Welcome back. It's a new day and new week and new month. Yes, new day, new week, new month. Thrilled to have in the hot seat with us today our very own Julia Patrick, CEO of the American Nonprofit Academy. She is bringing to us a topic that we haven't talked much about yet. It's a critical mission moment for us to have this conversation. So she's going to share with us letting the community know what you do. And she's bringing some of her own personal insight as she's had some experience with this lately. So Julia, I'm glad to have you in the hot seat for today's conversation. We do this not very often, but we'll turn the tables on one another to get each other's expertise on a certain subject. So today we have you. And for those of you that are joining us, maybe this is your first time, welcome. Maybe this is a repeat, welcome back. Julia Patrick, of course is here, CEO of the American Nonprofit Academy. She has to be here because she's sharing the topic today. I'm Jared Ransom, you're a non-profit nerd and CEO of the Raven Group, honored to serve alongside day in and day out with the amazing support from our presenting sponsors that allow us these great opportunities. So a huge shout out goes over to our friends at Bloomerang American Nonprofit Academy, fundraising Academy at National University, non-profit thought leader, your part-time controller, staffing boutique, non-profit nerd as well as non-profit tech talk. These companies have truly been with us, most of them from the very beginning. All of the episodes that we've ever done, thanks to our presenting sponsors, you can find them on these three different platforms, podcasts, broadcasts, latest and greatest, you can still download that app and you'll get a notification in just a couple of hours that today's episode has been uploaded and is available for you to watch or to listen or however you like to consume your entertainment. But without further ado, again, when we put one or the other of us in the hot seat, it's a really, I'm gonna say, vibrant conversation and today we have Julia Patrick in this hot seat for us today and she's here to talk to us about really letting the community know who we are and what we do and from the standpoint of the non-profit. So Julia, before we get started, why now? Why are we bringing this conversation to the forefront now? You know, it's fascinating because I think you and I talk about this a lot more often than not, we talk about it off camera, but recently over a trajectory of several months, I've been involved in the disbursement of a very, very prestigious funding opportunity, roughly about a million dollars. And I sat with these other very august seasoned professionals from the nonprofit sector and discussed, you know, all these different things, there were interviews, there was research, blah, blah, blah, blah. I could not believe, yeah, I could believe, how much of these people involved in this major decision, a million dollars basically, when all of a sudden done, didn't really know what these nonprofits were doing.  They did not know what the service areas were. I mean, they had an IT formed. No, I mean, they were like, oh my God, they do the work of the angels, they're a great group, you know, they've got great leaders, whatever, but they didn't really know if they ran an after-school program, a before-school program, you know, a medical clinic, book fair, I mean, whatever it was, or if it was all those things, right? People were not, they were undereducated, underexposed about what these nonprofits actually were doing in our community. It was riveting. Our local community. Well, one thing that we share, and of course this isn't new, there's 1.8 million registered nonprofits in the US in our community, Julia, I believe there's about 33,000. So as you can imagine, right, the competition is still large, as well as missions can change, they do change, programs and projects change, can change. So even though we might know an organization for its origin story, we might not have our finger on the pulse from that community standpoint of all of the evolutions that perhaps they've gone through. And I'm sure that's what you experienced. It's exactly what I experienced. And you know, at first I was like, okay, this is just this particular organization. And then I'm like, okay, I'm a woman of a certain age, my family's been here now for generations, I know where the bodies are buried. So then I was like, okay, this is my own lens because I have all this historical knowledge pinging around in my brain. And so, because I was trying to really like say, oh no, this can't be the case. Everybody knows what XYZ nonprofit does, but they didn't. And over this period of two plus months, it really was cemented into my brain about how and why we're missing the boat. So I was just like, Jared, I gotta come on, please schedule me. So let me ask this question. And I don't mean to be, I don't mean to push blame, but I have to ask who's fault is it? Is it the organization's fault or is the community member's fault? It's such a good question. And I think it's 100% the nonprofit. Okay. Because I was with people that live and breathe the nonprofit sector. You know, they wanna be educated, they wanna know. They wanna collaborate. They wanna make introductions. They wanna be connectors. And this difference was so shocking to me, Jared. So shocking. I mean, I can't even remember the reason. Okay, so talk to us about how we can find out, moving into that brand audit, how we can find out what the community does think that we as the nonprofit does. And I can imagine this is a little bit of a survey or maybe, I'm not sure how exactly to do this, but what are you suggesting when it comes to the brand audit so that we really can gather what the community's description of the nonprofit currently is? Exactly. So first and foremost, you hear about brand auditing from the donor perspective. And I'm not saying, I'm saying these are two different things. The donor and the community is different. So what do elected officials think? What do the presidents of the college and university systems think? What do clergy, all different types of faiths think? What does the educational system, when we talk about everything from preschool through high school, what do CEOs think? What do bankers think? I mean, there's a whole ecosystem out there of people that, yeah, they could be donors. Yeah, they might be donors. They might be collaborators. But what is it that people think you do? And I would include your vendors. I would include your corporate neighbors, like the people that have businesses around you. I mean, there's so many points of view, right? And yeah, this should be a very, very simple, online survey that you send out that says, could you just help me? We're just trying to figure out how you see us in the work we do. So, Julia, would you suggest that we cast the net far and wide? It's an online request, call for support, please help us really gather your thought on this, because the other thought I have is if we could directly and send an email to a local mayor, a city mayor or council members, clergy, whatnot, they get inundated. They get inundated with so much material, and we talk about this often. There's so much noise in our world. So how do we really go about getting a good database of information? Database probably isn't the right word, but how do we really pulling this information when there's so much other stuff out there for people to be doing? So it really, it is something that is a database. And we've talked about this. I call it the leadership list. It should be a very, very simple list so it doesn't become overwhelming. And literally, it has the stakeholders, it can have a name and an email, opinion makers, community leaders, partners, vendors, as we talked about. And this should be something that you hold as an asset for marketing and for communication. So for example, if your community had some horrible disaster before them and you had to respond in six hours along with major, major operational aspects like from the Red Cross to emergency services and you had to reach out to your community and say, oh my gosh, as you know, this just happened. We need help. These are the types of people that you would get to. Along with your donors undoubtedly, but these are the decision makers that are going to be front and center for something, right? I'm saying every nonprofit should have this. This is a key, key thing. From we're going before the city council and we need your support on this vote to show up to this event or this march, you know, whatever it is, this leadership list should be at the forefront of any organization. And sadly, Jarrett, it is not. Who creates this list and who holds this list? Really good question. You know, I've talked about this all the time no one has ever asked me that question. I think it's the C-suite. I think it's, you know, it needs to follow your donor database, you know, your CRM, you know, position, whatever you're using, but it should be a separate tag for somebody, somebody that might be a donor but that's also on the leadership list. But this is not for donor relations. This is for community relations. And I think it starts with your board. I think that you can go to your board and say, who needs to be on this list? We have this list.  I mean, this is a changing ecosystem far more quickly than your donor database. You know, there's been so many unfortunate situations even here in our local community where I see on social media an office has been broken in, the files have been, you know, just torn across the entire office. Equipment has been taken, stolen, things like that. So that's not quite like help us advocate for this change in law. So when do we pull this list out? Exactly, because I can only imagine even a very unfortunate situation such as burglary, theft, you know, damage, is that something that we want to use this opportunity as a touch point? You know, yeah, undoubtedly, but I think it's a little bit more cerebral and higher level. So for example, it should be the announcement every time you add a new board position or you elevate somebody in your board to, you know, one of the key four or five, yeah, positions. It should be, we're going to be celebrating, you know, this milestone. It should be things of like we've won this award, I believe, and this is somewhat controversial. It should be that we are participating in this major grant, like we've won it. We've been recognized, listened to us, you know, on your local NPR station, whatever. It should be thought of as a marketing piece, but it's also telling your story. And again, if you think about our conversation we started 15 minutes ago, you know, my frame of reference was that people didn't really know what some of the most amazing nonprofits in our community were actually doing. And so I think this is that piece where you can say, you know, this was a busy weekend for you, guess what? We fed 800 families, something like that, right? Pulling back. It's interesting you say that. We have a very large organization here in our community that has really been known as the soup kitchen, right? Like coined as this is the organization, the entity, if there's individuals that are experiencing, you know, hunger, they can get fed here at this organization. But I also know they do so much more than that, including scholarships for education. That is night and day from hunger education. How to go about keeping these community members, Julia, abreast, is it simply that leadership list or are there other strategies where we can market to our community? Well, I think this is the most direct, right? I think this is the most direct and the thing that you as an organization can control, right? And let's face it, it might start out to be 50 people and move up to 500. Who knows? It really depends on what it is that you're doing and how much you're gonna invest in this.  