 Gweld i'n ddaf yn ddysgu i'w ddustallsfaith yng nghymru y 4 wrth 2014. Fwrdd i'n gweithio i ddwyg o ddwylo'r mwyaf o gyd-dwyloedd ei fwyafol o'r eu ddwyloedd digonol, sy'n ei ddifu ar y dweud mae'n gweithio i ddwyloedd fwyafol i ddwyloedd. Yr unrhyw oedd yn ddysgu i ddwyloedd i ddwyloedd i Margaret Mitchell, ym 1. The committee is invited to agree to consider a report in the SSI we considered in previous weeks relating to drink private limit under item 4 in private. Are you agreed? Thank you very much. Item 2, draft budget scrutiny. This is our first item of business and evidence session on the Scottish Government's draft budget 2015-16, our second day of scrutiny. The police budget will hear from two panels of witnesses and I welcome to the meeting Callum Steel. Callum, you are a panel. There you are. General secretary of the Scottish Police Federation members will recall that we arranged the sex recession as the SPF was unable to attend last week. We have your written submission for which I thank you and I go straight to questions from members. Questions, please. John and Christian and then Elaine, please. Good morning, Callum. Are you probably aware that there has been some concern raised about whether we have a balanced workforce or not? Probably a yes or no first question. Did you consider that the police workforce was balanced before unification? Balanced and workforce are two words that make individual sense in the English language, but I am not sure that, when it comes to the police service, they are words that attract much consideration other than the fact that they are readily banded around. I do not know what is meant by a balanced workforce. I assume, to some extent, that it means that, when there is the correct mix of support staff and police officers, short of getting into ratios that I know that chief constables have historically been reluctant to do, there is always going to be a job somewhere that could be done by someone else, be it a member of police staff or a police officer, or indeed it would be better suited to it. Ultimately, given the statutory responsibility of the chief constable to deliver an effective and efficient police service, he is the only person that could ultimately answer whether he considers that the workforce to be balanced. However, there is clearly a considerable concern about the loss of support staff that has taken place over the past couple of years in particular, and I certainly do not intend to rehash many of my contributions to this committee last year. However, I consider that the mix is probably about right. There is going to be a considerable period of flux when there are square pegs in round holes and round pegs in square holes. That is not ideal, but it is an inevitable consequence of taking what was eight and plus one nine services and jamming them together to make one. If you then consider Callum that the mix is perhaps right, why in your submission did you then put forward a suggestion that perhaps local authorities should take up the role of spending money on support staff for a police, rather than a police officer? I am glad that you asked the question in that way, Mr Pentland, because I noticed when the question was put to Mr Diamond previously of unison year that the inference was that I suggested or that the Scottish Police Federation suggested that local authorities go back to employing support staff, and that absolutely is not the case. The reason that I highlighted in those terms is that much of the concern—and I think that we will probably get on to it, I suspect, without wishing to second-guess Ms Murray's contribution later on—maybe some of the issues around about the control room syndrome freeze might be a feature for today. It seems to me that there are more creative solutions out there than those that are currently being deployed. Clearly, local authorities, when they directly fund—to some extent, they still do directly fund police officers—they do not act as the employer for the police officer in much the same way that I do not think they would act as the employer for the member of support staff, but I do believe that it would provide opportunities for local authorities and local communities to come up with more imaginative solutions to keeping employment in the area and supporting the police service. One thing that I think everybody has agreed on is that the police service is more than just about police officers. If it is about the delivery of the police service, why not look at it beyond just the simple man or woman in the holy suit? Are you then aware, Calum, of any police officer doing backroom work? I just can't remember offhand the name of the lady who was given evidence last week, but she said that you're not doing work—you're covering type thing. Do you know of any instances where police officers are actually doing backroom work? I think that one of the things—again, Mr Pentland—that we always struggle with in the police service is getting a clear definition of what is meant by backroom work and what is meant by front line, but I'm certainly aware that there are instances where there are police officers that are doing sometimes jobs that were in the past done by support staff. Like I said, that's an example of sometimes we've got square pegs and round holes and round pegs and square holes, but it's an inevitable consequence of transition. A large part of that, I suspect, some of the examples that will be cited will apply to my control rooms, contact centres, whatever name they happen to apply, and also to custody areas. I seem to recall that the chief constable gave an assurance last year that there is no long-term policy of introducing backfilling support staff roles with police officers, and I've got no reason to disbelieve that that's anything other than its intention. You may think that Mr Steele is inevitable because of transition about putting square pegs into round holes, but I'm asking you, do you think that's right? Yes, I'm afraid I do. The reason is that police officers are a more flexible resource. There are times when the skills of police officers allow them to do a job for a short period of time. Those are not continual, on-going backfilling commitments. If it was to be in those circumstances, then, of course, I would consider that that would be not acceptable. In some instances, I'm not saying at all that the issue of the cost of the delivery of service I don't think is properly appreciated. There are many support staff roles performed by retired police officers. The salary of that member of support staff may well be lower than the police officer himself, but when you consider that there may well be an ill-health pension in the back of that or indeed a substantive pension in the back of that, that significantly alters the cost to the overall justice budget in delivering that service. Also, in removing large numbers of roles that were traditionally available for officers that were recuperating, that, in some ways, to my mind, actually works against having a good and efficient use of police officers. You did say, Calum, that perhaps the band's workforce is now right. If that is the case, are you then saying that perhaps no more backroom staff should be allowed to go and are you then saying that if the band's workforce is, again, correct, where would you anticipate further resources being found, savings being found? Well, again, Mr Pentland, it would be my desire that no member of staff loses their employment. I think that it's a particularly difficult circumstance and events that unfolds when these kinds of circumstances prevent themselves. But all of those decisions are a consequence of financial decisions that are taken by the building here. The simple fact is that reductions to budgets over the years mean that there are going to be cuts. It's easy enough to say where cuts shouldn't be made, but I think it's a lot harder for people to say where they should be. It's easy for me to sit here and say that I don't think anyone should lose their job, but it's easy for you to sit here and ask me whether I think it's right or fair that members of support staff have lost theirs and police officers undertake elements of backfilling on occasions. That's not going to get us to answer the question of what we do with the long-term financial challenges that are facing the service. I do believe that we, collectively, service politicians, local, hollywood, I like, need to be more honest about the real difficulty that we're looking at, not just this year but for the next 15, 20 years. That's a final question this time. You're commenting here on what particular resource challenges it faces, the Police Scotland for the Future? Clearly, I've been around the police service now, despite my youthful appearance for over 20 years, 21 years, and I've actively involved in the Scottish Police Foundation now for the guts of a decade, and I need my current role for over six years. I've seen overall staffing costs as a proportion of budget increasing quite considerably in that period of time. Now, there are two reasons for that. One is that there has been a healthy increase in police numbers, and the second is that there has been a decline in budget overall. It doesn't