OTAN, Outreach and Technical Assistance Network. Well, welcome everyone. It's one o'clock and on our agenda, it's time for the MOU for the AJCCs and we'll get into all those acronyms soon. My counterpart, Catherine Peacock. Catherine, are you unmuted? Not yet. I think you need to unmute. Okay, I think I am now. Okay. And then I'll drive the slide deck. Catherine's gonna do the first part. I'm gonna do the middle and then Catherine will do the last part and then we'll bring in our panelists. We're already here. We have Marianne Prankey from Glendale Community College who is co-located at the Verduco One Stop and then we have Adele McClain who's with the Apple Valley Adult School, also connected with her local One Stop and Local Workforce Development Board. So they will have a nice discussion at the end of this after we go through the slides and you can ask questions and we can have discussion. So we look forward to that and we thank them for coming on today to help us out. Okay, with that. Okay, I guess I'm on. Hi. I'm trying to, one second, Catherine. Well, there we go. It's a little delayed on this slide. Go ahead, Catherine. Okay, so we're gonna go first through the AJCCs and I'm assuming everyone understands what that means but I'll go over it. It's the American Job Centers of California. They're centrally located throughout the state of California and they have a variety of services. So what is an AJCC exactly? Well, it's a one-stop shop for workforce services and it provides a comprehensive range of no cost employment and training services for not only students, but for employers and job seekers. The AJCC is a network of local, state and public organizations offering a variety of services. They have a very, very cool website that I would encourage all of you to visit and have your students visit. And I'm sure we'll hear from people about how their students have been visiting from our panelists. Okay, I think I'm ready to go on to the next slide. Okay, they're types of AJCCs and one type is the comprehensive and this provides access to all required American Job Centers of California partner programs and that includes Title II. The programs, services and activities with at least one title, one staff, physically present. No, that's not exactly true. Sometimes they're present. You have to see if that person is present. Okay, next slide. Okay, and the affiliate. And the affiliate AJCC provides access to one or more AJCC partner programs, services and activities, for instance, Title II. And the specialized associated with either a comprehensive or an affiliate AJCC and addresses specific needs of dissipated workers, youth or key industry sectors or clusters. Okay, we can go on to the next one. And how many titles does it include? Well, one, two, three and four and we are Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and that's what we are usually referred to. A E F L A slash Title II. And they have a lot of information on the website that I would really encourage you to peruse. I mean, for instance, their newsroom has announcement constantly that are really, really helpful. Okay, we'll go on to the next one. I'm glad this is going very quickly and I can see the slides. Thanks, Neal. Okay, requirements. I'm telling you, it has surgery on Monday. So, oh, it was hippie. Okay, requirements of an AJCC partners. First, provide access to its programs or activities. Use a portion of its funds to support infrastructure and to provide career services. Enter into a memorandum of understanding and we'll go through that wonderful piece of literature soon with the Local Workforce Development Board or the LWDB. Participate in the operation of the AJCC delivery system consistent with the terms of the MOU and provide representation on the state and local WDBs as required and participate in board committees as needed. Again, find a lot of this information on the website. Okay, let's just, now over to you, Neal. Thank you, Neal. That's kind of over. Thanks, Catherine. So, purposes of the MOU, it's not just because we wanna do some paperwork and make your lives miserable. It's actually a requirement of receiving federal funds. The America's Job Centers of California and the Local Workforce Development Boards are required to certify their AJCCs every three years. So, they're in the process this year. I think it starts in January 2024, the certification process. So, these MOUs are very important to their system and are required as part of the federal funding. So, as it says here, the purpose of the memorandum of understanding is to establish the roles and responsibilities of the Local Workforce Development Board, the Chief Elected Officials, and the American Job Centers of California Partners, which are adult education programs, in relation to the operation of the America's Job Center of California Delivery System. So, that includes local discussion and negotiation to ensure successful integration and implementation of partner programs. And all required partners must be included in the MOU. So, if you haven't seen an MOU, you will see a lot of language about products and services that are required and we'll get into this. And you will also have maybe an additional MOU or what they call an umbrella that delineates some of those services you're gonna provide. And in some cases, the attachment might include like a spreadsheet or a worksheet that shows the breakdown of maybe referrals or whatever services you're providing or collaborations with your AJCC. So, moving on to the next slide. Here are some types of MOUs I kind of talked about. There's a separate partner agreement, which where the Local Workforce Development Board in agreement with the chief elected official may enter into agreements which each partner or groups of partners. So, that could consist of an umbrella MOU. The umbrella MOU addresses issues related to the system, its CEO and it's all its partners. It also allows partner programs to focus on service delivery. And like I said, that could come in if you're co-located, you could be providing services there. If you're affiliated, you might be providing services at your school, but you have this MOU that describes that partnership and maybe some referrals that you're going to be doing. It also facilitates transparency and the flexible agreement. So, moving on to the next slide. So, major components of a memorandum of understanding are how you share customers, how you share services, and if you are located at the AJCC, how you share costs. So, local boards must work with all required partners in their local area to develop an agreement regarding the operations of the local systems. So, like when Catherine showed all those titles, you have title one, which is the local workforce development boards and the AJCCs. You have title two, which is us, which we've been talking about all this morning. Carolyn went over the grant, the WIO2 grant, that's title two. And then title three is the employment development department, what they call employment services that they offer. And that's Wagner-Pizer and kind of the labor exchange. So, that supports CalJobs. So, if you're familiar or if you've heard the system CalJobs, that's where all the job postings in the state go up and EDD manages that. And then title four, which Catherine mentioned, are rehab services and rehab centers around the state. So, let's do a quick quiz. And let's see. So, how does your agency partner with your local AJCC? And so, what I want you to do, Melinda, is this okay if we do it in the chat? The responses? Absolutely, yes. Okay, so you can answer with one, two, three, four, five or let's say you just do student referrals, you just put one in the chat. If you don't know, just put zero. So, please go into the chat and answer this question. How does your agency partner with your local America's Job Center of California? And you can select the numbers that are appropriate. You can select zero if you have no idea. If you have other, you can put the number five and then with a brief explanation of what that other is. So, let's give you a few minutes to post that in the chat and we'll take a look at it and see how you're doing. And I'll kind of narrate as we go. Some people aren't sure. Oh, we've got a lot of responses here. Okay, so let me, let's see. So, one to three. So, student referrals, training, workshops, registration, intake, all of the above. Some people are referrals and training, referrals and training, registration. One person has shared administrative costs. That's Kelly. That's interesting. We don't really see too many of that. Janice also has a shared administrative costs. Great. Let's see. And then some people, same thing with Carolyn has all four and then the other people have maybe registration and intake, training. Oh, very good. So, let's see if there's any others here that we missed. Okay, and then others. This is from Marianne, one of our guest speakers. She has co-enrollments, paid internships, externships and supportive services. So, nice to add that in there. Thank you, Marianne. Let's see if, and then Angelica has co-located under five. Great. Okay, and then Maria didn't explain her five. Sarah is co-located on her other. Adele, who's our other guest speaker, Apple Valley has an additional MOU as a connection site. Hmm, interesting to hear about that. All right. So, we have some people with shared costs, onsite rep and scholarships, interesting. All right. Wow, that was a lot of sharing going on there. You wouldn't be surprised of just the numbers you put in there that informed us about what's happening at your local AGCC. I was expecting a lot of not sure or unknown, but a lot of you are familiar with that connection so that was surprising, but I'm glad you guys are connected. Okay, let's move on. See if I can get this slide deck going. There we go. Okay, so just a little bit more information on shared customers and services. The MOU should clearly delineate the responsibilities of each MOU partner. So, when we say MOU partners, just not adult education, you will see a lot of other partners. You'll see maybe Department of Social Services at the county level. You could see community-based organizations along with community colleges or adult schools. You might also see some other local services, nonprofits, things like that. And when we get into the panel discussion, I'm sure they'll have a lot more examples of partners that they work with. So the responsibilities of MOU partner when it comes to helping plan, develop, and implement the local system. So some of the delineation responsibilities that you'll see in a memorandum of understanding are the services you're providing and to whom, the best way to serve the local population through effective partnerships, referrals, and cross-training.  