But you can't control that, right? And so what I'm saying is you can control this, right? You can brand it. You can put it in a message format. You can put it into a position where you're telling a snippet of information. It's not a one and done. You gotta be disciplined. You gotta be putting it on your schedule. You gotta know when you identify something positive that's happened or negative. It's something that's profound that most people might not know that you broadcast this out.  You're always trying to let people know that, you know, you are not just a quote unquote soup kitchen, but that you do have a robust scholarship program. I mean, it's, as you said, it's telling that story. Yeah. Yeah, and telling that story is important. And, you know, even as we mentioned earlier, missions change, programs, projects change. They get added, they expand, they get dropped, right? Like there's a lot of moving pieces. You know, I remember early in my career, I was doing a Gala for an organization that has, you know, been around for 40 years. And I still remember talking to very high up community leaders and them saying, I've never heard of this organization, right? And so many times I hear the words, we are the community's best kept secrets, right? And it's like, but you don't wanna be. No one wants to be a secret when it comes to delivering a mission that can potentially provide a solution to a community problem. So I love that you're bringing this to the forefront because it's really something that is important for all of us. And I can only imagine it's a constant turn, right? Like we need to stay in touch with these individuals. Julia, do you recommend these individuals also get invited to special events and tours and even board meetings? What are you, what are you? I mean, I think it's a two-way street too.  How can we learn about you? And how can you learn about us? I mean, I think it has to go that way. You know, most municipalities and state governments and even regional quasi-governmental organizations will have sector leaders. So they will have somebody that's, you know, they focus on crime or education or domestic violence or, you know, health and safety, whatever. So it's not just the mayor or the governor, right? It can be these subject experts. They need to know about you, right? And so that's kind of, I think how we can build more of a sense of community.  We need to talk to them about a collaboration because you, Jared and I, we have been talking about this. The amount of funding that is tied to collaboration has just exploded. The number of grants that require, require organizations to come to the table with other nonprofits is escalating. It creates a lot of stress and heartburn for folks. But guess what? If the community doesn't know what you're doing, right? It's another problem. It's another hill to climb, right? Julie, I wanna ask about the board members. How do they play a role in this? And do you recommend, because one of my strategies that I've used over my career is to nominate board members, excuse me, as well as executive leaders of the staff for community awards, right? Whether it's a business journal magazine, whether it's the local United Way, you know, there's so many events that they, they, these events want to recognize community leaders. Should we use that strategy as part of marketing and telling our story to the community? Absolutely. It's so funny you would bring this up in the last two weeks. I had a major, as we say in my family, Van Gogh, Jesus moment, come to Jesus moment, where I offered to nominate a leader who I think is, you know, one of the finest leaders I've ever been around. And this leader said, no, I don't wanna call attention to myself. And I said, you know what? It's not about you, dude. It's about the entire organization. And this is a platform that would allow your organization to be in a spotlight. And because donors are investors and they want to hitch their wagon to a bright star, you know, if they know an organization is well led or doing something innovative, money follows that. Connectivity follows that. So I agree with you.  Yeah. And I think it's a great, a great opportunity. I've had that pickup, if you will, Julia. I've been executive coaching where, you know, the individuals that I'm coaching, whether it's a CEO or the development director will say, I don't wanna be in the spotlight and having to really educate. It's not about you, it's your position within the community and really highlighting the community story, the mission story within this circle. And that's, you know, using you essentially as the vehicle, but it's all about the organization. Exactly. Oh my gosh, it's so much is. And you know, I get that it can be uncomfortable, but I think that when you flip the lens and you say, this is not about me, but this is about my organization and our work, I think that can make it a lot more palatable. And I think that we do need to look at that. I really do. I think that's an important, important thing. And also my experience with, you know, how I led into this discussion, Jared, it's not always the winners who are the winners. And so let me explain. Yeah, tell me. For all of these things, there's a committee, there's nominating, there are forms, there are reviews. And those tentacles go far and wide, right? So maybe the quote unquote winner is the one that's recognized officially, but there's a lot of other work and there's a lot of other marketing and knowledge that has gone on behind the scenes and has impact. Well, look at how involved you are. And so if you are one of how many individuals on that review committee, perhaps seven, eight, I'm not sure how many, maybe smaller, but really looking at that from an aspect of you just took and will take the information that you learned from serving on that, you know, opportunity into the tentacles, as you mentioned, into these other areas. Before it's time for us to bid adieu, I want you to talk about this, I think you call it a fact sheet. And so really culminating some highlights, I presume, from the organization, maybe even the origin story, one sheet, fast facts. And it says here, 10 key elements of impact. What is this exactly? So this is something we've talked about before. You can use it in media, you can use it in cultivation of donors, your team should know these facts. So for example, let's say you work in an afterschool program for youth, you can say we serve this many kids, we feed this many families, and we give this many hours of homework, tutoring or whatever, picking metric points, data-specific that you can communicate about what it is you're doing, right? And the impact. If you write a narrative and you make it really cumbersome to retain and process, that's only gonna go so far. But let's say you were trying to talk to a donor or make an appointment, you could say, well, here's a fact sheet, this is what we do. Rather than giving them the whole annual report, this is great for media. Hey, reporter, here's some background information if you want. Hey, potential board member, you should join us or think about us because hey, this is what we do and you give them this fact sheet. It should be digital, it should be posted to your website so it is transferable and it can go through email and go to some other place that maybe you couldn't get to and then it should be printed so that you can physically hand it to somebody. And maybe you're handing it to a mayor's aide or a governor's aide. Maybe you're handing it to a CEO's assistant or chief of staff. You don't know what the trajectory of this information is but I can guarantee you that it holds your data or your information points a little bit truer because somebody can easily say, oh, well, I think they feed 5,000 people a day. No, they feed 500 people a day or no, just the opposite. I think they feed 500 people a day. No, they feed 5,000. Do you see what I'm saying? So you control the narrative.  And it's the post-season. You know, I love baseball. I don't know anything about baseball but okay, sister, best game ever. Total curve ball question. We talk a lot in email, right? Emails are exchanged just always. How did we use our signature block or can we, should we use our signature block to link to this fast fact key sheet? Because I'm just wondering if we should include that as an opportunity. We always have our name or phone number or email. Should we also include, you know, learn more about your skin key fast facts? You know, I never thought about that, but I love it. When we're building our signature blocks, we do have parameters for size. And a lot of times if you exceed that size, you automatically get bumped to junk mail or whatever. So you have to be careful about that. But I love that idea. I mean, if one in 50 people opened it, it's somebody that you hadn't gotten to. And I think that is crazy genius. I wish I had thought of that myself. I'm so sorry.  No, I was just curious because I love it. A lot of those signature blocks, they will get changed throughout the seasons of organizations, whether it's, you know, tax time, end of year push, whether it's a special event coming up, but really using that, you know, space, if you will, to leverage some additional information that maybe the staff, the organization really wants to highlight during that time. So I don't know, maybe worth a try, as you said. If one in 50 click on it, that might be a win. Hey, that's a total win. Thank you so much for having me on. It's been great. Like I said, my wedding anniversary, my poor husband had to hear all about this during our supposedly romantic dinner. But I was like so jazzed and so excited to talk to you this morning about it. Because I really think it's a profound discussion. It's important. It's something we need. And I love that we have a lot of guest viewers joining us today to really learn more about this. So Julia Patrick, CEO of the American Nonprofit Academy, thank you so very much. Again, you know, for those of you watching and listening every so often, not often, we do turn the tables on one another. So Julia Patrick took the hot seat today because she really had this burning desire to bring this to you. And I'm so glad to serve alongside day in and day out as your co-host. We are also just so full of gratitude to our presenting sponsors that allow us these opportunities to have conversations unscripted. Because again, we really don't have an editorial calendar that is designed through our sponsors. We're so grateful to have the trust in them. So thank you to our friends that trust us implicitly, Bloomerang American Nonprofit Academy, fundraising academy at National University, nonprofit thought leader, your part-time controller, staffing boutique, nonprofit nerd, as well as nonprofit tech talk. We are coming up this month on 900 episodes. And again, thank you to all of you that helped this journey continue, including our sponsors, but all of you watching and listening truly. You can find all of our archived episodes, including this one on numerous platforms. So pretty much any kind of smart technology, you can just say the nonprofit show. We're still working on that. Maybe that's why Julia took the driverless car this weekend where she wanted to find out how we could just get that entire space where every driverless car is broadcasting the nonprofit show. Wow, okay, that is on my bucket list. We're working towards that, sister.  You're gonna have to do this this more often. I think so. Well, the love of my life got that one put together. So thank you, Jeff Jennings. That was awesome. Hey everybody, we like to end every episode with this mantra.  It's really bizarre. And we started saying this, you know, because of COVID and then it's just changed over time. But as we march towards that 900 episode, I see it differently yet again, and it goes like this. Stay well so you can do well. Hey everybody, thanks so much. Thank you, my friend.