take someone with the brain of Einstein to work out that if staff costs keep going up and budget keeps going down, there will come a point of critical mass, and someone needs to stand up and tell us what it is that's going to happen. I think that it's easy to say to the chief constable, chief constable, what are you going to do, but until such time as our politicians tell our public that either they want fewer police officers or they want more members of support staff or they want fewer police officers or more police officers but have them less well paid, then we're going to go around in circles year on year looking at these individual decisions, almost salami slicing elements to try and find solutions where, in reality, that's not going to work. No, well. John, I'm going to let you do one last question. One last question. Are you then saying that the operational matters of Police Scotland should be in the hands of politicians? Absolutely not, but there are operational matters and there are wider issues such as how many police officers are considered appropriate for Scotland's streets. I don't think anyone could honestly say that the current government's policy of a thousand extra police officers is an operational decision, it was a political decision and one that has been, I think, very welcomed by our community, certainly very welcomed by my colleagues, and indeed very welcomed by a whole number of different people that he spoke to. However, there will come a point in time where politicians are going to have to say whether they think that the number of police officers is right or whether they think that it's wrong or whether they think that police officers get paid too much or whether they think that they don't get paid enough. Once those kind of honest discussions are going to be had, then we as a police service will be better placed to know what the expectation coming from this building is going to be for us. I am going to move on. That's okay now. John, you brought the supplementary. Is it about the role of local authorities? No, it was about— I want to ask that before you ask, because you didn't develop that, and I was interested in that point being made by you, Callum, that you dedicate funding to specialist support staff roles in their communities. What do you mean by that? Can you give an example of what you mean by that? What would they be doing? I suppose that the detail would be something that would be thrashed out between local authorities and indeed the chief constable, or possibly even with a role for the authority. Possibly the horse may have gone on this particular example, but control rooms or the C3 project might have been a great opportunity. It was probably a missed opportunity now. No doubt that Ms Murray will consider that there was a highly skilled workforce available in Dumfries that lended itself really neatly to developing that kind of skill, not just for the police service but also probably for utilising in wider elements of local government delivery. That could have worked well in Dumfries. Another term, for example, might be if there is a particular abundance of highly trained accountants. I am lost to use the term forensic accountants, because I don't really know what that means unless it is an accountant sitting with a white coat looking at a computer scheme. There might be opportunities for the heavily skilled financial services indices around Edinburgh, or local authorities around Edinburgh, to offer support to the police service by saying, if you are looking for a future serious examination of financial crime, why not look at using some skills that we could help with? I just wanted to develop it, because I think that it is a fresh line in here. John, what was your supplementary point? Thank you, convener. Mr Steele, it was about the issues that Mr Penland raised about police officers undertaking support staff duties. I appreciate my knowledge as time limited in this, but in my day from memory there were two categories of officer who, in any case, may have found themselves doing that. Those were people who had protected duties, so new and expectant mothers, and restricted duties. That may well be police officers returning from a period, perhaps having been assaulted in duty, where they have not got the wherewithal to do full operational duties. Nothing changed in the first of April. Those categories of officers, presumably, are still gainfully employed in Police Scotland, as they would have been in the nine constituent. Yes, and whilst the terminology may change over time, the categories are broadly correct, the one that you would probably add to that now would be officers who are not protected or restricted, but who are undertaking jobs where there have been reasonable adjustments because of disability. However, by and large, those categories of officers still exist, to some extent, undertaking those roles. There are some internal policy matters that I do not think it would be appropriate for thrashing around the committee when they are more suited for the internal mechanisms of the police service about the appropriateness or the approach that is being adopted for some of those deployments, but, by and large, the categories that you gave are correct. The alternative to an individual officer being deployed in that way would be their requirement to retire on the grounds of all health, presumably, which itself would, of course. In many cases, that is indeed the case. I hope that that is the case. If many officers are not able to be deployed in those circumstances, then the question of an all health retirement is certainly something that would be looked at. There is no guarantee that that follows. We are probably getting into some of the internal policy stuff within the services now, but we could have officers off on long periods of sick because of the refusal or unwillingness to deploy them, where pay still continues to be paid at that cost. That is not an efficient use of the police time, but we are risk lifting into policy. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, Mr Steele. I find your honesty of our fishing, and especially on your submission, and to go back to what you were saying early on regarding creative solutions to address the challenges we find in the widget. We heard in the evidence last week we heard a lot about redefining the role of police officers. What about these creative solutions? Will this creative decision be heard that could involve local authorities? Could it involve the private sector? Could it involve redefining the role of certain police officers that we have today? I am thinking particularly about the role that we have over the weekend for football matches, for example, or for over duties. Thank you, convener. I think that there are opportunities for the service. In fact, opportunities are expectations that the service and indeed all services look at every single avenue for how they are structured and deliver service to the public now and into the future. The private sector clearly has a role in some elements, as is indeed the third sector, which I believe many of us would observe has suffered somewhat, given that, when budgets get tight, the contributions that are made by many of the larger services, particularly police to some of our charitable organisations, diminish it. That is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeat in that regard. In terms of redefining the role, I think that the role of the police officer is actually very simple. It is there to provide reassurance and assistance to the public. It is what has been defined for every single guard patrol on watch, as has been laid out in legislation almost since time of memorial. The activities of police officers have not really changed much over the decades, either. It is just that there are different approaches to how the service has done. Whilst in the past, someone may have had to write a letter that would have taken several days to be delivered to the local constable. They now pick up a mobile phone or send a tweet, and the expectation is that they respond instantaneously. The service has evolved only in terms of the expectations placed upon it, not in terms of the actual job itself. I was talking particularly about some of the contracts that the police have with private parties like football matches. We know that a lot of the services that the police are charging of entities, and sometimes those bills do not cover all the work that police officers are doing particularly during the weekend. The budget is just now, and particularly the elephant in the room is a pension, and you can maybe want to talk about it. We do not know what will happen in 2015 and 2016 budget. Would it be not time to address those points? Yes, certainly. The issue of how we deal with services to the likes of large public events such as football matches, rock concerts or whatever, is something that needs to be looked at. I think that in some ways that comes back to the point that I made in my submission about what we expect the police service to do, and indeed what we expect other services to do. I made a particular comment in respect of health, which we may be able to explore later on. However, if there is an