So that's great to see. So I'm gonna go on to the next slide. And then shared costs. And some people mentioned shared costs. So each America's Job Center of California partner that carries out a program or activity within an AJCC, meaning on-site, must use a portion of their funds available for their program and activities to help maintain the AJCC delivery system, including proportionate payment of infrastructure costs of the center. And that's specified in the WIOA Act. In fact, if you're familiar with the grant application, or maybe it's the grant budget. Quick question. Oh, was that directed at us? I don't think so. Alinda, was that just an oopsie? I think that was an oopsie, Neil. Go on ahead. Neil, this is Jim though. You do have a couple of questions in the Q&A. Do you and Kauffern want to wait until you get to the end to address those? No, we can adjust them now. I wasn't monitoring that, so go ahead, Jim. No problem. Yeah, we can get to them right now. Okay, we have one question. Does an MOU include compensation? Compensation, like workers' compensation or? That is from Janice. Maybe Janice, can you maybe unmute yourself real quick and maybe just, oh, here we go. She's referring to cost of teachers and sites. Oh, I see. So I was just gonna go over this. So according to WIOA, you're limited to 5% admin on your shared infrastructure costs. So let's say you have a grant of, I don't know, maybe $100,000. So 5% of that, which is $5,000, that's the limit that you can contribute. You can't go over, if you're using WIOA, two funds, you know, AFLA funds, the literacy funds that Caroline and Jim were talking about this morning. You are limited, and if you do go over, you have to get permission or approval from your CDE consultant to go over that 5%. And that 5% not only includes the shared infrastructure costs, but it also includes other administrative costs that you might be taking on object code, you know, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, et cetera. So you have to be careful on your shared costs and you don't go over that 5%. Also, if your administrator is going to conferences and training, that is also part of that 5%. So keep that in mind as you're negotiating those, that shared costs. And to Janice's question, usually it's infrastructure costs going towards the comprehensive site. So the adult school would be paying for space and maybe utilities and whatever shared infrastructure costs are negotiated at that AGCC. It wouldn't be coming back to you as compensation of teachers and supplies and support staff and classified. It's usually going towards the comprehensive site if that's kind of what you were asking. Yes, Janice responded exactly. Okay, great. All right, that's a good question because yeah, you have to have both eyes open when you go into these partnership relationships and you're establishing an MOU. You do have some limitations as far as how you're gonna pay those shared costs. So just keep in mind that 5% threshold and if you are gonna go above it, you should talk to your CED consultant before doing so or you could be having some unallowed costs when you do your budget if you didn't get that prior approval. So you'll see it in the fine print when you do your first expenditure claim report, Q1, which will be coming up for you I think next month or the end of this month or something like that. You'll see at the bottom, you're restricted to 5% on your admin.  So the consultant will see if you're below or above that 5% and then that will determine one of the factors in approving your expenditure claim report. So just keep that in mind and maybe have that open line of communication with your CDE consultant. Okay, our next question now and who should we contact to get an MOU for Workforce Development Board? Do they have a sample or do we need to create an MOU? No, the local Workforce Development Board is the keeper of the MOU and they make sure they get all the signatures of all the partners. So it's a requirement. So like I said at the beginning, they're going through a certification process.  So they should have that on file. So what I would do, if you don't have anybody at your site that has connections with the Local Workforce Development Board, I would reach out to them. But let's wait for the panel discussion. I'm sure Marianne and Adele will have some tips on if you're new to this, what's the best way to reach out to the Local Workforce Development Board and start that MOU discussion and negotiation if you choose to maybe take it a step further and maybe be on site or something like that or getting more information. So let's revisit that in just a little bit when we bring our panelists on. Okay, we got just a few more. I'm a bit confused about the difference between an AJCC and a Workforce Investment Board. Okay, so the Workforce Investment Board, which is now called the Workforce Development Board is kind of like the overarching governance for the region. And there's like, I forget how many Workforce Development Boards are. There might be like 40, 49, 45. Yes, so I was close. I was almost in the bulls. All right, thank you, Marianne. So there's 45. And so they've run that and then the America's Job Center of California, they go into a competitive process to see who will offer the services for the Local Workforce Development Board. And so that Local Workforce Development Board and their chief local official or chief elected official will make that decision of who's going to be the local operator or the American Job Center of California operator. And so that's the difference. That AJCC could change quite a bit depending on what's going on at your Local Workforce Development Board. Sometimes you'll have the same provider at the AJCC for a long time and sometimes they'll go out to bed and you might get a change in that. But we'll see what Marianne and Adele have to say about what goes on at the local level and what kind of changes we're seeing there or maybe it's just status quo and you're just kind of getting people up to speed but the same partners have been always been there. So we'll find out about the local flavor, what's going on locally that maybe can inform that question that you had. Okay. And then next question. Shared cost only works one way, correct? So if AJCC staff is at our adult school sites they don't compensate us. We only pay if we are at an AJCC. Well, it depends on if your site is the comprehensive one stop. So I don't know. I think it depends on the setup. If you're the comprehensive site then they would be paying you for infrastructure costs. And I'm not sure how that works with an affiliated site but if they're having staff located at your site I don't know. I would check to see if there is that discussion for infrastructure costs. But I think it might only be with the comprehensive site. I'll check maybe Marianne or Adele have a little more information on that shared cost. Does it only go one way to the comprehensive site or if you're affiliated and you have co-located staff how does that work? You guys have any input into that one? So it is one way in that if any adult education partner is co-located with either an affiliate site or a comprehensive site, then they have to share in the cost. However, it is not required the other way around. So if we are co-located with a partner then we don't necessarily have to share in the cost. We can and that can be negotiated but we're not mandated to do that as opposed to we're mandated to charge if they co-locate with us. Okay, thanks Marianne. I believe if you're not co-located there are no costs. San Bernardino is huge, but don't take any co-locations with the Title II providers. To that end I would also say that they did discuss with us on the last round of funding what the infrastructure cost might look like. And once they saw the Title III partners saw what Title II partners actually get there like nevermind because they literally their income is like 10 times what ours is for the same kind of client face forward hours. And that, but I think that the cost analysis was very helpful because they understood what we're doing a lot with a little and we're willing to refer everybody to them because it helps both of us. Great. Thank you, Marianne. Thank you, Adele. Appreciate that info. Any other questions, Jim? I think you already addressed this one, Neil. It's from Michael. Do you have a boilerplate MOU that you could share that we could use as a baseline in our discussions with our local AJCC partner? You know, what I would suggest you do is your CDE regional consultant might have a good example because when we do our FPMs, I know we'd look at, you know, a variety of MOUs and we have to see if it meets our requirements. And so there might be one they could share or an old one, you might also somebody at the local workforce development board might have a sample or something like that that they could share. There might even be something on maybe one of our websites but I would check with your CDE consultant first before you dive into local politics and asking for stuff and we might be able to help you with that. Okay, I think that was it for the actual questions right now. Okay, thank you, Jim. Sure. Okay. And then lastly, service costs are identified and I kind of went over this in WIO as section 134, C2 as applicable to each program consisting of career services, individualized career services and follow-up services. So at the AJCC, they delineate the type of services that they're offering. So all that is spelled out in the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act there. Okay, and then our last quiz, that doesn't mean we're over but this is our last quiz. So same instructions, just put the number and if you choose seven, let us know what the other is but what services do your America's Job Center of California partners provide? So select any of the seven and if something's not listed there, type in what other is. If you don't know, just put not sure or zero, whatever works. So, and I'll look at the chat as we get through. So some people are just some individual like job training, services for the disabled. Some people have all six. Some people just have information referrals and job training, career guidance. Others are all of the above, all of the above. Most of it childcare included, interesting. So it looks like there's a lot of services being provided that you're aware of. Some cases, maybe just the job training and career guidance. Some people are unsure. Some people have very comprehensive sites. I'm just looking for any others. That maybe they could extrapolate on. And then Mary, I wanted to add difference between workforce development boards and workforce investment boards. The workforce investment board was established under the Workforce Investment Act. And then in 2014, the Workforce Investment Boards became Workforce Development Boards under the new Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, WIOA. So if you haven't been around that long, you wouldn't remember the transition from WIOA to WIA to WIOA. But thank you, Mary Ann, for putting that in there.  