The fourth meeting of the justice sub-committee on policing in 2016, agenda item one, the decision on taking business in private. Are the committee content to take items three and four in private? These are items on consideration of today's evidence and consideration of our future work programme. Are we agreed to take them in private? Agreed. I have to make a declaration of interest, as that is a police pension that is being mentioned in the papers. Thank you for that, John. Agenda item 2 is a financial planning evidence session. I welcome the cabinet secretary for justice to the committee. He is accompanied today by Don McGillvery, a deputy director of the police division at the Scottish Government. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement? Thank you, convener. I'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss policing in Scotland with the sub-committee this afternoon. I'm sure there will be a number of issues and challenges that members want to discuss, but I want to start by saying that I believe that we have a great deal to be proud of in relation to policing in Scotland. Police officers and staff throughout Scotland do great work in our communities every day, and many parts of our police service are world class. I see my job as cabinet secretary for justice to ensure that officers and staff who show great commitment to keeping our communities safe are effectively supported to do so. The Government is responsible for the policy and legislative framework for policing and also for providing the broad financial envelope within which policing operates. The SPA and the chief constable are responsible for the planning and delivery of policing services. We have updated a key part of the policy framework for policing in the past few months with the publication of refreshed strategic police priorities in October. The development of the new priorities were based on extensive engagement with local police scrutiny committees, other public services and third sector partners, as well as members of the public. The priorities mirror the expectations and aspirations that we have set out for many other public services, namely the need to adapt to the changing nature of our society and to be accountable for the actions that we take. We need to work closely with partners and to ensure that, where a response is required from the police, that response is an effective one. Equally, as important, we need to work to prevent the need for such a response wherever possible by addressing potential issues before they escalate in line with the Christie principles. Most importantly, the priorities stress the need to place community at the heart of policing. Those aspirations are reflected in the seven priorities that we have set out—localism, inclusion, prevention, response, collaborative working, accountability and adaptability. Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority are now translating those into a strategic change and development programme through the policing 2026 project. That will provide the service with our long-term vision and strategy for the delivery of transformational change in the coming decade, with a particular focus on what needs to be done over the next few years to move in the right direction. I am clear that such change is necessary and it must start now because of the changing nature of communities and demands on the police. The strategy is due to be shared for consultation early in the new year. Of course, in planning how to move forward, we must reflect on the solid progress that has been made. We have delivered a level of specialist policing capability across the country that previously would not have been possible. We now have significantly more local elected members involved in police scrutiny than pre-reform. We are making good progress towards delivery of the police reform savings target of £1.1 billion by 2526. Members will be aware that police finance has been a subject of significant attention recently. Within the funds that are available to the Scottish Government, we have offered real-terms protection to the police revenue budget to the end of this Parliament. That commitment compares well with other public services. We also know that the SPA is currently forecasting an overall budget overspend for the current year of around £17.5 million, although the settlement linked to the I6 IT project is likely to reduce that to some extent. What the SPA and Police Scotland aspire to do through policing 2026 is to ensure that the service is fit for the future, improving the quality of the service to the public and to do so in a way that is sustainable and in keeping with the budget. The changes that are required are significant and will not be achieved overnight. Members will be aware of the public comments by the chief constable that he sees this taking two to three years to fully realise. Of course, actions by the United Kingdom Treasury to bring Police Scotland's VAT status into line with other police services in the UK would be a substantial help. The chief constable set out in June this year that, since its creation, Police Scotland has paid over £76.5 million in VAT. I look forward to working with the sub-committee as we seek to deliver our ambition for policing over the course of this parliamentary session. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, for those opening remarks. The committee has a number of questions for the cabinet secretary. I am going to open up the questions by inviting Stuart to ask the first question. Thank you very much, convener. In the cabinet secretary's opening remarks, I heard great work in our communities. I heard communities at the heart of policing. I heard reference to more elected members being involved in scrutiny. I also referenced the local scrutiny committees. It is around those themes that my questioning is anchored. Perhaps first in my area, I certainly personally, and I think that the majority, if not all, of local councillors are seeing more effective collaboration, communication and working. However, is that representative of what is happening across Scotland? Are there things still to do that will make relationships between local communities and police even better? I have been very clear about the need to make sure that we embed policing within local communities, because the success of policing is when it has the consent of the public. Communities play an important part in helping to reduce and prevent crime from occurring in the first place. It would be fair to say that, in the first couple of years of policing reform, the local scrutiny structure was not being as effective as it could be. That is why we carried out a detailed amount of work in looking at how we could improve the way in which the scrutiny committees were operating. That involved taking forward joint work with COSLA in order to look at how we could support them more effectively and ensuring that they also have an opportunity to feed directly into the SPA and into Police Scotland's senior officer structure as and when it is appropriate. Some of that work is still on-going. For example, COSLA are still looking at some aspects around how they could improve the way in which the scrutiny committees are operating, but the general feeling is that they are operating more effectively now. They have given clear direction around the role that they have in order to look at local policing plans in the way in which they can hold local commanders to account and how they are delivered, because we have a local policing plan for all 32 of our local authorities, and that is then broken down into individual ward plans at each local authority level. We have also been doing work within Police Scotland to look at how issues can be escalated by local scrutiny committees to senior officers within Police Scotland. That is a piece of work that is still being taken forward at the present moment to allow them the opportunity to say, for example, if they are unhappy about the response that they receive from a local commander or they do not feel that sufficient progress or attention has been given to a particular area that they are concerned about, there is a mechanism for them to escalate that process if they feel that there is a need for additional national resources to help to support some targets or objectives that they have at a local policing level for that to be escalated as well. So there is a considerable amount of work that has been taken forward over the last year to make sure that we embed localism much more effectively in how policing has been delivered at a local level. There have also been some operational changes within Police Scotland. For example, local commanders have been given greater scope in order to operate in a way in which they believe reflects local circumstances more effectively rather than being set all at a national level. There is greater flexibility in the way in which local commanders can respond to some of those issues. In the work that we carried out in developing the strategic policing priorities, a key part of that was engaging with local community groups and organisations such as COSLA. Having previously in the past been challenged by COSLA around how some aspects of local policing were being delivered and the way in which the priorities were being set, when we launched the new strategic policing priorities we launched them in partnership with COSLA who were very supportive of the refreshed approach that we were taking to policing. I see the convener looking anxiously at our watch, so I am going to try and be concise and I am sure that you will help us as a committee on that. You talked about greater scope for autonomy in local commanders and you talked about the scrutiny committees and their role in reviewing local policing plans. Does it work the other way around as well in that is there an opportunity for the scrutiny committees to propose changes? Clearly, the local commanders are at the centre of the needs of communities but also the national strategies. I just want to test whether the communication works in both directions. Liam has a brief supplementary on that, so I am going to bring it in. It may well be that the cabinet secretary can address it. Yes, that is exactly what some of the work that we have been doing over the last year about trying to achieve is to make sure that there is an opportunity at a local level. For example, a local commander on taking forward the proposed local policing plan will look at what the national priorities are within policing and then look at how they can be affected at a local level within their command. At the same time, we are also looking at some of the issues that they want to address at a local level that may not be reflected in those national areas. To then blend that together into a local policing plan it reflects those different