expectation that the police will police regardless, but in some circumstances where there are large gatherings of members of our communities, that that would be a chargeable service, then that is something that needs to be properly understood by everyone, because whilst it is easy to identify Celtic and Rangers and possibly tea in the park and possibly large golf-type events, the concept in its own right could notionally extend down to the local village highland games or sporting events. There are things that need to be really understood about the expectation to pay for policing. I know that the issues of how football events are policed in their own right were previously discussed by, I think, never many of the superintendents association last week, so I do not need to go into that, but there will always be a genuine open conversation about whether police services are free, regardless of what the activity is, or whether they are going to be charged in terms of certain activities, and then we will probably be thrashing this around for a long period of time to come. Thank you. Last week, Chief Superintendent Rennie and CV Diamond both described to us a degree of stress that their members were working under, people either not getting over time, or if they did not get over time, having to work longer hours, coming to work when they were unwell and that sort of thing. Is that the same experience with your members at the moment? Not with me personally. I think anyone who is to paint a picture that everything that garden was rosey would be misleading just now. There is a phenomenal amount of pressure placed on police officers just now. We've only got to look at the exceptional year that we've had in terms of large mass participation public events, all of which, in their own right, have demanded considerable police resources and considerable flexibility on the part of police officers to attend them. However, let me be clear that the greatest unhappiness in the police services now is not because of Police Scotland. The greatest unhappiness in the police services now is because of the economy and changes to their pensions. There is massive anger, upset and a huge sense of betrayal that terms and conditions that police officers felt they had signed up for have been taken away from under them. Police officers, like everyone else in the public sector that I acknowledge, have had to pay considerably more for their pensions over the years at a time when their wages have been being outstripped by inflation and they've either been staying stagnant or already increasing modestly. Add to that the fact that there is the additional stress or change brought around by the creation of the police hours of Scotland and, indeed, the considerable disruption that has taken place over the past year. It's absolutely not surprising that there is a lot of stress and expressions of considerable low morale among the ferreter officers. The implication from Chief Superintendent Rennie last week was that some of the savings made by the creation of Police Scotland had not actually been used for front-line policing but had actually gone into funding directorates within the Scottish Police Authority. Is that your perception? The Scottish Police Authority has certainly grown, I think, larger than I envisaged it would. I'm perfectly here that I consider the Scottish Police Authority conceptually to be the right thing to have been done. I think that there was, with hindsight and probably a lack of detail, was that, although the old police boards and authorities could have relied on the local authorities' legal services departments and so on and so forth to provide some support, that wasn't an existence for the Scottish Police Authority. The Scottish Police Authority, like the Police Service of Scotland, is an evolving beast. I think that it probably needs to cut its cloth more appropriately to the financial circumstances, because we cannot have a circumstance where the body that is responsible for governing can grow exponentially at a time when the service itself is expected to not do. Is it not also the case, if I might remember, that when there were the eight constabularies that were exempt from VAT but, in fact, that must have cost a pretty penny? Yes, indeed, convener. That VAT is now levied and not recoverable? Yes, I think that it's a matter of immense frustration for us all. Thank you. Sandra, follow my Roderick. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning. You did mention earlier about hope that we could get into more depth in regard to the transfer of funds from the police services to the health service. That was one of the questions that I wanted to ask, because having obviously visited prisons as part of the justice committee, it seemed that it was more like streamlining if we were able to get the NHS involved rather than it being separate. Perhaps could you expand on why you are concerned about that specific aspect of budget? I'm concerned about the notion rather than the specific aspect. If I work it backwards, the police service and police officers have an enormous involvement with individuals who suffer from mental health on a day-to-day basis. It's a large proportion of police time that is taken up with dealing with individuals of mental health. Arguably, it's not the best approach. In fact, it's not arguably the best approach. It's undoubtedly not the best approach, because I can think of fewer things that are more corrosive to individuals who are suffering ill health and who are stuck in a solid concrete room with a steel door and a small wicket to look at. Because the police service is engaging in that kind of crisis intervention and management at the first instance, we don't see a corresponding transfer of funding from health to police to deal with that. I'm of the view that if the police are expected to police regardless, the health service should be expected to deliver health regardless. Irrespective of whether an individual is in police custody or not, the health service should have a responsibility for looking after them. Of course, there are areas in which police should pay for additional health elements. They include clearly the exposure to forensic examinations and the requirements to gather blood. However, if, as happens in a large proportion of cases, we have individuals who are suffering mental illness, a health consideration locked up in cells, why is the police paying for the failure of a health system that allows that individual to be at a cell in the first place by giving money back to health? It seems to me that health is getting a double dividend there. However, there are other elements that are not necessarily complex about the cost of the provision of medical forensic services. If we look at road traffic legislation, for example, a doctor has to take a blood sample from an accused person. As far as I am aware, and I have two sisters that work as nurses, most bloods are now drawn by nurses. The cost of that in having to pay for the securing of doctors to draw blood will be considerably higher than having to pay for nurses to draw blood, if the legislation allows it. We are not helped by the fact that, across Scotland, as I understand it, we do not have a single point of negotiation with the health service—not least because the health service exists under umbrella body, but we have the individual health boards and authorities underneath it—for the provision of doctor services. We have to undertake that process many times over, and that in itself is highly inefficient and wasteful. My understanding was that the professionals in the health service were the best people to look at people who are in custody. It would be much more seamless and better for the prisoner or anyone who is held over in remand. You mentioned that people with mental health problems should not be in prison, but society does not come to the fore until they are arrested. I am trying to make the point, because when you mentioned police officers being deployed to other services because they might have that particular experience, it would surely be better for people who have the medical profession to have the experience medically. Would that not be better that they treat people rather than the police service? Is it just a budgetary issue that you are raising here? It is a budgetary issue. Clearly, the best people to deal with health are health professionals. The point being made is that the police should not be paying for it. The health service should be putting money into the police. The other way around from what is happening, I think, is if I am following your point. Or we avoid this medical round of taking money from one to give it to the other and we just see the responsibilities of yours going with it. I know that that was a point that Mr Steele was making, but I just wanted to expand on it. The reason that money was being taken from that particular budget to the health service was because it was more seamless and the professionals were in the health service. I do not think that you are denying that what you are saying is that it is a purely budgetary issue in that respect. If I could just pick up on one other point, which I found interesting and probably goes