Yeah, that's part of the Title I funds that go through the Local Workforce Development Board is that Rapid Response. There's a lot of funding that goes through to help off when plant closures and things like that or projects that they're working on to help local employers. So there's a lot more involved. And then Eric shares, his other is tuition for job training programs. And Adele says vouchers or access to technology or devices. And then Alejandra mentions his supportive services such as bus passes. Great, all right. So thank you for sharing again, quite a lot of information there. And let's see, last slide here, I think before we turn it over to Catherine, some other shared services. And I think people mentioned this, we have initial intake, we have identification of services, assessment of needs, referrals to other AGC partners, and then appraisal of basic skills and business services. And I know the adult schools do a lot of appraising and assessment and identification of appropriate services and initial intake. So that's why when Adele was talking about how valuable the adult ed providers are in this system, I think the other partners are blown away about what we offer and how cheap we are to what we offer. We don't cost that much. Okay, and then lastly, the non-personal costs necessary for physical operation of the AJCC, and this would be those infrastructure costs. You know, we were talking about if you're co-located at a site, you would be contributing to rent and maybe utilities or maintenance equipment. And then if there's shared technology that would also be included. Access and accommodation must be included in the budget in ensuring physical and programmatic access to the American Job Center of California by individuals with disabilities. And we did notice in the question, a lot of people do have specific services for individuals with disabilities. So that was nice to see that people are recognizing that as well. Okay, and then lastly, review and updates to the MOU must be reviewed and updated at least every three years. That's part of the certification process that I told you about, that the local workforce development boards and their centers are going through right now. I guess the employment development department has a workforce directive out for comment that will give them instructions on how to update their certification that's every three years. And that would include those MOUs as well. And then the infrastructure cost agreement must be reviewed annually. And also lastly, infrastructure costs can only be paid for funds available. And this is what I talked about earlier, the 5% for local administrative expenses or from non-federal resources that are cash in kind or third party. So if you exceed that 5%, you can always use non-federal resources if you have them available. And you can do in kind or something like that or third party contributions or cash. So that's part of that negotiation with your partner. Okay, I'm gonna turn it over to Catherine for the remaining slides and then we'll open up the panel discussion. Okay, I'm back. Can you, so strategic co-enrollment. The US Department of Labor commenced a national work group in order to collaborate on getting a better understanding of co-enrollment strategies. California participated in the work group and committed to creating a co-enrollment guidance in order to align service delivery with concepts and visions found in the OWA. The OWA places a strong emphasis on planning and implementation across multiple partner programs to ensure alignment in service delivery. Strategic co-enrollment can increase program on participant success, maximize resources, enable greater efficiencies in service delivery and align services with regional sector pathways. This system must serve as an all-inclusive access point to education and employment programs that provide demand-driven skills attainment, especially for those with barriers to employment. Co-enrollment, if we can go, let's see. Am I, did I skip this one? Okay, co-enrollment key concepts. First one is integrated service delivery. Establish and participate as an integrated system of partners to share common goals with services offered by multiple organizations for a seamless participant experience. The focus is on clients or target groups who have complex needs that require services for multiple partners. Okay, all right, increased access ensures any participant, especially individuals with barriers to employment who enter an AJCC have access to partner programs, services and activities where they are eligible, including physical and programmatic access as described in the OASection 134-D. Continuous improvement, create a delivery system that is focused on process improvement and challenges the status quo. I kind of don't know what that means. I think it just means, you know, have an easy system that students find easy and that you find easy in order to help students. Partnership, I mean, I think this is the main point. Align goals, outcomes and resources with all local partners in the AJCC system to leverage resources to provide a higher quality and level of services. Katherine, I think on the continuous improvement, the local AJCCs and the local workforce development boards also have a SIP process that they have to go through. So they have a continuous improvement program that they have to complete every year and have targets like we do for WIOA too. So very similar. I'm gonna go on to the next slide then. Yeah, that makes sense, thank you. The goal is a common intake and this reduces the paperwork required for an individual to provide and complete during intake. And it may include authorization to release information that allows partners to share and enter information in their respective case management systems. Streamlines data sharing and supports the tracking of referrals, co-enrollments and outcomes and helps people with multiple barriers access coordinated services. All right, thank you, Katherine. My favorite part, you're welcome. All right, so now I'm gonna stop sharing and we're gonna bring in our two panelists, Adele McLean from Apple Valley Adult and Marianne Prankie from Glendale Community College and let me stop sharing. So now we're back here all together. And so what we wanted to do with our two panelists is you've heard kind of some of the questions that people have asked. We kind of went through the slide deck kind of a high level overview, but if there's anything you can offer or add to someone just starting out or is new to the WIOA to grant and it's a little bit apprehensive about this whole MOU bit and working with their AJCC, maybe just some words, tips and advice that you can offer and that would be great. We'd appreciate it. Sure. I'm happy to get us started. Okay. As far as getting started with the MOU and please do not let the MOU scare you away with this shared cost, because as Adele pointed out, if you're not co-located, there is no shared cost. But even if there is, the workforce boards will negotiate to try to do what they can to make it as easy as possible and also as lucrative as possible for you, your staff and your students. So that is the goal is to have the partners involved. We are a workforce board and by the way, I'm actually a staff to the workforce board and I'm also coordinator of the adult education program here in Glendale. So we're able to work very closely because I wear both hats. So it's easier for me to move students into the AJCC services and the other way around as well. So if you're just starting out I would say that if you are looking at becoming a partner in an MOU, the best place to start is with the executive director of the workforce board and just calling them and talking to them about becoming a partner if you're not already. We should have every workforce board is required to have adult education partner in their MOU in their MOU and we owe a title too is also required. So they can have CAPE, for example, and we owe a title too but there should be enough representation in the MOU and we're mandated to have that MOU as Neil pointed out. So if we do not have an MOU executed then we will not meet our certification and if we don't meet either one of those we will not be eligible for funding. So a workforce board their funding depends on the mandated partners being in place and the certification happening successfully. Thank you, Mary Ann. Yeah, let's hear from Adele. Well, I would say I didn't think of going straight to the executive director. I did when I first started with this I made sure that both myself and our consortium director went to several workforce development boards meetings because I figure we don't know what we're involved in until we know like what's going on at the workforce. So once you show up and you show an interest, believe me they'll start reaching out to you because it's like anything else it's a coalition of the willing and if you show up they figure you're willing because it is a different world. There are different acronyms. I think the biggest hurdle for us is I live in the world of education. So IEP for us means individual education plan for them. It means individual employment plan. Very different things. There's a lot of acronym surfing that you're gonna have to do but they know as little about you as you know about them. So the more you show up the more conversations can be had the more bridges can be built. That is my takeaway from this. We don't have a comprehensive at one location center if you take a look at San Bernardino we're huge. So we have three AJCCs and I'm in the high desert AJCC where they do have a comprehensive center but we're not co-located. So we rely on each other for the referral of clients from more from us to them probably than them to us although they are realizing that they need us more and more as they realize that the high school diploma and or the HSE is an element. I think it's just having those conversations about what your relative benefit is to each other.  My assumption is that there are MOUs in place that they are probably copying language from and they're probably public access somewhere. I know I do a lot of searching on our county websites to find out what's going on. You can get on all kinds of emails from the workforce development board and they'll send you basically meetings and agendas and meeting notes and you'll find out what's going on all over the place if you start getting on their mailing list and show up to their meetings. I think in a lot of areas there's only four a year so small room. All right, well thank you Adele. And let's pause there to see if anybody has any questions, you can either type them, Jim or Melinda, what would be the appropriate way for people to ask questions? Put it in the Q and A or do you want them to come off mic or what would be appropriate? I think we've been wanting as much as possible for people to use the Q and A. Melinda can correct me if that's not correct. It helps with video production not to have too many voices. So yes, the Q and A would be, and it gives you all a chance to practice your typing skills. Okay, well if anybody has a Q and A or questions and we'll provide the A, we'll give you a few minutes to think of some questions that you wanna ask and all, let's see, I'll ask Marianna and Adele a question. Let's see. So as far, so neither of you are providing infrastructure costs to your AJCC because like Adele said, you are affiliated but you're not at the comprehensive site. But Marianna, it sounds like you're co-located at the comprehensive site, correct? Okay. Yes, I am. And how we get around using our CAPE funds for cost sharing is that I'm also workforce board staff. So because I'm workforce board staff, we don't actually contribute to the infrastructure in that way. So if we did, for example, we were holding ESL classes here before the pandemic. And so we had an entire room that we used on a daily basis and we provided access to the computers for all the students and access to our printer for the instructor and access to technology and so forth. So in that case, we receive an allocation of CAPE funds that we use to cover the cost of my coordination and staffing and so forth. And so we used a portion of that allocation that we received from Glendale Community College under a contract, we use that to cover the sharing costs. It was basically like a lease cost. Okay, great. And I know which one of you, or maybe both of you participated, I think a few years ago, we had some pilots on co-location between putting students or clients into CalJobs and also putting