priorities to try to make sure that policing is delivered as effectively and efficiently at a local level. What that allows is that it allows the local scrutiny committees to be able to consider that before it is a finalised plan, to be able to reflect on it, to feed into that process, to say to local commanders that we do not think that you have got the balance right, we think that there are areas where we would like to see greater priority being given to, and for that engagement with local commanders then to take the shape of how that can be addressed in the finalising of a local police plan. There is a considerable amount of opportunity for that. One of the other things that has been taken forward are some of the regional meetings with the SPA, Police Scotland and local scrutiny committees to try to look at where there are some shared issues with local scrutiny committees to bring them together in a regional setting to explore some of those issues and to look at how they can take some of those matters forward. Is it perfect yet? I would say no, it is not. It is certainly moving in the right direction and it has been strengthened and it is seen as being a key priority for the work that we are doing with COSLA. COSLA is a priority for them as well and also so do Police Scotland and the SPAC has been an important priority. Finally for me, depending on Liam, your previous answer used consent to the public and I think that touches the point of trust between public and the police and I think that we would recognise that was somewhat eroded by the deployment of armed police particularly in the Highlands. Are you satisfied that the SPA is providing effective governance over that issue so that there is not any opportunity for police public confidence to be eroded in any material way from that and other similar sources? With a greater understanding of the sensitivities around those issues, some members of the committee will be aware that there has been an uplift in armed police officers in Police Scotland in recent months. The handling and the approach around that was entirely different from how it had been handled previously. I am determined to make sure that, when those types of significant policy decisions are being made, the policy implication and the operational implication of them is properly understood and recognised. I would be keen to give the committee an assurance that we try to make sure that that is an approach that governs how any of those types of decisions are taken forward in the future to make sure that there is effective scrutiny, which the SPA does, alongside making sure that there is appropriate engagement at a national level on how any of those policy changes may play out at a local level. Liam Kerr, do you still want to come in? Just following up on that very point, I think that Stuart Fairlie identified one of the issues that I think has been a source of attention, the issue around stop and search. I think that would be another obvious example there. I suppose up until now that the challenge function has been provided by the predecessor committee of this and the Parliament, but there has been undoubtedly concerns within Police Scotland itself, not just from local communities, but from police officers at what they saw as a stratclad model rolled out across the board. What assurances can you give that the concerns that exist within Police Scotland decisions, not just on those two issues, because I think that a marker has now been set on those two issues, but similar types of issues in the future will be dealt with in a way that fully takes cognisance of the way in which policing operates in different parts of the country so that forces themselves are not in this situation, whereas they feel as if a single model, whether it is a stratclad model or whatever, has been rolled out in an almost unthinking fashion in communities where it is wholly inappropriate. I am conscious that there is a danger with strength to operational issues here, which is a matter for the chief constable. For example, I think that there will always be elements within policing that will require a national approach to it, but the challenge will be whether you can make sure that that approach at a local level is sufficiently nuanced to reflect local circumstances. How that can be, for example in rural areas, how it can be nuanced to reflect those local circumstances. Part of the work that the SPA now does in scrutinising those issues is considering whether those issues have been considered and looked at in the course of any policy change or new approach that is being proposed by Police Scotland in operational matters. It also goes back to the approach that the chief constable now takes in giving local commanders greater opportunity to reflect how they believe policing should be delivered within their local command areas in a way that is not set centrally that local commanders then have to follow. They have been given greater scope to be able to reflect local circumstances. That is an operational issue for the chief constable to determine, but there is a clear oversight given by the SPA in making sure that those types of issues are being considered where there are significant policy matters being considered. That is what you have described fairly in terms of the latitude given to local commanders, but in a sense it is by permission whereas before you would have chief constables in each of the legacy areas that would be a balance of equals in terms of their position within the police force generally. Now in a sense it is chief constable giving permission to local commanders. If local commanders do not agree with the position taken by the chief constable, how is that resolved? Is the SPA the clearing mechanism for allowing concerns that are raised by local commanders about what has been achieved? You cannot get into a situation where you have a chief constable that there is some right of appeal for a local commander to go behind their bank if they are not happy about the decision. Let me give you the example around armed officers and the deployment model that was used in the early stages of Police Scotland. The reality was that there were three of the former legacy forces that were operating that model. Two of them had already extensively rolled it out and they had taken it forward in using armed fire officers to respond to a norm one going individual instances. What was then happening was that that had already been happening. It was then deployed at a national level. In some of the areas that practice was already being taken forward, but it was not a national approach. It was on the basis of the approach that those individual legacy forces had chosen to take forward. What we are trying to achieve is to achieve a form of consistent flexibility. You want a level of consistency in how the service operates across the country, but there is a level of flexibility in that to reflect local circumstances and local needs. I do not expect the need for armed fire officers in the streets of Orkney to be similar to that within the central belt of Scotland. Therefore, it is for the chief constable on the SPA to find a way in which they can have a deployment model that reflects that level of risk and that level of potential demand, but at the same time making sure that there is a level of consistency in how the service operates overall. I have no doubt that if something happens in an area where there has been a different approach, people will say, why has there been a different approach in those areas? It is trying to get that balance. That is a matter and an operational issue for the chief constable to try to balance out on how he feels that can best be achieved across the country. I understand the position that is often repeated by politicians about the three forces. I have to say that there is no intention to question that. I know that that is the position that is represented by Police Scotland. It is certainly not my understanding of the position regarding Northern. I move on to another issue, which is the scrutiny. I agree with you that there has been tremendous improvement, not least in local policing and the nature of engagement with Police Scotland. You gave the example of the increased number of armed officers where part of the leaders were taken together to explain to them with justice spokesperson the rationale for that, and consensus was built around that decision. One of the frailties of the previous model was that there was no one on local police boards who was qualified to a certain level of vetting to scrutinise the chief constable. That has been replaced by that vetting being done, suitably vetted people doing that scrutiny centrally. What is the relationship between that and local policing? Particularly with regard to controversial areas such as surveillance, and there must be some cross-communication about counter-terrorism as well would be another area. You are referring to the external scrutiny of the actions of Police Scotland and Chief Constable on those matters? Former police boards, police committees could scrutinise the chief constable and everything, but they could not scrutinise them on issues of counter-terrorism for instance, because you would need to have been cleared to a certain level of vetting prior to being able to do that. I understand that that has been replaced centrally. There is a level of that that is taken forward by the SPA, but there is also a national level. We have the contest board, which brings together a whole range of partners who are involved in the environment environment to look at our approach and to ensure that we have the appropriate state of preparedness in those issues. That meets on a regular basis. It is chaired by the director general for learning and justice, Paul Johnstone. That brings in the police and other stakeholders as well who all have a part to play. There is external scrutiny of the way in which Police Scotland takes forward some of those areas of policy. Of course, we also engage with partners in other parts of the UK in looking at the approach that they take and the approach that we are taking here in Scotland. There is a level of external scrutiny and consideration of how the police are dealing with those matters. When it comes to issues such as surveillance and interception, there are robust external scrutiny processes, such as the Interception Commissioner or the Surveillance Commissioner, in each of those areas that are responsible for independently looking at the way in which Police Scotland operates in those areas and reporting on those matters. Mr Finnie will be well aware of the reporting to issues relating to interception with the counter-corruption unit in the last year or so, which came about as a result of an inspection that was deployed. That regime is going to change with the new investigatory powers built at Westminster with a single commissioner who is responsible for that. That role continues to have external oversight around how that happens as well. There will continue to be robust external oversight on how Police Scotland operates in those types of covert areas. That is very reassuring. It would seem passing strange to others if I did not mention the Pitchford inquiry. We have been engaged in correspondence about that. That addresses the present situation and is moving forward. There still remain concerns about the past. Could you not do the equivalent of a Pitchford to address those concerns, which are genuinely held by people from a wide range of backgrounds—environmentalists, trade unionists who have