down to the nitty-gritty as well, about looking at the whole of what people expect and how the health service, the police service, should be paid for. When you mentioned about the doctors, they are the only people that can come and take blood whereas normally it would be a nurse. That is something that perhaps we should look at in a budgetary sense as well. Indeed, I regret that I am not so up on parliamentary procedure. In fact, I think that again that a horse may also have gone on that, but the possibility of an amendment given the change during thriving legislation may have provided the opportunity for that. Of course, I am not sure that that would sit with the Parliament or not, but those kind of things in the round need to be looked at. The traditional approach of, if we have done it this way and we have to continue doing it this way, is not going to sustain the services in Scotland. In fact, it is not going to sustain them anywhere in the UK the way cuts are going at this moment in time. Just a type of follow-up question, anyway. You would be supportive of what we had last week by the superintendency association that said that we really need to look at the whole issue of budgetary regarding the police and what people expect of the police force? I think that that is an inevitable development of lack of finance. I suspect that I know the answer. The answer will be that they want the police to do what the police have always done, they want nurses to do what they have always done, teachers to do what they have always done, social workers to do what social workers have always done and councils to do what councils have always done. I think that that will be the answer. No one will be prepared to have the conversation about how it is meant to be done with less money. We have seen that since 2007 that there has been a 6 per cent real-terms cut to Scotland's grant. Services have increased exponentially since the Parliament came into being across all ranges of the public sector. If the tap had been turned off and it had been kept static, that would have been a challenge enough. Against that reducing budgetary background, it is really difficult. I see no desire on anyone's part to start having the real conversations about how that is going to be addressed. I have got Roderick. John, if your question has been asked, have you got something else? What one have I made, please? Well, not yet. Roderick, then Alison and then John Finnie. Sorry, convener, but was your question directly related to that, Nils? No, no, no, no, he is on my list. It is all right. Please do not try to organise me. I would not dream of it, could you? I know what I am doing. If I would just like to follow on from the questions that my colleague Eileen Murray was raising in terms of the evidence given last week by chief superintendent Rennie. My looking at the report from Scottish Police Authority in terms of overtime said that the overtime budget for police officers has been exceeded by almost half a million. Chief Superintendent talked about demands on their time. Last year, you talked about your view that overtime was being reduced because of the large numbers of police officers with the target 17234. What is your current view on overtime demands on officers? Well, certainly looking at the past 12 months, the demands on officers in terms of flexibility have been considerable. That has been anything ranging from short notice shifts to enormous changes in the overall shift patterns that they work. However, the nature of police work and the nature of overtime in particular over the past 12 months has been very unpredictable. No one could have known that events at the likes of the Commonwealth Games could have ended up with such a large overtime requirement, but changes in threat assessment or security considerations inevitably impact on that. We either have police officers that are going to have their daily lives and their existence chopped from pillar to post and uncertainty how they are going to work, or we are going to have to pay them overtime. If it is going to be the former, we have to make sure that they are properly remunerated in the first place to make that a tolerable burden on what they are expected to do. I think that it is likely that overtime and the demands for overtime will continue to exist in the manner that they always have, but inevitably, I think that the availability of it in terms of payment or time back is going to reduce. I rather fear that the service may get to a situation where it expects the good will of individuals to continue to perform and to continue to put an extra out so that they are getting any compensation for it, which in itself underline difficulties, not least in what it can mean for the individual's health and possibly conflicts with working-time requirements. Thank you. A separate question in terms of the report from HM Inspector of Constabulary in relation to local policing in Fife, where they believed that there was a kind of widespread view amongst both support staff and police officers that the previous family feel of the Fife Constabulary had been lost slightly in the new setup. Can you comment on that? Do you feel that that has been an issue elsewhere in Scotland, or is it unique to Fife? I do not believe that it is unique to Fife, but I have no empirical evidence one way or another to support it. I have anecdotes galore, but they are of limited value. I am trying to move everybody on. I am mindful that we have to suspend at 10.58 and Mr Emre has to leave after the two minutes silence. Forgive me if I rush along because this is a longer session than I expected. Last week, Mr Penman told us that this forthcoming year in budget returns will be much more challenging than what we faced before. We know that the business case for the savings that the savings were predicated on was pretty sketchy. Will you support calls for a review of the timetable for the delivery of the savings that we are supposed to come through reform? The short answer to that is probably yes. The long-term issue of finance, whilst it might be made easier if it is done in slower time, I do not think that it is going to go away. The expectation that the service is going to deliver £1.1 billion by 2025-26 is a year's worth of policing for free. That is just how stark that kind of expectation is. Whilst I am absolutely content that, had the services not amalgamated the challenges facing the former constabularies, had they considered continuing in their form, it would have been greater than that being faced by the police service of Scotland at this moment in time. I do think that a slightly slower time approach to realise the savings in the round would be of greater benefit to the service. There is a danger that when Cassius King, Cassius King and everything, that much of what could be looked at with probably a greater consideration as to the right way of delivering the service could get lost. However, of course, we do not know. We will just have to see if that opportunity presents itself. In a suggestion, we have a number of us who have met operational front-line officers. Rather than serving the public, they increasingly feel that they are serving the plethora of new departments that have been set up in some areas. That is bound to have an impact on their workload, the individual officer's workload, potentially on overtime budgets. The example given was of officers dealing with a domestic violence incident, which we all know was very important, but then delivering their reports to a department of five who always find something further for them to investigate into. To what extent is the overtime budget impacted by the growth of the departments and the additional work that comes back out to the front-line officers? I am afraid that only Police Scotland will be able to answer that one specifically. One thing that I am keen to highlight is that the Scottish Police Federation has members in these departments. We have police officers, all of whom are working flat out to deliver an incredible service to the public, be they in departments or be they in what we traditionally consider to be answering the call and turning up at the door. There is an inevitable—in fact, it was ever thus—that when a new expectation comes along, a department is formed, a resource comes from or the resource for the department comes from what is termed or loosely termed the front line. In simple terms, it means those that are available to do the response calls. The words that I get from across Scotland are that there are fewer and fewer people available for the response side of the policing, but that is not to say that those who are engaged in the various departments are not doing something considerably worthwhile, either. That is why I say again that we need to have an honest conversation about what is expected from the police service, because if we only look at the time that it takes for someone to attend to a call and deal with the incident and get the offender to court, we are missing out large elements of it. In the example that they gave domestic incidents in particular, they take a long time to see through from beginning to end. A large part of that is down to the welcome