that information into TopsPro where any of, I think Marianne, you were involved in that. Adele, were you involved in that effort? My school, just as a practice, we've always put students into CalJobs and have them register with CCC apply. And we don't do it as part of any prescriptive service. We just thought it was a really good idea because then if you're at the AJCC, we can use some very simple data points to see if we're talking about the same person. Just name, you know, birth date, you know what I mean? So that we can say, oh, yes, we did send, you know, Bob Smith over there and do some kind of follow up because that does become a little bit difficult. And Marianne, what's your experience in that co-enrollment field? So we do a lot of co-enrollment and we're very purposeful about that because first and foremost, from the CAPE side, when they're co-enrolled in WIOA-1, we owe a title one, the AJCC people, they're very good at getting that source security number. In particular, if they're gonna be doing a paid externship or a paid internship for the student, then the student is motivated to give them their source security number because they're gonna be on payroll. So once we get that information on the title one side, then they give me the information so that I could enter into TOPSPRO. And so we're able to get those source security numbers into TOPSPRO so that we can track from both sides the base wage data. And so even if we lose track of them, we can still see if they're employed or not. So we also use a lot of the co-enrollments just to add services to our students. So for example, almost all of our students that are in some type of career technical education, we work with the AJCC. The AJCC can even come on site or even through Zoom, be able to outreach to the students and co-enroll them so they can participate in either paid internships or paid externships. And they're on the payroll for the Ferdigo workforce board while they participate in that. The other thing that we did was during the pandemic, that gave us so many good ideas because the workforce board had received so many emergency grants and they could provide supportive services. And we were losing students left and right because their children were at home and so they didn't have childcare and they weren't at school. And many of them, especially our ESL students used to come to class during the time that their kids were in school. But we were able to keep some of the students because we worked with our AJCC and our AJCC provided supportive services and reimbursed them for everything from utility costs to insurance costs to housing costs, childcare was reimbursing them for all of these expenses so that they could stay in continue participating in their courses, whether it was ESL or whether it was a medical assistant program to get them to finish their programs. But they required that the students in order to be eligible for all of these reimbursements, they had to remain in school. They had to remain in our programs and that's how we were able to retain them. So now we're looking at using stipends again to motivate some of our students to complete their programs in particular basic education for example, or the HSE for example, we want them to finish that and so we're gonna try to use stipends for that. We can also use stipends to cover expenses for books, supplies, and other related fees. Parking fees, if there are any, they would cover that some. Great. Neil, we are up to five questions and I think we're pushing up against the clock. So should we try to get as many of those as we can? Okay. Let me, I can go with the first question. So let's see either let's take turns maybe Adele, you do the first one and then Marianne does the second one. So first question is based on what I understand starting the conversation with the executive director find a convenient time from their calendar, convince them to sign the MOU with us, certify us. If not impossible it would be time consuming tasks. By the end of October, we should submit our report. How can we accomplish that goal? Is there any referral we can request from CDE to those local workforce development boards? I don't think it's as complex. Adele, any tips on that? I would say they're gonna be reaching out to you to get the signature because they need your signature. I don't think that you're going to have to reach out to them, but this has been my experience. I'm in a more rural type area. I'll ask Marianne if she has any other input on that. I don't think it's incumbent upon us to do anything with the MOU other than being the recipient. I've never seen it where we are constructing the MOU. We're a part of it, but we're not writing it from scratch. Okay. Neil, I'm gonna interrupt just for a second. Adele, please turn off your video. We're getting some drop packets from you and this is gonna help save you in the room. Thank you. All right, then we have another question and maybe this is whoever knows the area. How can I find out which HACC to reach? I'm in Joshua Tree, which I think is San Bernardino County and some say call Indio, some say call San Bernardino. Should I wait for them to contact me or should I just go ahead and contact them? Any suggestions either of you? I don't think Joshua Tree is in San Bernardino. I think it's in Indio. Okay, so maybe 10, I'm thinking maybe what's that, 1,000 palms or whatever that one is. No, I think it is San Bernardino, I was just there. Joshua Tree is in San Bernardino County, yes. I think so. Yes, I was just there. That was my question who wrote it and yes, we are in Joshua Tree, which is San Bernardino County. I didn't know if we only reached out to our given county. I think you have to, right? I would recommend that you do. If it's San Bernardino County, then they will be reaching out to you. But I promise you, since you're on here, if you'll, I can send you whatever has been sent to me. We haven't gotten anything yet and I can send you the contact information for our one stop operator. Then she'll make sure to loop you in. So I'll just maybe put your email in the chat or maybe Adele will put her email in the chat. I'll put it now, thank you. And then next question, what if students do not want to share their social security number? So first of all, let me just say that it really helps when there is an incentive, which is to participate in a paid work experience. So honestly, our AGCCs just do not have difficulty getting social security numbers. They know that they're gonna go into a paid position. So they have no problem doing that. There's very, very few who have a right to work and have a social security number that would not give it to an AGCC. So they really don't have that problem. If there is someone who does not want to provide it, then the AGCC can still enroll them and issue a pseudo number. So they can do that, but they still have to verify right to work. Now, and there's another question about right to work as well. There are certain services that you do not need a social security number. You do not need right to work. And those are all of the career guidance, the career counseling, those types of services, workshops, all of those that would be free to anybody off the street. There's no eligibility requirement for that. However, if they're gonna go into on the job training, they want job placement assistance. They're gonna go into an apprenticeship or externship or internship. Anything that requires them to be on payroll or will require them to be on payroll, such as job placement, then yes, they do need to have right to work. And they still don't have to give us a social security number. We can issue a pseudo number, but we would have to verify right to work. But again, we're gonna do whatever we can to encourage them to give us that social security number because we can't track employment unless we have that. All right, thanks, Mary. And last question. So sorry if anybody else had other questions. It's Suzanne. He says, we are entering an MOU with our local workforce development board, but it is just the two organizations, the workforce development board will be providing guest speakers, field trips, internships and help with resumes. We, the adult school, are paying for these services. Is this similar to what you are presenting, even though there are no other partners on our agreement? Well, there are some mandatory partners that have to be in that MOU. So maybe this is a different type of agreement. I don't know, Marianne, Rudel, what do you think? This could be just a basic MOU, which is different than the AJCC MOU, possibly. It might be, it might be different. The WREB is providing, seems to be providing all of the services, but the adult school is paying for them. Yeah, Suzanne, if you want to come off mute, maybe. I think with an umbrella MOU related to an AJCC, you're going to see all the other partners. You will see all their signatures. They are mandated. So I don't think what you're describing is the MOU that we would be looking at during a federal program monitoring review for compliance. It sounds like that might be another type of agreement outside of the AJCC MOU. So I would double check that, Suzanne, if you could. With, who do I check it with? I mean, you could talk to your local workforce development board, you could talk to your CDE consultant to see if it passes federal program monitor compliance, or locally just talk to your local workforce development board. The local workforce development board is who I am entering this agreement with. Okay, just ask them, is this the official AJCC MOU because just tell them you're a WIOA too, a literacy provider receiving federal funds, and that you are required to have an MOU with the AJCC. Is this the one that I'm entered into? Or is this something else? And I would like to see all the mandatory partners as part of that MOU. I don't know if Marianne or Adele have any other advice. The only other thing I could think of it being is some kind of connection site MOU. But if she wanted to email me, I put my email in the chat, I would be happy to share both my AJCC MOU and the connection site MOU. So you could compare language to, I'm a sharer. Anything I can share with you, I totally will. All right, all right, we're at time. I really appreciate. So thank you, Catherine, my co-presenter and Marianne and Adele. Thank you so much for the insight and the local knowledge. It's been invaluable. And so we'd love to have you back anytime we're talking about MOUs.