been wronged by the police service? I understand the concerns that members have raised. I have repeatedly asked for individuals where they have evidence where they believe that there has been wrongdoing to present that evidence to me. I would always consider that information. The member will be aware that I have directed HMICS to undertake a review of police surveillance tactics and approach that has been conducted since the Scottish Parliament was responsible for the policy areas. The terms of reference are still being finalised. That will be led by HMICS and the chief inspector, Derek Penman, who will consider those matters. Once we have that piece of work, we will then consider whether there are any further measures that need to be taken. The issue that I am of the view that the most effective way for those issues to have been considered would have been for the Pitchford inquiry to be able to consider issues here in Scotland because they relate to a national unit that was based in the metropolitan police. Those were not officers within our jurisdiction. They were in the jurisdiction of the Home Office and the Home Secretary at that given time. Some of their operations led to them coming into Scotland. You will be aware that the non-Irish justice minister is of the same view that those would be better considered within it. I know that the legal adviser to the Pitchford inquiry has given some clarification about how they will consider these matters should arise during the course of the inquiry. However, I do believe that the most appropriate way would be for it to have been part of the Pitchford inquiry, and we will consider whether there are any further measures that are necessary once we have received HMICS's report. You have talked about the importance of community cohesion. I wonder if you are concerned about the lack of black and minority ethnic police officers in Scotland and if any steps are being taken to encourage more people from those communities to consider policing as a career? The important thing is that Police Scotland recognises that the service needs to be reflective of the communities that it serves, and that means making sure that it has greater diversity within the force. Since last year, it has been taking forward a number of measures to try and help to increase diversity within the force. It has made some policy announcements and created the positive action team, which is a team that goes out to particular types of events to try and encourage people from minority ethnic groups to consider a career within the police service, whether it be as an officer or as a staff side. It has carried out that work since August last year, and it has attended a whole range of events in order to promote a career within Police Scotland for those from a minority ethnic group. There is also work being taken forward in telling the organisation to change some of its criteria, so it announced that there would be officers or individuals who would require to wear a hijab if they were to join the force, so that that would now be part of their standard uniform to be able to do so. They removed the requirement for a driving licence because it was also seen as a potential barrier to those who could join the service from minority ethnic groups. They have also developed a budding system within the service to try and help to support those who join the service from a minority ethnic group to help to support them as they move forward within the service. There is a range of work, but the chief constable has stated previously in a public forum that he recognises and needs to make sure that the services are reflective of the communities that it serves. It is not where it needs to be at at the present moment in doing that, and there is certainly a lot more work to be done to achieve that. I encourage them to make sure that they do what is possible to do so, but they have certainly started a range of work to try and help to address some of those issues. Can I move on now to staffing levels? I am just wondering if you think that the current staffing complement is fit for purpose and is the police force well enough equipped to deal with evolving crime trends. What impact do you think that the VAT bill that you mentioned earlier has on that staffing level, the considerable amount of money, and I believe that it has now been extended to the emergency services mobile communications programme, in which Police Scotland will now have to pay that on? I am wondering how that has a bearing on the staffing levels. I will deal with them in two separate areas, although they are interlinked. In terms of staffing, you will be aware that Police Scotland has amalgamated 10 organisations, eight legacy forces, and there has been a significant level of staffing changing that has been taking place in the service. Although there has been a transition over the past couple of years, what there has been is the effective transformation in the service and the balance between civilians and officers to get the right type of mix of staffing. As the chief council has also stated in the past, some of the new and emerging threats that we face, for example, around cybercrime, is about making sure that the service has the right type of expertise within its staffing complement to deal with those issues effectively. A lot of that work and thinking around how to achieve the right mix is a key part of the policing 2026 strategy. Looking at what are the potential demands that the service could face in the next 10 years, as best as you can predict in the next 10 years, what the demand is likely to be on the service. Given the increasing levels of vulnerability that the service is having to meet, looking at the ageing population, which we have as well, the way in which people now contact the police service has changed significantly, about making sure that the service has a clear strategy and direction for the next 10 years and how it should go about meeting some of those challenges. That includes looking very much at the mix of staff and officers within the organisation to be able to meet those challenges. There is no doubt that that bill plays a significant element in some of the financial challenges that Police Scotland faces. The chief council has already set out so far that, since its inception, Police Scotland has paid £76.5 million in fact. The emergency mobile communication system is the system that will replace the airway system that is presently utilised by our emergency services, the policing fire service and the ambulance service, in particular. That is a piece of work that we are doing on a joint basis with the Home Office in taking it forward. The likely cost of irrecoverable VAT over the lifetime of the new emergency services mobile communication system for Police Scotland is likely to be in the region of £64.7 million of irrecoverable VAT. The bit that I particularly find unacceptable is that of the forces and the fire services across the UK who are engaged in the development and looking at this new programme, the only territorial police force sitting around that table that will not be allowed to recover VAT will be Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. That is another potential area of irrecoverable VAT that Police Scotland will lose out on, which other forces and fire services in the UK will be able to recover as the programme moves forward. I am going to bring in Liam and Margaret on supplementaries on that issue. Cabinet Secretary, while I absolutely appreciate the fullness of the answers that you are giving us, can I ask that you try to be a bit more concise, because we have a number of questions that we still need to get through? Thank you. You were talking earlier, Cabinet Secretary, about the balance between police officer numbers and civilian staff numbers. I take it from what you were saying about the unpredictability of what happens in the next 10 years, in the sense that there is an indication that you will be moving away from a hard and fast police officer number guarantee, in the sense that you are addressing one of the concerns that, with the number that is required at the moment, we have seen a disproportionate reduction in civilian staff, which has had an impact on the ability of the service to perform. What we are doing with the Police Scotland are taking forward under the 2026 strategy to give them the space and the opportunity to try and look forward in the next 10 years to consider what should the right mix be and how we can make sure that we have a responsive agile service that is sustainable, can live within its financial means as well, and deliver a good quality of service to the public. That will be an important part of that wider work around 2026, about making sure that the service has the right mix of expertise to meet those new and emerging demands, and to make sure that it can deliver the best possible service to the public when they contact them. That will not involve a specific officer number. In the present financial year, we have made it clear to Police Scotland that we expect to commit around 1,000 extra police officers to be maintained. However, I am also clear about making sure that we have a service moving forward over the coming years that is reflective of the changing demands that they are facing. Once Police Scotland has completed that piece of work, we will then have an opportunity to discuss what that might look like going forward. Before I bring in Margaret, I want to ask a very brief question about vulnerable people, because quite often the police spend a considerable amount of time giving support and assistance to vulnerable people, whether they are elderly young people or individuals with mental health problems. I know that the police have a number of initiatives, but going forward, how are you going to support those initiatives going forward and ensure that there is enough resourcing for the police to do a job to protect people that are vulnerable? To put this in some context, if you consider that Police Scotland deals with over 3 million calls a year between 101 and 999, almost about 80 per cent of the calls that they receive are not to do with crimes. They are to do with missing persons, other issues, and vulnerabilities that they find themselves having to deal with. The challenge here is not, I believe, just a challenge for Police Scotland. It is a challenge for the public sector to be much more effective in addressing the needs of those who have these types of vulnerabilities. For example, I do not believe that our services at the present moment deal effectively with individuals who are presenting in distress and who may have an underlying mental health issue, because there is no other out-of-the-earse service that the default is that we will contact the police and the police will then deal with it. Police then take someone to the A&E department, then find themselves in the A&E department for several others, for the person then in some cases to be discharged, with no other immediate service input. The challenge that I believe is about the collaboration between Police Scotland and other parts of our public sector, so that we much more effectively meet the needs of those individuals. That needs to include our health service and local authorities, third sector organisations that are working collaboratively to do so. Part of the work again around 2026 is looking at how that type of demand in the police service can be better managed as well. Some of the work that is being taken forward by Police Scotland, and with ourselves in government