consideration that the service has delivered to the subject over the years, where I think in the past that it could well be fair fingers of accusation being pointed out that it was not dealt with as properly as it could have been. We may have gone too far, but rather we are too far than not far enough, I think. I thank you very much for your evidence that is very thoughtful and, like the provocative, as usual. I thank you very much. I am going to suspend us for one minute, Calum, to allow the witnesses to change over to allow us of time. Thank you very much. Before I move on to the next panel, I would like to inform members, witnesses and those in the public gallery that you are invited to observe the two-minute silence at 11 am. We will be asked to stand for this as a mark of respect. There will be a sound that comes over to tell you when it starts and will stand for that period, and then, if you wish, it will tell you when that two minute has concluded and will resume business. I know that Mr Emory, thank you very much for coming out with a pretty short notice. I know that you have to go immediately after the two-minute silence, so that puts you all on notice. Short, sharp, tricky questions for our panel. I welcome Vic Emory, chair and John Follie, chief executive of the Scottish Police of Thought. I know that you heard the tail end of some of the evidence from Calum Steele. I have written submissions straight to questions. John, you are in right away with starting gay and Elaine. Good morning, panel. It is just to ask about the importance of the IT structures that the police service have to deal with. Can you give us reassurance about the state that they are in? I know that there are significant plans that will enhance delivery if they are indeed delivered. There are no surprises in the future for us coming from that financial or otherwise. I will ask John to deal with the detail, but I can tell you that there are a number of initiatives in train to be more innovative in the way that we, Police Scotland, reduce the costs of doing so. The ICT is a key enabler for allowing that to happen. You will have, from your written evidence, a lot of the programmes that are currently on-going. You know about an I6 programme, the C3 programme, the custody programme, the single ledger, the payroll and all of those programmes, which all rely on ICT. We have set up a governance framework. Police Scotland comes to the office on a regular basis. We scrutinise them as to how they are spending their money, what progress there is against each of those programmes and, to date, I cannot say that there is anything untoward going on. ICT is a strange beast. Things can go wrong without you knowing it, but we have put in place a good governance structure which hopefully will prevent that from happening, because we absolutely want a no-surprises situation on ICT. In relation to ICT, we have applied robust governance structures against all of the major projects. There is no significant slippage on any of the projects. Indeed, the most high profile is I6. There is a programme board, which I sit on. I also chair the ICT scrutiny forum, which Vic has referred to. In relation to I6, all of the key milestones have been met in accordance with the programme. There has been a gateway review, which was carried out fairly recently in relation to I6. The project was given an amber green, and it was well reported that the governance arrangements were acceptable and robust. Previous witnesses have indicated that the cost of running the SPA is higher than anticipated. Will they be correct by how much more does the SPA cost to run was anticipated when it was set up? The SPA was benchmarked. If you look back to the legacy governance arrangements there were highly criticised by both HMIC and Audit Scotland with regard to the areas that they actually did not look at. Most specifically, it was the governance of the financial arrangements within the police forces within those legacy areas. We have addressed those shortfalls, and we have staffed the SPA to address those issues. Far be it, I want to dispel immediately the notion that the SPA is growing while police are shrinking. That could not be further from the truth. We have benchmarked the Metropolitan Police, the PSNI and other forces. The cost of the governance is approximately 0.5 per cent of the overall budget, and we are well within 0.5 per cent of the overall budget. We are governing the police well within the established norms for doing that. In addition to that, the SPA also has statutory responsibilities, which it must discharge, not least of which is producing sets of statutory accounts that cover the SPA budget, which also includes Police Scotland. We have to have staff in place to deal with that. We have dealt with those matters effectively. We have recently produced a set of accounts that will be laid before Parliament, and those take people to do that. As Vic said, it is less than 0.5 per cent of the budget. We are not fully up to staff yet. There are still a few positions to be recruited for, but we are not growing. We have a finite number of positions that have been agreed and certainly debated in public, and there is a sailing on that. We will not go above that sailing. As we are discussing, the budgets are increasingly constricted. What is the SPA doing to reduce its own costs? In terms of SPA, we have looked to be as efficient as we possibly can. We operate on a zero-based basis each year, so we build the budget up from scratch. We have moved premises recently to free up some estate and made considerable savings in lease costs on a property that we occupied in central Glasgow. We have moved over to Pacific Key and took a floor in a building that was vacant and was already being paid for. There was a saving there. Members will recall previous meetings that we have given evidence in relation to Bremner House and Stirling, which we give up the lease for that as well. That freed up some additional cost savings. Your submission suggests that most of the savings made through duplication have now been made. That has contributed additional pressures on Police Scotland to view any comment about that. What concerns do you have in the budget next year? In relation to duplication, I would advise that there is no duplication between SPA and Police Scotland. Officers work complementary to each other. Is there a division that existed in the previous forces? The savings of those have now been made, and that is no longer a source of savings? There may be some savings. In large, those savings have materialised over the past year and a half. There may be some other savings that could materialise as a result of perhaps some consolidation in relation to duplications. I am thinking about aspects such as payroll, for example, where we still have a large number of distinct payrolls, so we may be able to pull some of them together into one. There are some savings, but not of the same significance as we have managed to achieve over the first two years. We have always viewed the reform of policing in three stages. The first stage being bringing all the forces into one force, the second stage being consolidating that position and therefore getting rid of some of the redundancy, and the third stage, which we are just embarking on, which is the transformational stage where we do things differently than we did before. Are there any options for savings that you have considered in the past but rejected, which might come back to the table again? We have considered all options. The number of things that we could do to save money has not been exhausted by a long way. There is nothing that is off the table at the moment, and we will look at whatever we can do to maintain the service at a best value to the public. We are talking about savings in the budget. One of the areas that I have been concerned about for a while, and you have mentioned it in your report, is about the fact recovery. £24 million is being taken out of the police reform funding. That could certainly go some way towards savings and better services. Could you expand particularly on the situation at the moment with the VAT, which is £24 million a year, at any stage being able to recover that money? The VAT situation was declared right from the beginning when the SPA and Police Scotland were set up as a non-departmental Government body. I have to say that that is not the same as England and Wales. In England and Wales, they do not pay VAT. We unfortunately do pay VAT. The Scottish Government has agreed to look at the rationale behind that to give us parity to some extent with what is happening south of the border, but the fact remains that, at the moment, we have to pay VAT. You are quite right. The VAT varies a little, but it is around between £22 million and £24 million, depending on what we buy. Most of the expenditure of police is on salaries and on people costs. The VAT attaches itself to services and materials that are bought in. For the first three years, that is paid from the reform budget, but that becomes a burden or another challenge, shall we say, from 2015 onwards. Yes, just to pick up on the point, you did ask if we would be able to recover any of it. Unfortunately, we