The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 8226, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on unfair police Scotland and fire service VAT charges. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Ben Macpherson to open the debate for up to seven minutes, please. I would like to thank the Presiding Officer for securing debate time on the current unfair situation, where Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are the only police and fire services in the whole of the UK that are unable to reclaim VAT. I thank you also to all members who have supported this motion so far, including many SNP, Green and Labour MSPs. Unfortunately, no Lib Dem or Tories have yet to sign the motion for debate. However, in good faith, I hope that Tory and Lib Dem colleagues will take the opportunity of today's debate to show their support for Scotland's police and fire services and get their VAT back. As I already mentioned, at present, Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are the only territorial police and fire services in the whole of the UK that are unable to reclaim VAT from the UK treasury. The anomaly needlessly costs our public services a total of £35 million a year, unfairly depriving Police Scotland of around £25 million a year and our fire service of approximately £10 million a year. There is no justification for this discrepancy. It is totally unjust. Paying the VAT means that, while the Scottish Government is protecting the police budget in real terms and has increased the operational resource of the fire service this year, while those things are happening, the UK Government is needlessly depriving extra resources from Police Scotland and Scotland's fire service, resources that would be better spent on front-line services and communities in my constituency and all across Scotland. Some have argued previously that the Scottish Government was aware that there would be VAT implications when the Parliament passed the Police and Fire Reform Act 2012. However, the SNP never accepted or agreed with the position that our police and fire services should be unfairly treated as a result of their merger in 2013. There was no good reason to accept the glaring disparity then, and it should not be accepted now. The anomaly that penalises Scotland's emergency services never made sense in 2012. It does not make sense now, and the UK Government rules around this, needlessly disadvantaged communities across Scotland, and they should and must be changed. The chair of the Scottish Fire Service, Pat Waters, described the injustice of the current situation in the justice committee as follows. When the people of Scotland have to provide for major emergencies, it costs them 20 per cent more than it costs anywhere else in the UK. It is not right that it costs the people of Scotland 20 per cent more to get the same protection as elsewhere in the UK. There are no reasonable arguments for the UK Government to maintain their discrepancy in this matter. Furthermore, there are no legal reasons why the current rules and position cannot be changed, either. Through section 76 of the Finance Act 2011, the UK Government have amended VAT rules to allow academy schools to reclaim VAT. Sometime after the mergers of Police Scotland and our Fire Service, Highways England was granted the ability to reclaim VAT by the UK Government by way of the Finance Act 2015. The BBC is also exempt. All the UK Government needs to do to rectify this unfair anomaly is legislate in a similar way in which it has already done so for academy schools, Highways England and the BBC. It would be a very simple process for the UK Government if it decided to do the right thing and treat Scotland's Police and Fire Services with equity. Moreover, some have recently erroneously tried to excuse the UK Government's indefensible position by referring to EU legislation on VAT. However, as the UK Government well know, individual member states have latitude on how they implement the sixth VAT directive. How individual countries operate VAT refunds is principally down to national legislation. Considering all of that, the UK Government should and must use the forthcoming UK budget to end the unfair disparity towards Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service when it comes to reclaiming VAT and give Scotland's Police and Fire Services parity with other forces in the UK academy schools, the BBC and Highways England. Because the UK Government could have made such changes several years ago, it would only be right for the UK Government to also refund Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to refund the £140 million already paid in VAT that has been taken away from Scotland's front-line emergency services since 2013. All that is being asked for here is an equitable solution from the UK Government. For that reason, in good faith, I hope that all speakers in today's debate will join me in pressing the UK Treasury to change their rules. That includes Scottish Conservative MSP colleagues. The Sunday Post reported on 8 October that 13 Scottish Conservative MPs in London have written to the chancellor requesting a change in the VAT rules for Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire Service. I hope that Tory MSP colleagues will clarify that point today and that Tory MSPs will also do the right thing. Do the right thing by Scotland and its constituents and join with me and many others in pressing the chancellor to treat Scotland's Police and Fire Services with equity, parity and fairness? The Tories like to think that they are the party of law and order, but if that is to hold any credibility whatsoever, they need to support Scotland's Police and Fire Services on this matter. As MSPs supporting our police and fire officers means much more than words, it means standing up for them as much as we can, because that is what this debate and this issue is all about. It is not about grievance, it is about fairness, it is not about party politics, it is about making sure that our police and fire officers are treated with parity, to be treated the same as every other police and fire service in the UK. The UK Government has said several times in recent years that it will respect Scotland and treat it with equality. When it comes to charging our police and fire services VAT, it has yet to deliver, but I hope genuinely that, as MSPs together, we can change their minds, because they should change their minds, they must change their minds, they should change their rules, they must change their rules, and they should change them very fast. We now move to the open debate, and I call Murdo Fraser to be followed by Rona Mackay. Speeches have up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by congratulating Ben Macpherson on securing the debate? Although I would have to say to him very gently, I think that this is a rather unusual subject for members' debate in this Parliament. The issue that he raises is not a new one, it is the issue that we have debated in this Parliament on many previous occasions, and it is hard to see that there is a specific constituency interest that he has or indeed any other member has. Perhaps I can forgive Mr Macpherson. Ben Macpherson? My constituency, like any other, whether it is rural or urban across Scotland, has policing needs. That is about making sure that, for the whole of Police Scotland, a more effective and more efficient police service, and for the whole of Scottish Fire and Rescue, we, as constituency and regional MSPs as a whole, surely have an interest in this, in making sure that our services have the resources that they need and deserve. Murdo Fraser? Perhaps I can forgive Mr Macpherson, because he was not a member of this Parliament at the time that the legislation was put through to create the single police and fire services for Scotland. He might not therefore be aware that the issues that he is referring to tonight were thoroughly debated at that time before the legislation was passed. The situation that we have today has arisen entirely because of the actions of the SNP Government. They went into that with their eyes fully open and they are now calling for others to sort out a problem that they themselves have created. Perhaps I can spend a few moments educating Mr Macpherson on what exactly is a legal position here. Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 allows certain locally funded bodies to reclaim VAT on the purchases of goods and services. I have already taken one intervention, Mr Macpherson. I have got four minutes, you had seven minutes. I think that he should listen and learn from what I am about to tell you. Those refunds exist in order to stop VAT from becoming an additional burden on local taxes. Because police forces in England and Wales are part funded by council tax, they have the right to reclaim VAT. However, because both Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are not part funded through local taxation, there is therefore no justification for a VAT refund. The legal position, Deputy Presiding Officer, is quite clear. It is quite clear today. It was quite clear back in 2012 when the new bodies were created. Correspondence in the public domain that passed between the Scottish Government and Treasury at that time puts that matter beyond doubt. I quite appreciate that both the police and the fire and rescue services would prefer if the £35 million that they pay in VAT could be reclaimed. That is an issue for Treasury, and I know that the Chancellor and his colleagues are aware of that. However, we should not be in any doubt that the Scottish National Party Government went into those reorganisations with their eyes fully open and they are living with the consequences of their actions. In debate after debate in this chamber, when the merger was being proposed, opposition parties and other witnesses raised the question of VAT. The Government's response at that time was that there would still be savings to be made from those mergers, even with the VAT issue being taken into account, so they were aware that that was going to happen when they went down that route. At that time, the Treasury even proposed alternative routes to the Scottish Government to try and avoid that very issue being arising. For example, channeling funding for Police Scotland through local authorities. However, that reasonable suggestion was rejected by the Scottish Government at that time. Even the trade union unison made it clear in evidence to the Parliament that the SNP went into those mergers with their eyes fully open and fully aware that the right to reclaim VAT would be removed. Therefore, any reduction in funding that Mr McPherson objects to is entirely the fault of his SNP Government and no one else. He referred in his opening—I have already taken an intervention with Mr McPherson. He said when he was opening that he said something quite inaccurate. He said that the only police and fire services in the United Kingdom who cannot reclaim VAT are those in Scotland. That is not the case, Mr McPherson. If you have done your research, you would know that the British Transport Police cannot reclaim VAT. The Ministry of Defence Police cannot reclaim VAT. Mr McPherson says from the Benches territorial that that word was not used by Mr McPherson in his opening remarks as the official report. No, Mr McPherson. Thank you. You have to close. So, rather than indulging in what aboutary, Mr McPherson, you need to accept that your Government got this role. Despite all the bluff and bluster from the SNP, the fact is that they have created this problem and are looking for others to try and bail themselves out of it. Once again, it will be the Conservatives at Westminster who are asked to sort out the SNP's mess. I have Rona Mackay to be followed by Mary Fee. First, I thank my colleague Ben McPherson for bringing this crucial debate to the chamber and I welcome the chance to take part in it. When Ben put forward this motion, he received an onslaught of criticism on Twitter to which I was copied in. I did not respond to any of it because I prefer not to enter into antagonistic dialogue on social media. Like Murdo Fraser, the main thrust of those who support charging police Scotland in the fire and rescue services VAT, which results in a loss of £140 million over the past four years, appeared to be, we told you so and you were warned before setting up a merd service. Presiding officer, my overriding thoughts on those comments