as well, is looking at what we can do to foster greater collaboration within the public sector to meet some of those demands. For example, I am conscious that I am taking up time, but I know that in the Netherlands they have almost started to use a first responder service to deal with individuals who are presenting in distress and with mental health issues to respond to them, in a way in which we have first responders to deal with some types of physical issues if someone is in an accident. They are using a model there that has apparently been tested out. There is a need for our public sector to respond to those issues much more effectively. It is one of the areas that I am keen to see progress being made on, but it will require collaboration across public services to achieve that. You referred in your opening statement during questioning to the vat liability that Police Scotland has incurred. Could you confirm that it was the case that the Scottish Government rejected proposals from the Treasury to channel funding for Police Scotland through Scotland's local authorities? Had it done that, it would not have had any liability for that. Is not it the case that the Scottish Government considered that the projecting savings would far outstrip the cost of that liability? Just to nail in another thing, because we now have a centralised service, that is having to be paid along with the British Transport Police, the Ministry of Defence Police and the Civil Constabulary. Is not this no hiding place more absolutely a mess of the Government's own making? I am not aware of the offer that the member has suggested, but I think that the problem that I have with the Treasury in this matter is that it seems to take an approach when it suits them that national-based organisations, which are funded nationally, when it suits them are given the right to recover vat, but when it does not suit them they choose not to do so. For example, the member made reference to BTP, Civil Nuclear and MOD Police, but, of course, they are UK-wide forces. Police Scotland is the only territorial force in the whole of the UK that is unable to recover vat. Since the decision was made not to allow Police Scotland to do so, the Treasury has sought within its ability to give other nationally funded services the right to recover vat. I think that there is a level of double standards being played here. No matter what the debate was back when Police Scotland was created and those who warned that this would be one of the consequences, that simply does not make it right. Right now Police Scotland is having a double whammy effect by the UK Government. Not only do they have to live within more limited budgets as a result of the austerity policies being pursued by the UK Government, they then have the second whammy, which is that of not being able to recover vat. If the Treasury can find it within themselves to do for things like the legacy agency of the back of the Olympics for academy schools that are funded at a national level, they should apply the same standards when it comes to one of our most important public sector services here in Scotland. That is that our Police and Fire and Rescue Service in Scotland should be treated in an equal footing with other territorial forces in the UK and be allowed to recover vat. I had a pretty good shot at this Cabinet Secretary, but can I remind you that vat exists to stop additional burdens on local taxation? You knew that when you took the decision to centrally and correctly central police force, you would incur that, and that would be no exemption to it. For the exemptions that you mentioned, there must be a policy, a distinct policy reason why there would be exemption. There was no such policy reason forthcoming from Police Scotland. I think that we have hammered this to death. There is clearly a difference of opinion, not just from me, but from Unison Police Staff Scotland, who criticised the Scottish Government for calling for the vat bill to be scrapped, of who three years after ministers were first told it, if it proceeded with these reforms, you would incur this vast amount of money that should be going into front-line services and into the police force. You simply cannot come here and blame everyone else for a decision that the Scottish Government took with its eyes completely wide open. Can I say that the member is right in that it is a policy distinction. The UK Government chose to apply the policy when it suits them. In this particular issue, it clearly does not suit them. That is why they have been happy to provide, since Police Scotland was created, other nationally funded services that have been created since then to give them the right to be able to recover vat, but they have continued to refuse to refuse the ability of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to do so. The reality here is that the UK Government is applying double standards on these matters, and they are applying double standards that are potentially damaging some of our key public services here in Scotland. I would hope that all members of the committee recognise the important value that our Police and Fire Service plays in our local communities and would support the Scottish Government in trying to get the UK Government to see the light in this issue and to stop discriminating against our Police and Fire Service here in Scotland. I want to remind the committee briefly of what was said the last time that we met Andrea McDonald from the Scottish Police Federation, and she stated that it remains unfathomable why the Westminster Government continues to punish Police Scotland in that way when it comes to the vat matter. Margaret, do you want to follow up on your budget questions? Yes. When we had our meeting last week in evidence, we were told that representatives of the Police Office—perhaps we have been to Mr McGilvery since he has been here for 45 minutes and so far we have not heard from him at all yet—have been excluded from discussions on financial planning. Do you consider that acceptable, Mr McGilvery? Does the cabinet secretary consider that acceptable? If you do not mind, convener, I will respond on behalf of the Scottish Government and bring in official, as I see, appropriate. The issue around staff representative organisations and union representative organisations being involved in financial matters within any public sector organisation is a matter that it should be taken forward. I would expect when Police Scotland and the SPA know what the outcome is of the budget, once the draft budget is published, to engage in a process around engagement with trade unions, staff representative organisations and look at how they plan and take that budget forward at a localised level. I would expect both the SPA and Police Scotland to engage with trade union representatives and staff representative organisations in the same way that I would expect any other part of the public sector to do. That is once they are in a position that they are looking at setting their budgets, considering how they will then take them forward within their organisation to engage with staff representative organisations around some of the issues that may come from that. Eagwent, on behalf of the cabinet secretary, considered themselves the police federation frozen out of the talks. We know that the strategy is due to be published in mid-January, without them being consulted at all. The convener has already asked you about the demands on policing. Recorded crime may be falling, but demands on policing are going through the roof. We have seen the difficult situations that they are dealing with—public protection, people with mental health issues—all more demand on the police. They are very concerned that this demand is not being recognised in their funding, and that funding may be taken away because, hey, recorded crime is down, so what is the police doing with the rest of the time? They are putting a very strong marker here. They want to be recognised, listened to and so far, but they have not been. Do you consider that acceptable, cabinet secretary? I think that the member may be confusing several different issues here, but, of course, they are the same staff organisations that support the right for Police Scotland to be able to recover their vat, which would, of course, assist in meeting some of the financial demands on the service, but let me just deal with a couple of issues. I think that the member is confused several different issues here. There is the issue around the finances and the financial planning that goes on within the SPA and Police Scotland moving forward. That is not the 2026 strategy. The unions and the police representative bodies, whether it be ASPs or the police federation, have already been involved in that process and will continue to be involved in that process. It will be a draft strategy that will be published in January next year for public consultation as well. If the member is referring to the issue around financial planning, the budget will be published next year, which will then allow Police Scotland and the SPA to take forward their financial planning, which will then allow them to engage with their staff and trade union representatives in the way that any other public sector organisation would do, in which I would expect them to do. With all due respect, the member is confusing two separate issues that have been taken forward at the present moment. I would imagine the two are interlinked, Cabinet Secretary, because demand is now the financial planning, the pressures are now, and it is the resource issue that the police federation is talking about. Let's concentrate on that. Financial planning is a stage where the SPA is looking at. They have had detailed discussions and, to quote the Scottish Police Federation, they feel frozen out. That is not me saying that, it is them. One way or another, there is a communication difficulty at the very least, but there is a perception amongst our hard-working rank-and-file officers that they are simply not being taken into account—the views are not being taken into account—at the very most important points when people are beginning to look at budgets, are forming views on budgets and are then coming up with a plan. I can only reiterate the point that I have made. I would expect the SPA and Police Scotland to engage with staff and trade union representatives in a meaningful way when they are setting their budget and know what their budget will be. For the forthcoming financial year, the draft budget will not be published until next week, so there will be an opportunity for Police Scotland and for the SPA to consider what further engagement would be appropriate. However, that is entirely separate from your suggestion that the Federation and the unions have not been involved in the 2026 strategy work when they clearly have been. I take the point about the strategy work, but what I am saying is that if there are pressures just now, which they clearly are, and they have been increasing over the years, they have been increasing as we have gone on looking at this strategy that we have been waiting for for quite some time. However, I think that we have killed that one. I am heartened that you have, at least today, acknowledged that it is absolutely crucial that they are involved, even if you have not acknowledged that it was unacceptable that they have not been so far. I still consider that it is, and I think that it will, too. However, if we could move on perhaps to I6, which is another area of the financial planning. Before I move you