have not been able to recover any of it. Moving forward, colleagues in the Scottish Government are speaking with colleagues in London to see whether we can address that situation. However, in our forward planning, we have to assume that we will not recover any of VAT. That is how we plan. Therefore, if we are successful in obtaining a recovery situation, that will be to the good in relation to the overall police budgets. What 24 million, 2224 million would buy in terms of police resources? What does that and the practical level for the public mean that you are not getting if you have to do not get that support after 2015? The VAT is a cost to placing. If you are not getting that support as you are just now from the fund and at the end of 2015, you are not going to have that. You are going to have to cut that from what you can spend. What would that buy in terms of police resources for the police on the front of Police Scotland? I am not an accountant so I do not know what 24 million does. Well, if you look at the SPA, we have had that discussion about the cost of the SPA. The SPA costs less than £4 million. I was being flippant, convened. It is an important point that has been missed over the past couple of years and certainly I have raised it in numerous occasions. My understanding is that 90 per cent of the budget is staff costs. You are losing that 24 million throughout the years. We have got IT systems and that type of thing. I am not necessarily making a political point here, but I think that we do have to realise that Wales has a devolved governance. It does not pay that and then, obviously, in Westminster, it does not pay that either. You have got to ask the question and I hope that the Government will be able to cut to some arrangement why it is a Scottish Government in Scotland being penalised by not getting the same as Wales and the rest of the UK? I think that you make a valid point. We are addressing that with the Scottish Government, but the fact is that, from the SPA's point of view, it is a challenge and a cost element that we have to take account of when we are setting the budgets moving forward. Until it is removed, we have to allow for the fact that we need to address it moving forward. John Pentland, Rodri Cymru, and Christian Dylart. Mr Emmer, I am not sure if I picked up your answer to Elaine Murray with regard to what you have rejected in relation to some savings that have come forward as a suggestion. Could you perhaps give us some examples of what has been rejected? I either did not answer the question properly or I was not very conclusive in what I said. We have rejected no suggestions at the moment as to how we might make savings. We are prioritising the initiatives that are coming forward so that we can actually concentrate on the ones that give us the best return for the investment that we need to make. If I could just come in there as well, there are timing issues associated with some of the savings plans that come forward. We touched at the beginning on ICT projects, such as I6 and C3. Those are priority projects that require a large degree of dedicated resource, and the savings do not manifest themselves immediately. Whilst we consider those savings plans and implement them, there will be other savings plans that will come forward that we will have to give equal consideration to, but we may not be able to implement them immediately because we may have to wait until some of the projects that are already under way come to fruition. If I am right, do you have not rejected any savings that has come forward from the chief constable? The reason for that is quite clear. Do you base your assumption on meeting the savings or the impact that it may have on the community? How do you base your decision? When a business proposition is put before us, there is what we call a business case that is put forward. We have an equality assessment that is attached to every business case, and we have a community assessment that is attached to those business cases. We are not saying that we want to make savings at the expense of the service. We want to maintain the service. We are interested in the outcomes that the service delivers to local communities, and we do not dilute that at the expense of cost. Have you ever challenged the business case that was put before you? If you need a lot of time, I agree, but if you were to look at some of the board meetings, you will see that we challenge quite robustly all of the business cases that are placed before us. Have you ever challenged them? Have you ever changed the decision? I am sorry, I did not. Obviously you have challenged the business case, but have you ever changed the recommendation that was associated with that business case? We have encouraged the police to change direction or to take other things into account in the challenging that we do. Moving on to, obviously, the Police Scotland, when it was unified, created challenges. Perhaps some of my questions are associated to the scheme of administration and how rigorous the SPAR is in making the challenges that you have spoken about. When I read through your scheme of administration, I am just wondering how well you are equipped to be challenging, because I see that you are allowed to buy in the regions between £200,000 and £500,000. That, to me, says that if you are moving it from one budget to another, one budget will get £200,000 more than it should have had. So I will be aware of what the actual expenditure is in that. The other one is with regard to the in your financial report, the sixth month period to 30 September. There is a saving of £1.5 million on a police officer cost. Now, either that assumption has been well off the mark, and it is just how confident can we be in the SPA that, when challenging the budget that you are aware of, can we have a more robust performance from you? I am trying to say that. Again, I will let John deal with the detail of the question, because you went into some figures, which, from a governance point of view, is what I allow the chief executive to do. We have put the scheme of delegation and the scheme of administration in place to give proper and robust challenge. As far as I am aware, that has not been varied at all. There are committees that have been set up, most notably in the finance area, the finance and investment committee, who challenge everything that comes forward and need to see where all the money is being spent, why it is being spent in the way it is and is it good value for money. John, do you want to deal with the data? Yes, if you do not mind, thank you. As Vick says, we have robust governance processes and procedures. The scheme of administration is only one of those, but one of them is most important because it leads into other items, like the scheme of delegation within SPA in Police Scotland, and we also have framework agreements etc with the Scottish Government. In terms of the point on vehement, there has been absolutely no vehement taking place from one budget to another at all. The provision is there to create that flexibility, however, it has not actually been applied and it would not actually be applied unless I was consulted as a countable officer. In relation to vehement, that is where we take that. In relation to budgets overall, as Vick pointed out, we have a finance and investment committee. That committee meets once a month and all the budgets and financial performances are robustly challenged both in relation to revenue expenditure and capital expenditure and explanations given as to variances at that particular point in time. Specifically in relation to finance, there is also a weekly finance meeting that takes place between senior officers in SPA and Police Scotland, and I chair that meeting. We look at budgets and challenge budgets on a weekly basis and then monthly through the committee and then through the board itself where finance reports are presented to the board and all board members have an opportunity to question the director of finance at Police Scotland and the chief constable in relation to all budgets that matter. Could you perhaps tell me, Mr Fuller, how many devolved budgets there are? In relation to devolved budgets, there is a degree of devolution in relation to devolved budgets at commander level, but it is restricted, as you would understand, because most of the policing budgets over 90 per cent relate to people costs. Those costs are already there. However, for local matters such as over time and small purchases of goods and services on a local basis, community-type purchases would be devolved at that level. There are 14 commands, so that is the degree of which that devolution would take place. Today, we have a £58 million capital budget for this year. I think that today there is only been £4.5 million spent on that, considering that we are only six months away. Can you give us assurance that that money will be spent? Yes, indeed. As recently as last week, I was sitting with the director of finance from Police Scotland and we were going through the capital budget forecast in great detail, and we will spend the capital budget this year, as we had intended. There are timing issues as at the end of September only because there are