were and always have been, does that make it right? If your answer is yes, please explain why it is acceptable that Scotland is the only devolved nation to be hit with punitive charges. As Ben said, everything that police Scotland or the fire and rescue service buys costs 20 per cent more here than the rest of the UK. That is simply outrageous and unacceptable. It is only effective to starve our vital services of £35 million per year, which would enhance law and order justice and safety of the public in Scotland. The UK Government's hypocrisy on this issue has been astounding. It rightly praised the tremendous work done by our emergency services, while at the same time starved them of much-needed resources. They have point blank refused to reverse the VAT charge despite there being a clear precedent for doing so, as we have heard in Highways England and academy schools are examples. It is a spiteful and disgraceful way for a national government to act, and there is no excuse for it. Now would be the best time for Ruth Davidson to use her growing popularity with Westminster and the British establishment to do something useful for Scotland for once. Will her motley crew of Tory MPs be standing up for Scotland? Of course not. Why break the habits of a lifetime? I certainly will not be holding my breath for that. As for Labour, it is good to see that they have finally come on board, albeit grudgingly, to ask the Tory Government to hand back our money, better late than never. Shamefully, until now, they stood side by side with the Tories and the Lib Dems to the detriment of Scotland. I am proud of the work that those great forces do to keep us safe and well. Last month, I attended the annual review of the fire and rescue service. While discussing the challenges and ever-growing demand that the service faces, the much-respected former chairman of the board, Pat Waters, replied simply, we will make it work, because that is what they do and have always done against all odds. We need that excessive charge to be dropped. It only serves to hamper the efforts of our police and firefighters. The people of Scotland deserve better, so I ask the Westminster Government to ceaseence and end this petty punitive charge. Can I remind members that they should always refer to colleagues by their full name because that helps the official report. I now call Mary Fee to be followed by Christine Grahame. Can I start by thanking Ben Macpherson for bringing this debate to the chamber tonight? On behalf of Scottish Labour, as the Deputy Justice spokesperson, we support the aims of this member's debate to protect the finances of our police and fire and rescue services. The VAT, which is placed in our emergency services, is a barrier to our police and fire services, recruiting more staff and providing greater protection for both our communities and our constituents. Labour backs the call for Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be exempt from being VAT, as they were, prior to the creation of the single services. However, the Scottish Government must recognise that it was aware that VAT would apply during the progression of the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Bill. However, the bill progressed without much progress being made on that issue. Five years on, we still have no solution, and it is long overdue that a remedy is found and found soon. It is reported that between April 2013, the date that Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service started as a single national service. In March of this year, 140 million has been paid in VAT to the UK Treasury. Labour's analysis shows that when using the lowest tax bill of 23 million for Police Scotland and 9 million for Scottish Fire and Rescue, we could have hired and trained an additional 547 police officers and 223 firefighters. We support the reintroduction of the VAT exemption, and we will continue to press the UK Government to act on that. Our 2016 Scottish election manifesto made that clear commitment, and we also lodged amendments to the Scotland Act 2016 to exempt Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Today, we remain committed to ensuring that unfair tax bills are not forced upon our emergency services. We know what the solution is by changing the VAT act at Westminster. That is the key to protecting the finances of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and I urge the Scottish Conservatives to press their colleagues in Westminster to make those changes and to allow our emergency services to recruit more officers. I also point out that if the VAT paid to date is refunded, as we agree that it should be, it would be good to get a commitment from the Scottish Government to ring-fence that funding for reinvestment in police and fire services alone, and not to use it to prop up other areas of deficit in their budget. I would be grateful perhaps the minister in her closing if she could make some comment on that. The upcoming budget is an opportunity for the UK Government to correct this situation, and I support the calls that unite most of the chamber in reintroducing the VAT exemption for our emergency services. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Ben Macpherson on securing this debate and congratulate two Scottish Labour and the Greens who support the Scottish Government's position of exempting Police Scotland and Fire and Rescue from VAT liability. I request it to take part in this debate as I chair the Justice Committee through the progress of the bill that produced those national services and indeed the first sub-committee on policing and have pursued the VAT penalty ever since. It is true to say that at the time of the abolition of local forces, the Government was warned of the consequences for VAT, and whether you agree with that or not, it is fair to say that warnings were given, but that is as far as it goes. The reason given was the principle that local authorities, as they paymasters, being exempt from VAT on the service as it existed, the police services and fire rescue services would also be exempted. In my book, and I am sure in Murdo Fraser's book, a principle is a principle and should be applied without fear or favour. Let's put to one side the pre-existing Northern Ireland arrangements with its single forces exempt from VAT, because, as with the £1 billion handout to secure the DUP's report for May's flowering Government, Northern Ireland is always treated differently and in some regards for good reason. The UK Government was in a bit of a bind when it set about promoting academy schools in England as a favoured policy. What to do with the problem of VAT liability as the schools moved from local authority funding, just like the Scottish Police and Fire and Rescue, to central Government funding, where they just cough up VAT like Police Scotland and Fire and Rescue, would have to? Of course not. With the stroke of a treasury pen, the VAT rules were amended PDQ, and, from 1 April 2011, a new VAT refund scheme under section 33B of the VAT Act 1994 was introduced for academies. The scheme, confined to England, permits academies to reclaim the VAT and curtain purchases, imports and acquisitions that relate to their non-business activities. The Police and Fire Reform Act 2012 came into force in 2013 and glanced those dates. 1 April 2011 and academy schools nationally funded are granted suddenly VAT exemptions, Police and Fire and Rescue, two years later in Scotland, and no exemptions. There is no principle in operation here. Just expediency for favoured Tory policy of academy schools and punishment for Scotland for daring to do something different in delivering a national police and rescue service. What other explanations can there possibly be? Yet ironically, one of the driving forces, no pun intended, to amalgamate those eight constabilies was Tory cuts and unavoidable efficiency savings, the duplications of eight chief councils, eight deputies, eight chief fire officers to be replaced with streamlined services. It has had its ups and downs, I admit, but the policy was right for a population of just over five million and has retained front-line officers. After all, the net serves well over 10 million. However, in England and Wales, it has spent its resources in some 43 constabilies with a company that is not cheap at the price commissioners and reduced the officers in their hundreds. Scotland punished for streamlining and trying to do efficiency to make sure that we had more front-line officers. English services retaining VAT, spending money on commissioners, 43 constabilies, and believe you me, they are quite like in summonsness to follow the Scottish example. It is ridiculous, it is indefensible and I have to commend myrdofraiser for dancing on the head of the proverbial pin. I joined with others in congratulating Ben Macpherson in bringing forward the debate. That is a very important issue, and I think that language is very important. It may surprise some people, but I suspect not many that know me that I wasn't necessarily a personal supporter of a single service, but, just as my former convener of the Justice Committee said, we were driven to that position by cuts from Westminster. What I would disagree with Christine Grahame on is that it wasn't just eight versions of things, there were nine versions and sometimes ten versions. The model that is there is a strategic one that sees top-level issues such as cross-border, crime, organised crime and trafficking dealt with. Of course, there is a very significant local model working. It is not necessarily as robust as I would like to see, but there is local input. As I heard someone mention, there is officers directly funded by local government as well, unless that has changed since the last time we looked at it, but most importantly, there is local scrutiny. I am keen to see the highest level of devolved resource management to apply when I was very proud to serve in Northern Constabulary, initially in Northern Borders Police in Northern Constabulary, at the most advanced system of devolved resource management, to the extent that the two police officers in Barra were responsible for their own overtime bill. Who better to judge when they needed to work extra hours? That is proper local policing, and there is nothing in that model that would not stop that. Sadly, that became a constitutional issue, and I mean sadly that that became a constitutional officer. We have heard that you were told, as Mr Fraser said. I am glad that it seems to be less of a constitutional issue than perhaps at one time where. I want to talk about my MP. My MP for a while was Mr Danny Alexander. Danny Alexander was the chief secretary of the treasury, and thanks to all of you good people but not me and my green colleagues, as a senior member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, you recently granted him privileges in criminal immunity, but there we go. He was very, very busy on the issue of VAT. He grabbed this issue, and I do not just mean in relation to academy schools, he grabbed the crucial issue that was applying in the area, and he chased and secured VAT exemption for ski lift passes. I have to say that community safety, as has been alluded to, is one of the most important things that we have oversight of and responsibility for, and that is our police service and it is our fire and rescue services. I think that we could go on forever talking about, and I suggest that we don't, and the Prime Minister wouldn't