on, Stuart, there is a very small supplementary on that point, and then I will let you move on to I6. Cabinet Secretary, do the police know what their budget for next year is, and would they therefore be in a position to talk about it to anyone? Like other parts of the public service, they will find out next week when the draft budget is published by the finance secretary, which I would then expect an opportunity for engagement with staff and trade union representatives in all of our public services on what those budgets will look like. That seems to all my suggestions. We have not a clue until we see a budget what we want. We all know that that is not the gaste. The police are quite focused and know exactly where they want the resources to be targeted, regardless of the budget. If I could ask you, Cabinet Secretary, about I6, how much money was spent in this before the contract was terminated? The time that the SPA Police Scotland had spent around £17 million on taking forward I6. It is not true to say that there was no financial detriment from this I6 project being cancelled. What do you mean by that? There is a statement saying that the project was terminated in July 2016, and it would result in no financial detriment to the police budget, which is slightly different from acknowledging that £17 million had been spent on a system that has not come to fusion. That is the figure. The £17 million spent up to the point that it was terminated. Is that the case? I think that the member is confusing this issue as well. The issue of no detriment was on the basis that the contract was cancelled by the SPA, and there was no detriment to the public pass from the settlement that they agreed to. Accentia accepted that they were unable to deliver what had been said, so there is no detriment to the public pass. But £17 million was spent going through this project. Because they had a settlement with Accentia on the basis of Accentia failing to be able to deliver, what they had been paid for is that that settlement ensures that there is no detriment to the public pass. That is every single cost. That is every man hour spent on it, every meeting that was held, all of that, all accounted for. I do not know if I can be any clearer on this issue, other than to say that money that was spent by the SPA in Police Scotland for Accentia to develop I6, there is no loss to the public pass. So we have a clear and detailed estimate out like every single penny spent. I can give you an absolute assurance that there is no financial detriment to the public pass. Well what about the decrement and time lost for these efficiency savings and the six things that were germane to making Police Scotland supposed to be more efficient? Now all gone. I think that the compensation that the SPA received from Accentia reflects some of the wider issues over and above just the financial aspect of the detriment to the public pass. Now the issue that the previous policing sub-committee here in Parliament recognised is that the issue around I6 is not something that has just happened out of Police Scotland. This goes back many years with the legacy forces in looking at trying to develop a single police computer system for the whole of our previous legacy forces. Also when the former policing sub-committee considered the issue, if I recall correctly, back in February of this year, it recognised the failure in the delivery of I6 wasn't a failure on the part of Police Scotland, it was a failure on the basis of the private sector company failing to deliver on the contract that they had committed to for Police Scotland. It was a private sector failure rather than a public sector failure and the no detriment to the public pass I think is a reflection of the very tight contract and oversight that Police Scotland applied to this particular development along with the SPA to make sure that there was no financial detriment to the public pass if Accentia failed to deliver on it. As Police Scotland has said that now that they have drawn a line under I6 that their approach in the future is more likely to be one which will be a modular based system looking at developing modules of IT systems that can help to address some of the areas that I6 were intended to do so, but I really do hope that for the member in particular and for our committee members, she does now fully recognise that there has not been no financial detriment to the public pass as a result of the cancellation of I6. Equally, we are way behind the ball, but I think that other members have questions on this. The savings targets around the time of the legislation was being considered. I think that I am right in saying that we are £100 million for 2016-17 and £101 million for 2017-18. Is that do those targets still pertain? Is £1.1 billion that you are referring to over the course of Police reform? Yeah, so the estimated savings that... Over the whole, it is to 2025-2026. Yeah, but for 2016-17 it was £100 million, for 2017-18 it was £101 million was... At the present time, over the last three years, there have been recurring savings which over the 2025-26 period would accumulate to £880 million. They have actually gone over some of the targets which they had originally intended to save in each of the individual years, but they are still projected to be on target by 2025-2026. I mean, it's interesting you say that because I think while I take the point you make around no detriment in relation to I6, I think what we were being told by witnesses a couple of weeks ago, including from ASPs wars and I'm quoting here, most of the savings were predicated upon significant investment in the services IT infrastructure through creation of a single IT solution. I think Gordon Crossen even said, I've significantly said that many of the savings that were predicted were dependent on the IT solution that is not materialised, but our budget is still expected to reflect those predicted efficiency savings. So I'd be interested to know how that squares, the delivery mechanism for those savings, appears to have been undermined, albeit that the project itself, as you say, was no financial detriment? I think that what would be wrong to catarise I6 has been the way in which these savings would be achieved. They're already set out that they're actually significantly ready on course in achieving those savings. So was the expectation that I6 would deliver the savings towards the 2025-26? So some of the measures within I6 that would help to create greater efficiency within the service would help to contribute towards that, but it wasn't the tool that would deliver the savings in itself because there's already a significant amount of them that have been achieved and continue to be on target for the 2025-26 target. One of the areas that I mentioned earlier is that the first three years that we have saw within the Police Service of Scotland is that we've saw the transition, what we haven't saw is the transformation within the organisation. That's going to be a key part of the 2026 strategy because there is a view that there's still greater efficiencies that can be found on the corporate side of the organisation. The need can be realised in order to improve the efficiency of the organisation, how it provides services and supporting officers, how it serves the public as well, and that 2026 will assist in helping to make sure that it continues to move forward. So it's presently projecting still to be on target for the £1.1 billion up to 2025-2026, and as I mentioned, already £880 million of those recurring savings have already been achieved and identified. I'm struggling to understand how that squares with ASP's suggestion that most of the savings were predicted upon significant investment in the service IT and Gordon Cross's specific comment that yes, it was predicted to be dependent on the IT solution, which is not materialised, but the budget is still expected to reflect those predicted efficiency savings. I think it would be fair to characterise it as a part of the process that it would contribute towards it. So ASP is wrong in that suggestion. You would have to clarify with them exactly on what basis they're making that particular assertion, but the savings, if you look at the financial memorandum that accompanied the bill, is that it wasn't predicated on the delivery of I6. Gordon Cross has also suggested, again I'm quoting, that there were about £80 million short of a sustainable budget to deliver the policing that the public expects. He was, I think, in that context pointing to the £55 million of reform money, and I think suggesting that, again to quote his words, that it was propping up policing at the moment. Now what commitment can you give that in the absence of the I6 solution at the moment, that that £55 million of reform funding will remain in place on-going to plug at least part of this £80 million gap that the chief superintendent is suggesting is there? Well it would be for ASP to explain their £80 million figure. If you also look at the financial memorandum that was set out alongside the bill when it was going through the Parliament, the reform budget was for the first three years of police reform. We've extended it for a further year into this financial year, which is the additional £55 million. I think what you're saying is that that's going to be required, aren't you? You are tempting me, I am sure, to pre-empt what the finance secretary will announce next week, and I'm going to have to disappoint you and say that you're going to have to wait until this time next week to hear what he's got to say on the reform budget. You could have had an exclusive there, cabinet secretary, you could have had an exclusive. But I think the point that he was making is that whatever the case, whether it's £80 million or thereabouts, it's a quantum above the £55 million of reform funding and that it's now in the policing budget, which, as I'll come on at the moment, is incurring an overspend as things stand. We keep in mind that we have given real-terms protection to the police budget for the life of this Parliament, which will allow an additional £100 million to be invested in policing over that period of time. Anything in addition over and above that around the reform budget again needs to stress that it was for the first three years and was extended by a further year to allow us to invest that further £55 million into police reform as a matter, which we would have to consider within the new budget, which will be announced next week. But what I can assure the member of is that in providing that real-terms protection, that allows over the lifetime of this Parliament for that additional £100 million to be invested in policing in Scotland. Do you not accept that, even so, that this still appears to be inadequate? We had the suggestion that the overspend earlier this year was estimated to be around £18 million. In August, we were told that it was up to £21 million for this year in October. The force suggested that it was as high as £27 million. Will you be able to assess whether you think that the police budget is adequate once the budget is published next week? It would no doubt if parties around this table don't believe that it is their free to propose an amendment. Do you believe that that is a sustainable position to see that trajectory in terms of overspend? One of the key parts of the 2026 strategy work is making sure that there is also financial sustainability within the way in which the police service is moving forward. That would be a key part of the work that Police Scotland and SP are taking