the footage is deleted, so it goes no further forward. Again, that is where the body of video is important because it has actually captured somebody saying that I object to you using that or me being captured on body of video and it is there right at the start. It is about all the members who have talked about the prevalence of members of the public carrying about bits of equipment. Have any members of the public said, well, I will film you and what would the response be if that were the request? We are filmed routinely day in, day out. The police service is one of the few services that is not filming other people. We are filmed regularly. Officers are filmed regularly when dealing with incidents. That is something that they deal with in the course of their duties. Of course, sometimes and sadly, we need to call on that evidence because the incident may be of such significance or so serious that the evidence is of use in us pursuing or prosecuting the case. That has often sadly been the case in relation to national security issues over recent months. I think that it is part and parcel of a police officer's life and many other public servants' life that members of the public film everything that is going on, including their interactions. There are a couple of further issues that we may need further clarification on, but the committee will write to you because, unfortunately, we have ran out of time today. I thank all our witnesses for coming along and for the evidence that they have given us. We will now move into private session. The next sub-committee meeting will be on Thursday 22 June, when we will hear from Derek Penman and Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary on his report on the governance of the SP, and I will suspend briefly to tell our witnesses to leave.