some of the projects that we are working on, for example, I6 and some others, where there is an element of expenditure that comes into the second half of the year and that was planned, so we will spend that. In addition to savings, we are confident that we will achieve the savings for this year as well, which would put us in a position of, in 2012, having said £11 million, £64 million to £65 million in 2013-14, which has been audited. That is finalised, and hopefully we are forecasting this year 68 million. Everything is on course for delivery for the end of the financial year. We had a board meeting last week, and Police Scotland was questioned quite extensively on the budget, and Police Scotland reassured the SPA that the capital would be spent this year on bonifari projects. That is on the projects that were identified at the start of the financial year, because I have a concern that when you are unable to carry forward your capital money, sometimes it gets nearer at the end of the year, any good officer is able to pull up a project off his shelf and get spent in that. The money that has been spent on what was identified at the beginning of the year. Yes, we have a capital spend plan that is presented when the budget is presented, and we monitor that carefully. There will not be any underspend. That was what they called forensic, which someone was asking what forensic was. Roderick, followed by Christian, followed by Alison. Good morning. About this time last year, we heard evidence from Chief Constable House that more than 300 police officers around Scotland were paid at that stage, funded solely by local authorities. As you as an authority, are you able to tell us what the position is today in relation to funding from local authorities towards police officers, or is that something that I should address to the Chief Constable? The detail of that, you should obviously address to the Chief Constable. I can tell you that from our perspective, John may have the precise numbers, but in round terms, Glasgow funds about £3 million per year, and Edinburgh about £2 million per year to the budget for local policing, or additional policing in those areas. They are the only two city environments that contribute outside of the budget that is sent down from the Scottish Government. John, do you have any details? The details that you gave are broadly correct, so I have them for the comment. Just moving back to the question of the vac recoverability, my calculation is not exactly back of the fact packet calculation. If we have a resource budget in excess of £1 billion, if we are talking about recovering vac of about £24 million, we are talking about probably about a 2.4 per cent increase in the budget. If you apply that to the number of police officers, we are talking about 430 or so police officers. Would you disagree with that? Are you meaning that the £24 million in DAT would pay for X number of police officers? Obviously, the £24 million, if you were to take it into that level, you could have that as an offering of how many more police officers you have, you could have other resources, you could have additional air support, for example. I was trying to get an answer to what does it mean, that money? Yes, indeed, convener, that's the number one. He's always been working on that with his advocates for some time. It was just a rough calculation. Can I move on to a slightly separate area? Obviously, we've heard evidence over the last couple of panels about the HM inspector of constabulary report on local policing within Fife and about issues whether morale is being affected by the pace and nature of the change and that the family feel when Fife had gone. I appreciate, as an authority, that that's perhaps difficult to monitor, but have you any comments on that general comment? Well, again, the detail can be addressed by John, but in general terms, as you know, we're 18 months into a major programme which will lead to reforming the police as we move forward. By necessity, well, not by necessity, it is a known fact that any big programme like that, there is an element of discomfort amongst the people that are involved, and that can lead to all sorts of different ramifications. Low morale might be one of them. I'm not saying it is, but it might be one of them, but it's the uncertainty that brings that sort of feeling with it. I am getting information that morale is not as high as we would like it to be. My balance to that is the fact that we are in a reform programme, and therefore, there's some of that that's almost inevitable, but we are, as a part of our employment engagement programme, going to conduct a survey so that we can actually, rather than speculate on this, we can actually get some hard facts. Everyone that works in Police Scotland and in the SPA will be asked to participate in an employee survey so that we can actually assess for ourselves, rather than speculate what their situation is. This is a matter that is widely recognised as something that we need to monitor closely, and we do that through our governance structures, primarily the HR and remuneration committee. As Victor said, there is a survey plan. That survey will take place prior to the end of this financial year, and thereafter a regular survey will take place every two years, which is widely recognised as an appropriate timeframe to attend to such matters. Thank you very much. I'm going to come to you. Forgive me, I'll go like Christian, Alison, and first I've got time, John, bearing mind the time to let you in. Christian, then Alison. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Regarding answer to the moral for the police officers, we were told in different panels that there is a change in terms of conditions for the police officers, and particularly the pension, which may be the elephant in the room. We are planning a roundabout 10 million increase for the 2015-2016 budget. How much is that affecting the moral? How much is that incertitude about how much you will have to provide for pension for the police is a problem for you? When do you think you will have clarification from Westminster how much you will have in your budget for pension in 2015-2016? In relation to pensions, as Calum Steele gave some evidence earlier, it is a cause for concern amongst police officers, as it is across the public sector, so we can't underestimate the impact of that. In relation to the SPA budgets, we don't hold the budget for police officers pension costs, which is met centrally by the Scottish Government, so it doesn't impact, but we are acutely aware of the impact on individuals and on staff money as a result of the pension increases that people are having to pay at a time when inflation is outstripping wage increases. A problem on moral, when we talked about it, some colleagues talked about it, talking about the extra hours some of them will have to do, particularly superintendents. We talked about the problems on the weekend, the weekend trend more and more officers have o wneud y mhawr o'r Fwrdd. Mae'r ffyrdd yn ystod o gweithio ym Mhawr? Fyrdd ym Mhawr honno? Dwi'n nhw'n fawr i gael lle yma wedi gael gwybod ar y chwan loc ar gyfer mewn arweud eistedd? Mae'r fawr o'r fawr o'r fawr i gael cyflym oherwydd hwnnw, neu o'r fawr o'r fawr o'r fawr o'r fawr o'r Fyrdd? We understand pretty much the service that Police Scotland delivers to communities. We have active engagement with all of the local authorities and the security committees within those councils. There is a very positive relationship that has been built up over the last period and we are not getting any negativity from those committees with regard to the services that the police are delivering to those communities. With regard to the levels of overtime, we are interested in the cost of delivering policing and therefore the overtime element is a part of that. The chief constable is responsible for the direction and control of the people reporting to him and therefore he determines the overtime and the deployment of people under his command. Do you think that there is not going to be a challenge on the budget particularly that we heard about for the budget and the danger that a smaller budget will affect the that level of policing and don't you think it will be time to try to after the reform we had the last two years it will be time to maybe think another reform which will be reforming what police duties should be? I think that the reform programme will take only one and a half years into a very substantial reform programme and there are many projects that are yet to deliver the savings both cashable and non-cashable savings as we move forward. I think that we need to get those programmes well underway. We have started this week actually yesterday we had a meeting with academics and the police Scotland and the Scottish Government to look at where we all think policing should be in five years, in 10 years and in 15 years time to see what demographic pressures there are on the society, how society will evolve, the level of diversification and immigration that comes into Scotland so that we can start looking at where do we want policing to be in the future and what will the cost of policing be in the future, what skill