forward in considering those issues. Clearly, if other parties in this Parliament think that there should be more money getting into the police, they will be free to offer up an amendment to the draft budget to propose an alternative budget. To Rona Mackay's earlier point about staffing levels within the force, that would tend to suggest that the 2026 vision is going to take a bit of a hatchet to staffing levels in order to get that under the silver spend into the line. You may wish to characterise it as that, but I would say that that is completely wrong. The reason that it is wrong is because I think that it is important—a service such as the Police Service in Scotland—to have a clear sense of direction as to where it is going to head over the next 10 years and the way in which it is going to deliver its services to the people of Scotland in delivering the type of public safety and security, the prevention agenda, the new and emerging demands that the service is facing, the way in which it then works with other parts of the public sector to meet some of those demands. I think that it is good planning for a public sector organisation such as the Police to be carrying out this type of work to make sure that it has a sustainable policing model moving forward, that it is the right staff mix that can deliver what we expect as we are set out in the strategic policing priorities, as the public would expect them to deliver on the basis of growing threats such as cybercrime as well. I think that it is the right thing to do, is to make sure that you are looking forward over the next 10 years and thinking about what we need in order to make sure that we can meet those demands much more effectively while also making sure that the service is sustaining. Anybody here would seriously say that any part of our public sector has a blank check in which to run their services and that they do not have to take recognition of the financial environment in which they operate, but they also have to think about the challenges that they are facing going forward to make sure that they are delivering a service that is relevant and that the people of Scotland expect from them. That is what 2026 is about making sure that it can do effectively. We are moving on to our last five minutes. I still have two or three people who want to ask questions, so I can ask you all to be extremely concise. Thank you, convener. Just to close down the I6 system, I wonder, cabinet secretary, if you would agree with a previous postgraduate lecturer on computer projects, that computer systems never save money. The money is saved by what the computer systems enable. In other words, the money is saved elsewhere in the organisation and that computer projects, by their very nature, if they only look at the computer at a waste of time, have to look holistically at the whole system, the organisation, how people operate with each other and the business that they are in, and that it is the changes in the operation of people and the way that their business is run that deliver the savings. Therefore, as you go through a computer project, you are going to be making organisational changes that, even if the computer is taken out of the equation, will deliver benefits, albeit that the computer ultimately will deliver that additional benefit that justifies the expenditure. I do not think that Stuart Stevenson is a person for me to get into an argument over various computer systems given his expertise in this particular field. I love him to say that ICT should be there to help to enable officers and staff within the organisation to deliver a service. It is not an end in itself and the idea behind I86 was to try and help to achieve that. However, as the SPA has said, the approach that it would be, that it is minded to take in the future with ICT investment, is to do it on a modular basis and to do it in a way that is about enabling our officers and the staff within Police Scotland to deliver the best possible service to the public. Are you okay? Liam, do you want to come back in and ask a question about your opinion? Thanks, convener, on an entirely different tack. Obviously, the Government is actually aware of the report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary about reports of sexual exploitation by around 300 police officers south of the border. Obviously, the findings are truly appalling and will have given rise to widespread public concerns. I imagine that there are concerns among the vast majority of police officers as well. Are there any assurances or what assurances can you give the committee and the Parliament that there is a clear pathway for any similar concerns to be raised and properly investigated in the Scottish context? The first thing to say is that irrespective of someone's position as an officer within the police service or not, those types of things need to be treated very seriously and thoroughly investigated. What I can give the member insurances is that Police Scotland are gathering data to allow comparison with the statistics in the HMIC report to consider that matter. They will obviously then, once they have completed that process, consider how they then, if there are any measures that they need to take forward. I think that what we need to do is to ensure that anyone who finds themselves that they have been abused in any shape or fashion is that there is a clear process for those matters to be thoroughly investigated. However, I can give the member assurance that Police Scotland are gathering some of that data in a comparable way to what was carried out by HMIC. Do you come back to Parliament in due course if that was appropriate? If I thought that there were measures that were required to be happened, would it be useful to be happy to ask that we try to keep the sub-committee engaged in that process once Police Scotland have carried that out? That would be very helpful. As there are no further questions for the cabinet secretary, I thank you very much for your attendance and for the manner in which you have answered questions today. I will now suspend briefly.


You could throw them all into that same category. But there are some anti-vaxx stories that are measurably dumber than others. And this is probably at the tippy top of idiotic anti-vaxx stories because there is a private school in Miami, Florida, and they are putting in requirements so that way if students get vaccinated, they're the ones who have to quarantine for 30 days. Not if you're unvaccinated or you've been exposed to COVID. No. If you've been vaccinated, they are requiring that you quarantine for 30 days. It is not based on scientific fact. It is very clearly based on stupidity and delusions. Nevertheless, let's read about why they're requiring this. As Best Leaven of Vanity Fair explains, back in April, a Florida private school made headlines for demonstrating that its founders, who charge up to $30,000 a year in tuition, didn't understand basic science. Since Neurocademy did so by sending faculty and staff a letter informing them that if they chose to get vaccinated against COVID-19, they would have to stay away from students falsely claiming that non-vaccinated people have been negatively impacted by interacting with people who had been vaccinated, and also that it knew of at least three women with menstrual cycles impacted after having spent time with a vaccinated person. Obviously, none of what Lila Centner, who started the school with her husband, David, wrote was true, but that didn't stop her from telling employees that anyone who planned to get vaccinated would not be allowed to be near-hour students until more information is known and that if they chose to get vaccinated over the summer, they wouldn't be allowed to return until clinical trials were completed and only if a position is still available at that time. For many parents, news of such a policy would be a reason to immediately pull their kid from Centner Academy, not just for safety reasons, but also because Lila and David are clearly morons. None of the vaccines available in the US include the live virus, so it is impossible for an inoculated person to negatively impact an unvaccinated person with the vaccine's components as people who don't know what they're talking about claim. In fact, as the Centner's apparently don't understand, it's biologically impossible, but for the parents who have kept their kids enrolled in the school, the founders have a new message. If you vaccinate your kid, they'll have to stay home for 30 days following each shot. Okay, so I've got to ask the obvious question. Why are these morons allowed to have a school? I feel like the standards that are put into place, state, federal standards, they're not good enough if people like this are allowed to have a school. I mean, do they have a science class in this school who teaches it? I need more details because this isn't just insane. It is almost a parody. Like it borders on parody. This is something that you'd expect from the people in Idiocracy in the event, you know, that movie or now documentary, rather, kind of documented a play. It's clearly bizarre. And in the email, they kind of go through their logic. And here's what they say. So this is no surprise. They say that the vaccines are experimental. No, they're not experimental. That's factually incorrect because they are out of clinical trials. So no, they're not back experimental. They claim that vaccinated people are shedding the virus to unvaccinated people. Let me repeat that. If you got vaccinated, they believe that you are shedding the virus and infecting other people who are unvaccinated with COVID-19.  But let's assume that this batshit insane theory is correct. Okay, well, if there are so many vaccinated people now shedding the virus, wouldn't you want to get vaccinated yourself so that way it won't affect you since the vaccines are safe and effective? I mean, it's not happening, but even in their bizarre world view, okay, sure, you're going to shed the virus to others, according to them, but at least you'll be protected, self-preservation. I mean, this is, folks, this is not okay.  This is QAnon level of dumb.  They've also discouraged teachers and students, no surprise, from wearing masks. I'm assuming because maybe they buy into Louis Gohmert's theory that if you wear the mask, you breathe in your own CO2 and that gives you the virus and somehow it materializes on the mask. I mean, I can't really try to psychoanalyze them and try to explain their logic because there is no logic to this. It's the absence of logic. And I just, I don't know what to say. This is an actual school and parents are paying $30,000 a year to have dipshits teach their kids.  You're not going to go to the school or you're not going to send your kid to the school unless you are very, very wealthy. And there's always this idea that charter schools are preferable because they have better standards, better opportunities for your children that teachers have more expertise. It's better than public schools. I mean, this kind of alone disproves that, right? So I don't know what to say. This story, it almost made my head explode reading the details.  If you honestly believe that vaccinated people are shedding the virus, I genuinely don't know how you can be alive to reach adulthood. You've got to, at some point, just spontaneously forget how to breathe and die.  This is really low IQ shed.  I mean, this is done in Kruger in action, but yeah, there you have it. They're making people or children who get vaccinated quarantine for 30 days. Jesus Christ.