let me anyway, talking about some of the examples. However, it is the case that the national crime agency set up during Theresa May's time, which does not have local funding as a nationwide body, is exempt from VAT, as I understand it. There are challenges in our rural communities for the fire and rescue services about recruitment for policing, and we heard today in the committee a fascinating statistic, namely that 20 per cent of police time is taken up dealing with domestic abuse issues. I think that we all have wider obligations. I think that there are rules, I think that there are laws, I think that there is democratic aboundability and there is public opinion, but there is also political will. If there is a will to resolve the issue, I am sure that we can. To some respects, I would say to Mr Fraser and Mr Kerr, forget where this came from, forget the SNP for once, don't have an obsession with them, think about what your obligations are in relation to the 20 per cent more that could be done, and that is to improve community safety, and that is providing additional resources for our fire and rescue service. I fully support the motion. First and foremost, let's get it right henceforth, and we can talk about the back money after that, but please let's get it right. Thank you. At this point, I have a few people who still want to speak, so I am minded to extend this debate by up to 30 minutes under rule 8.14.3. Can I invite Ben Macpherson to move that motion without notice? Is the chamber agreed that we should do so? That is agreed. Therefore, we will extend the debate by up to 30 minutes, and I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. My contribution will draw on a number of sources, one of which is of the House of Commons paper on police funding, which is published in February 2016, which discusses all the police forces. However, perhaps let me start with a letter from the UK minister, David Gork, at HM Treasury, which was sent to the convener of the Justice Committee here, and it is dated 26 February 2016. It specifically says that, as you may be aware, eligibility for VAT refunds for public bodies is subject to strict criteria as set out in UK legislation for the two main VAT refund schemes. That is the bit that cuts to it. The first, under section 33, referred to by Murdoff Eder and by others, of the VAT act 1994, allows local authorities and bodies whose funding is reliant on local taxation to reclaim a recoverable VAT. The second one does not apply in this particular instance. The first and obvious one is the police service of Northern Ireland, which was established in 2001 as the successor to the Royal Ulster Conservatory, which was almost wholly funded from the UK Treasury, with a top-up of £22 million a year at the current rate from the Northern Ireland Assembly, and which was permitted to reclaim their VAT. In relation to Police Scotland, if we look at page 16 of the report on the draft budget 2015-16 that came from our justice committee, we see that 329 officers in Police Scotland are funded by subventions from local authorities. Therefore, there is local authority funding involved in the provision of Police Scotland services. Now, let's go on a little bit further. We've heard a little bit about section 33 of the 1994 VAT act. Well, let's actually have a little look at section 33. It's maybe just as well to point out that, of course, since its original form and the particular one that matters, it was amended by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, schedule 16.3 paragraph 217 in 2012. There are some very interesting and odd things. There are two lists in section 33, one for England and Wales, one for Northern Ireland and Scotland. Let me just give you a flavour of some of the things that are on the Northern Ireland and Scottish list. A Police and Crime Commissioner, the mayor's office for policing and crime, and a police authority and the receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, they are on the Scottish list. The Scottish list, but yet Police Scotland is not on the Scottish list. The British Broadcasting Corporation, based in London, is on the Scottish list. I don't need to go on. The whole thing is a legal and practical guadow that is unsustainable politically and almost certainly, in the light of David Gawch's letter, unsustainable in legal terms as well. In bringing this debate to the chamber today, Ben Macpherson has given us that opportunity to visit some of the detail that is in the paper that is before us. Northern Ireland, the clear example that shows why we should get our that back. Four minutes, you can touch a few things, but I think that there are a few things that need to be looked at again. I call Liam McArthur to be followed by Marie Todd. Thank you very much to every Presiding Officer. I join others in congratulating Ben Macpherson, not only in securing the debate, but in the passionate way in which he prosecuted it. Argument is, as others have said, a timely debate, not least given the financial threats that both the police service and a fire and rescue service find themselves in at the moment. To be clear, Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly support a resolution to the impasse on VAT. It was set out in our manifesto both for the 2016 and 2017 elections. My colleague, Alasdair Cymru, has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer prosecuting this point as well. As we have heard already in the debate this evening, it appears to now be cross-party support for such a resolution. It is also pertinent to point to the Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the centralisation of the bill that created the centralisation of the police and fire and rescue services. Murdo Fraser reminded us that, prior to the 2012 act, police and fire services were controlled by local authorities, and they were able to reclaim VAT. The Scottish Government was aware of that at the time of the act, of which there seems no dispute. Then, just as Secretary Kenny MacAskill was warned repeatedly of the tax implications ahead of centralisation. On that, as on so many other issues, the old Kenny was not for listening. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason was the mantra of the day. Over time, undoubtedly the savings from efficiencies that we were told would be delivered by Mr MacAskill and his ministerial colleagues simply have not materialised. As a consequence of that, the financial plight of both organisations, Police Scotland in particular, has become more acute. However, although I would perhaps disagree with John Finnie on some things, he is absolutely right in pointing us in the direction of where we go now in pursuing a resolution. My colleague Willie Rennie wrote to the finance secretary Derek Mackay last year, drawing attention to proposals that, at that stage, had the backing of COSLA. That would have involved changing the governance structure of the bodies from an NDPB through to a shared local government body, which would have allowed the centralised structure to be maintained, but would at least enable exemption from VAT. There may be other options and changes in terms of the way that the UK Government is applying the VAT regulations to allow a solution to be solved at this stage. Nevertheless, the mess that I would still argue was largely the doing of the Scottish Government's decision to press ahead with the legislation back in 2012. It is, of course, police officers and staff and their counterparts in our fire and rescue services, who are now paying the price. We ask those men and women to carry out difficult and dangerous tasks on our behalf, and that is a price that they can ill afford to pay. I thank Ben Macpherson for enabling the debate to take place. I look forward to the Scottish and UK Governments now reaching a resolution without further delay that will allow the vital services to be properly funded in the way that we all wish them to be. I thank Ben Macpherson for bringing this important issue to the chamber tonight. I sense that there are a few points on which he disagrees across the chamber this evening, so I want to focus first on the points that we can all agree on. Firstly, Police Scotland and Scottish Fire and Rescue play a vital role in protecting our communities. It goes without saying that everyone here values our emergency services, and we are grateful for the hard work and dedication that is shown by the men and women who work for them. Secondly, Police Scotland and Scottish Fire and Rescue pay around £35 million annually in VAT, which totals £140 million since 2013. Thirdly, Police Scotland and Scottish Fire and Rescue are uniquely the only territorial forces in the UK that are subject to VAT. None of that is disputed. Also not disputed is the challenging fiscal environment that we are in currently. We have had several years of Tory austerity and we have more ahead of us, and we now know that Scotland is going to be one of the parts of the UK that will suffer most economically as a result of our withdrawal from the EU, so it has been tough and it is about to get tougher. Scotland's face cuts to its budget from Westminster totaling £2.9 billion over 10 years. That means that every year the Scottish Government is given a more and more difficult job to sustain the high quality of public services that people in Scotland deserve. We have been told on the finance committee, which I am a member of, on a number of occasions that Brexit will result in budgetary pressures worsening significantly in Scotland. Our police and our fire and rescue services cannot afford to be needlessly denied 35 million per year, and that funding will be crucial to keeping a high quality of service through the financial difficulties that Brexit will cause in the future. Every economist that we have had in front of us at the finance committee predicts that the economy will shrink because of Brexit. They only disagree on how much it will shrink by. That will undoubtedly put pressure on the public purse. The Scottish Government has repeatedly called on the UK Government to end the glaring disparity in the way that VAT affects emergency services across the UK. Even, if I am to believe the Sunday post, the 13 Tory MPs in the House of Commons have written to the chancellor to seek an end to what is in effect discriminatory treatment of the Scottish emergency services as far as the VAT rules are concerned, but not one Tory MSP in this Parliament has signed the motion. We have heard already that the UK Government could choose to deal with the anomaly, as it did for Highways England, academy schools and various other bodies. They are happy to change the VAT law when it suits them, so it seems that it does not suit the UK Government to change the VAT laws for our emergency services. That same Government that hands out tax cuts to the rich is more than happy to continue taking 35 million every year from essential front-line services in Scotland. Last month, we asked the Scottish Tories in this chamber to put their constituents before their party and call a halt to the roll-out of universal credit. So far, they have failed to do so. I ask them today to stand up for our police and fire service. Will they? The last of the speakers in the open debate is Liam Kerr. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have been called to speak in this debate this afternoon and I am grateful to Ben Macpherson for securing it, because it allows Parliament the opportunity to correct some of the significant misconceptions and misunderstandings that have crept into the issue, which are inherent in the motion, which might be the reason that, the last time I looked, only half of the SNP MSPs have supported it. The rest, presumably, having taken the time to inform themselves as to the veracity or otherwise of some of the claims. It is important at the outset to make clear to Ben Macpherson that Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue are not in fact the only forces in the UK unable to reclaim that. The members' re-searchers seem to have missed that the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police are also in the... He didn't say that in his speech, Stuart Siemenson. John Finnie. John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for Liam Kerr taking a point. One of them, of course, is funded by the Ministry of Defence. The other takes its income from a commercial contract, which is with the real companies. Does that not influence? Liam Kerr. The key point that I am making, John Finnie, is that, when Ben Macpherson sets up his opening speech and says that this is the only force that cannot reclaim the VAT, it is fundamentally on a misconception. They cannot reclaim VAT because, like Police Scotland, they are centrally funded services. I am not going to have time, Ms McPherson, sorry. One might say that those were examples of what would happen when the Police Scotland and the Fire Service were created, and that is the crux of this matter. Organisations that are part-funded locally can reclaim VAT. The idea being that VAT should not be an extra burden... Mr Stevenson, excuse me, Mr Kerr. Mr Stevenson, please stop muttering loudly is how I would turn from your seat. Mr Kerr. That is why Police forces in England and Wales can reclaim the VAT because they are part-funded by council tax. Like Police and Fire Service in Scotland used to be, I just won't have time, Marie Todd, I'm sorry. When everything was centralised, the VAT refund appropriately would cease to apply. This was all explained by the UK Government to Kenny MacAskill in 2012. I have got the letters here, which explain academy schools if you would care to read them, and that will help you to understand what's going on. The then Scottish Government's proposed savings from the single forces creation were predicated on the VAT not being provided for, i.e. they budgeted for it and went ahead anyway. The whole debate isn't about fairness at all. It is about the Scottish Government taking a decision that it now regrets and creating a narrative that, if the UK Government won't change the entire tax system to sort out their mess, it is somehow unfair. Then, in an utterly brass-necked move, they asked for all the money that was paid since 2013 to be given back. Money that they told the people of Scotland was budgeted for, costed and would ultimately produce savings. It is an extraordinary piece of spin designed to distract from SNP failures. The SNP are responsible for ensuring that our services have the resources that they need, but the Police Federation has warned that Police Scotland is becoming a response-only service. Thousands of officers have been taken off the streets. Lack of IT is threatening safety of officers and staff. Papers circulated to senior fire service management say that the current model is not financially sustainable.  Enough of the Westminster grievance. Let's remember the words of the SNP member at this year's conference. She said, I am angry, Mr Matheson. I am a member of the SNP. This is not a Tory Government in Scotland. This is not a Labour Government in Scotland. This is my party in Scotland, and you are letting down your officers. She is right. Sort it out. The minister to close this debate around seven minutes, please. I congratulate Ben Macpherson on securing this debate and welcome the opportunity to respond at this evening. I hope that the time available to be able to deal with various of the points raised. Let me begin by restating that this Government believes that it is completely unacceptable that our police and fire services face a combined annual vac cost of around £35 million per year, which other territorial services in the UK do not have to bear. Since the establishment of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in 2013, the total amount of that that cannot be reclaimed is of the order of £140 million. If the situation continues throughout the lifetime of this Parliament, the total cost to the Scottish public purse will be around £280 million, which, to put the figure in some context, is more than the resource budget of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service for a whole year. Leaving aside the intricacies—Certainly? Murdo Fraser. I thank the minister for giving way. Just for the events of the doubt, will she confirm to the chamber that the Scottish Government was fully aware when it went down the route of creating the single police and fire services that the consequence would be, as it is today, in relation to the ability to reclaim that? Will she just confirm that as the case? Annabelle Ewing. What I can say to the member is that, although we were aware of the arguments put forward by the UK Government, we did not accept those arguments, nor did we accept the principle being put forward, where we already were seeing exceptions to the rules in terms of changing goalposts, like, for example, the BBC. However, I will go on to the intricacies of that legislation in a moment, but this Treasury windfall of £140 million is something that could be invested in our police service and our fire and rescue service and make a huge difference to the ability to respond to the needs of the people of Scotland in terms of their emergency front-line services. We have been in discussion with the UK Government for over five years on this issue, and so far they have rejected, sadly, all requests for an equitable solution. When we consider the creation of the single police authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services Scottish Police Authority in the SFRS, we focus on wider benefits that would be attained in moving from eight regional police and fire bodies to single national organisations. We introduced new, more streamlined bodies to reduce bureaucracy and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these key public services in Scotland so that they could meet the challenges of the 21st century. However, the core functions and purposes of both bodies remain as they were before reform, and funding continues to come from the public purse, as is the case with respect to territorial police and fire services across the rest of the UK. As Mr Fraser has just said, we were aware of the implications of that at the time in terms of our proposed reform proposals. Equally, as I said, it was not a position that we either accepted or agreed with. We have continued to lobby UK ministers seeking a fairness of approach in terms of other changes that they have made before or since, and I will get on to those in a minute. Why is the case a very short intervention? Ben Macpherson, you have spoken about how you have been in correspondence with the UK Government on this matter recently. I wonder if, as the Scottish Conservatives were not able to clarify the point whether, indeed, 13 Conservative Scottish MPs have written to the chancellor on this matter, requesting a change in the rules. Annabelle Ewing. It is not clear to me, because I have not seen the letter that was referred to in the Sunday post, but, obviously, we might be able to find that out in the funerals of time. Certainly, in terms of the statements made by Tory MSPs in this chamber, it is not looking very encouraging in terms of those MSPs doing the right thing by their constituents and supporting key front-line services in their constituencies. Turning to the VAT legislation itself, other police and territorial police forces are able to reclaim VAT through section 33 of the 1994 act. Since 2013, the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service moved to being wholly funded by the Scottish Government rather than being funded in part from local authorities. Notwithstanding that funding process does not precisely meet the highly constraining criteria that is set out for section 33 status, which has not proved to be an impediment for other bodies currently contained within section 33, such as the BBC. Indeed, the BBC does not meet the criteria set forth, including having the power of precept over local taxation, but notwithstanding that, it has been given the ability to reclaim VAT, and that, since before the creation of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in 2013. We know also that the UK Government has the power to make changes to VAT rules by way of the finance act to suit its policy objectives, and we know that it has exercised that power. For example, changes were made to section 33 of the VAT act in 2011 following the introduction of academy schools in England and Wales, and we also welcome the more recent change in 2015 to allow VAT to be reclaimed by search and rescue charities. We note also, Presiding Officer, that the UK Government also made changes to section 41 of the VAT act to allow Highways England to reclaim VAT, and that, as from 1 April 2015, even though it was acknowledged that the existing legislation at the time would not permit the recovery of VAT by Highways England, so what do the UK Government do? It simply changed the rules to suit its policy objectives. It is clear that the UK Government has both the ability and the political will where it suits it to change VAT legislation. As we have seen, the BBC was already allowed to reclaim VAT before the establishment of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and since 2013, the UK Government has changed the rules to allow Highways England to reclaim VAT. So why does the UK Government refuse to change the rules for Scottish frontline emergency services? We have heard about the costs that this involves for our frontline emergency services. Every piece of equipment costs 20 per cent more for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland than it does for any other territorial police or fire service. It might be of interest to members to note that, in terms of the on-going project to introduce a new emergency services mobile communications system, a vital project that will ensure that police and fire services across the UK and other emergency services can have a modern communications system, which allows them all to work together effectively. It is only Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that will be subject to VAT, which cannot be reclaimed. That will involve an additional £50 million over the life of the contract. That cannot be right in conclusion. I urge the Conservatives to use their influence with their chancellor to stand up for their constituents, to stand up for police men and women and fire men and women in their constituencies and to ensure that, finally, we can bring this anomaly to an end. It is not fair and equitable. It does not make sense in terms of the goalpost having been changed in regard to other bodies. I thank members from the Labour Party, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats for supporting the call to end the VAT grab. I call once again on the UK Government to do the right thing by Scotland's front-line emergency services. That concludes the debate. The meeting is closed.