sets do we need for policing to have going forward and what will be the balance between uniformed people and non-uniformed people. All of that work has started. Alison Follard will see what time John Pentland and Sandra Ellison will see. Before turning to my question I just want to comment on what you said about staff morale and you seem to almost imply that it was inevitable because of the change and I kind of caution against that. It might be a bit telling that it is taking you two years to survey your staff about that and that in itself I think is a concern. Turning to the main question that I have, we heard last week from Mr Penman that the challenges ahead in balancing the budget this year will be harder than they have been up until now and that if we don't get that right there's an impact on operational effectiveness in police performance, perhaps falling service. We heard Chief Superintendent Rennie say that his staff were facing an intolerable burden, so I wonder how you react to those two statements. Yes, certainly when Mr Penman made the comments about the budget he is absolutely correct. The challenge does become greater as we move through a period of generating significant efficiencies that we have done over the past two years, then invariably as you move forward into that process it does become harder to save. We have been set the challenge of saving £1.1 billion by 2026. We are confident, both the SPA and Police Scotland are confident, that we can meet that challenge. In relation to Mr Rennie's comments, that would be Mr Rennie's view. We have a meeting with the Association tomorrow afternoon. We have regular meetings to discuss those matters, and we would look to have more detail that we can look to and hopefully address. You are confident that you can meet it when one and a half years into the savings we've got staff associations telling us that they are facing an intolerable burden? We are the governance body for the police. Part of that is to have a finance scrutiny function within the SPA. That function works very well and works very well with Police Scotland. If you do the figures because the savings are actually recurring savings and if you look at the savings that have been achieved to date and those that will be achieved this year, we are well on track for delivering the requirement of £1.1 billion by 2026. You wouldn't support a call for a slowing down of the timetable for reform. You yourself said earlier that you were moving into the transformational stage. That needs thought and careful decision making. Is there a risk that short-term decisions that are driven by purely financial budget constraints will not lead to the sustainable force that we need to see in 2026? As I have said previously to one of the previous questioners, we are not making short-term decisions. We have a very highly skilled group of people from Police Scotland, the Scottish Government, the SPA and academia looking at where we want to take policing in the next five, ten, fifteen years. The decisions that we make on the business plans that are brought before us are not a quick fix. We do not look for a quick fix. We want to look at anything that can save us money without diluting service as we move forward. We do not want to put in anything in place that might prejudice the long-term savings. That is absolutely certain. Clearly trying to establish whether or not the budget is sufficient to meet the needs of the Police Service of Scotland for the forthcoming year. Will you give us an assurance that, if at any point you think that the budget is not sufficient to deliver a safe service, you will alert the Parliament to that? Yes. My job as the governance body is to ensure that we have got all the savings out of the system that are available to be taken and offered back to the people of Scotland. We do not take short-term decisions in doing that. The Police Scotland needs to satisfy me that the actions that they are taking will deliver the savings whilst they are taking those actions. Thus far, they have done that. Therefore, as you know, the £63 million was delivered in the first year. There is a requirement to deliver a further £68 million of savings this year. We are on track. Police Scotland has reassured me that that can be delivered too. That is significant savings that we can deliver. Now, as you move into the third year, obviously there is a law of diminishing returns and it gets more and more difficult. That is why you move from a consolidating position to a more reforming position because you need to do things differently. Once you have got rid of duplication, once you have got rid of all the, I hate the term, but the low-hanging fruit, as it were, then you need to say, how do we do things differently and more appropriately that will be more cost-effective for the public purse? In coming to those decisions, you must take the community along with you, as I am sure you have learned to your cost, if you do not. Therefore, that takes time to do that. I press you on whether you think that the timetable for savings is achievable. I think that the timetable for achieving the savings is a challenge. I do not think that we have exhausted all of the avenues to secure more savings. Very much. I have got six minutes. I have got two. Do you both have questions? Why don't you just both give me your questions and we will see if you can do it within that time? Short questions. First, John, your short question. I think that it was good to hear Mr Emery's comment to get rid of the low-hanging fruit. The closing of police counters and the closing of police stations is considered by yourself as low-hanging fruit, when people in my community thought differently. However, my question is on, again, on morale. Again, I believe that the morale is at the lowest within the police support staff. It appeared to me that the burden of the efficiencies has fallen in the name. What kind of assurance can you give me very quickly that we are soon near the balance workforce? Can you tell me what further percentage of civilian police support staff is going to be reduced to meet that target? I am looking at reforming the police service in the budget. I will pick up on the point on policing for pop-concerts, sporting events and political events. Can we charge for that via the police? I am putting my mind off as the Lib Dems, the recent one that they have not paid yet. I do not expect you to comment on that. We are throwing things in at the very end at the tail end. Questions about support staff and the question about charging for events, whatever they are, including, let's say, Edinburgh's Hogmanay and so on. Go for it. We have got four minutes. If you cannot finish on that, I understand that we will have a written response from you as well. I am so sorry to make it so curtailed. First of all, I would be the first to acknowledge that Police Scotland and the SPA did not communicate some of their actions effectively in the past. I do not demurr from that at all. However, having said that, we have not done anything that would prejudice the local community. Closing police offices, closing redundant houses has no material effect on the outcomes of policing in the areas where those activities happened. Sorry, what was the other question? I think generally about the balance of the workforce between the uniformed people. I have already in answer to a question that Alison had and I think Roderick. I did say that we are engaged on a piece of work that actually looks at where we need to take policing. It will be far too premature to say there is a balance between the uniformed people and the non-uniformed people. We need to look at what skill sets we need and who is the best to deliver those skillsets to take policing forward in a best value basis. It is too black and white to say that we need a percentage of that and a percentage of that. With regard to pop concerts and other commercial events, there is a charging policy that Police Scotland drew up and presented to the Scottish Police Authority. We debated it and we approved a policy with amendments moving forward. With regard to commercial events, there is a policy for charging for those events. For political marches or events, is there a charging regime for that as well? If it is for something out of the ordinary, then there would be. I think that that is fine. We have pretty well satisfied the questioning and settled the temperature again and we have got two minutes in hand. That concludes this evidence session. We will just wait for the signal at 10.58. Thank you very much and thank you for your evidence. Item 3, we consider one negative instrument, the Active Soderent and Commissory Business amendment 2014, SSI 2014-265. This instrument provides for commissory business, the winding up of deceased persons estates, which has been started in Dingwall Court to be continued in Verneshshire of Court after the Dingwall Court closes on 31 January 2015. The DPLR committee did not draw the attention of the Parliament to this instrument. Do members have any comments on that statutory instrument? Thank you very much. Our members are content to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument. We now move into private session.