Criminal Justice Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023

Official Report 508KB pdf

---

Budget Scrutiny 2023-24

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 12th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2023. We have received no apologies.

Our first item of business is to consider the responses that we have received relating to our scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s budget for 2023-24. I refer members to paper 1. We have had replies from the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

Would members like to raise any issues or points? I am happy for you to come in on any of the pieces of correspondence. I will not take them in any particular order.

First, the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs talks about cuts to the Scottish Government’s capital budget, but it is worth putting on record that it is the highest block grant on record, and any cuts relate, I believe, to extraordinary spending due to Covid, so there are no cuts in that meaningful sense.

On the response from Police Scotland, we asked about the potential blue-light collaboration across Scotland, but the answer does not really tell us anything. There are lots of words but no tangible detail about what is actually happening and what that £5 million might be spent on.

Turning to body-worn cameras, which we as a committee have raised on a number of occasions, it remains the case that Police Scotland is the only force in the United Kingdom without body-worn cameras. If I am interpreting the letter correctly, it looks like it will not be until 2027 that all officers here will have them, which is extraordinary. Indeed, I do not think that that is guaranteed.

The letter puts a price tag of £21.5 million on that, which is obviously a lot of money but in the grand scheme of things is not. That requires further explanation from the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland as to why body-worn cameras have not been prioritised long before now, given the relatively small sum of money that they would cost, because they would protect police officers and the public.

I re-emphasise Russell Findlay’s points. It is not clear what the blue-light collaboration means and whether it is practical. My major concern is the roll-out of body-worn cameras. We have talked to the Scottish Police Federation, and there is a need for body-worn cameras in the Scottish police force, but the length of time that it will take to roll them out is concerning. I am also concerned that it will be done division by division. That would indicate that one division will benefit from the roll-out straight away but another division will not benefit until the end of the programme.

That speaks to my concerns about the overall police budget. Police numbers, although not as bad as they could have been, have fallen to the levels that have been announced. I have a deep concern about where we have ended up on the overall police budget.

Good morning, colleagues. First, I read on page 1 of the Police Scotland response, which is page 5 of our papers, that the anticipated implementation of body-worn cameras will be spread across three financial years, taking us up to 2026-27. Realistically, that is four years away from now. In the current age of technology, I struggle to see how body-worn cameras being implemented in three or four years’ time is realistic.

I do not know whether Police Scotland is having to spread the costs over three years purely on the basis that it does not have the money to do otherwise or whether it will take that long to find the technical solution. I am pretty sure that there are providers that could implement a solution much more quickly. Perhaps that would be best achieved if Police Scotland collaborated with other forces that are already using second-generation, or even third-generation, technology of this nature. Surely, there must be something out there in the market that would allow body-worn cameras to be rolled out more quickly. I am less focused on the costs and the numbers—we all know the arguments on that, which my colleague presented—and more focused on the timescales.

Body-worn cameras also feed into a system of further information and communications technology transformation. Information from those assets can be quickly fed into a system that can process that data as evidence, which can allow cases to be turned around more quickly. It is not just that cameras are worn, although they act as a visual deterrent; the important part is what is done with the information from them. Only if that happens will improvements be delivered, and it is unclear whether the cameras will be accompanied by significant investment in what happens at the back end in relation to case management and evidence handling. I would therefore like a bit more information on that from the SPA or Police Scotland at some point.

I will not comment on the blue-light collaboration programme. “Collaboration” is always a positive and welcome word, and we see some very good practice in that regard. For example, on my way into the office this morning, I saw an ambulance driving out of a building that is shared with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. That is very welcome but, under our next agenda item, we will talk about police mental health. In relation to collaboration, we are interested in whether work is being done across emergency services and with other public services to reduce the strain on, and the workload of, front-line police officers, because, ultimately, that will help to free up time and speed up processes.

On the budget, which is the important matter, I have tried to raise the issue of the barnahus model in recent parliamentary questions. In a previous committee evidence session, I might have called for a longer-term plan for the roll-out of the model and for some analysis on its success or otherwise. That is all very positive, and I look forward to the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs furnishing us with that information.

My big issue relates to the budget itself. We would be missing a trick if we did not refer to the responses from Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on the budget. It is welcome that, since our initial pre-budget scrutiny, the Government has been forthcoming with more cash. I know that times are tough and that money is tight, but we must acknowledge the response, and that extra cash.

My issue relates to the wording and language being used, particularly in Police Scotland’s response. It estimates that the £53 million of capital funding that it will have for this financial year will not be

“sufficient to meet our basic needs of our asset rolling replacement programme”.

Police Scotland also talks about “slippage management”. It seems that, in the current financial year, it is, in effect, drawing down money from future budgets. The effect of that will be stark. Police Scotland is explicit in saying that it needs £85 million in this financial year to be sustainable. That is somewhere in the middle of the £80 million to £100 million that it needs per year to be sustainable.

To manage the shortfall of £32 million, Police Scotland is playing with the numbers as best it can, but all that does is take money from capital budgets in future years—it just compounds the problem. We can see the problem with that by looking at what happened as a result of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s historical capital underfunding. Down the line, we end up with hundreds of millions of pounds of capital underfunding, with the problem being compounded year after year, and no Government will ever have the money to backfill. My concern is that the problem starts small but then grows.

I am also concerned that Police Scotland seems to be sending the message that it will do just the bare basics, which would include, for example,

“A reduced workforce with an operating model of”

around 16,500 officers. It seems now simply to be accepted that we will be working with a reduced workforce as a result of the resource and capital budget issues.

I am concerned that there is still a massive shortfall, as the budget is still way below what Police Scotland is asking of Government. It has been explicit about what it needs—not what it wants, but what it needs—to be sustainable and supply the bare minimum, and it has not got that.

The resource budget is another point of concern. Many of us raised this point when we undertook pre-budget scrutiny. An additional £80 million has been announced, which is very welcome but, all the way through the submission, Police Scotland warns that any additional money that is allocated for resource will simply be swallowed up by inflationary pay increases, so it is not actually additional resource budget.

Police Scotland confirms that by saying that £37 million of the £80 million will simply be meeting the 5 per cent pay award. Thankfully, that has been accepted by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but Police Scotland is looking at 7 or 8 per cent or perhaps even more. There is an issue in that the additional cash has simply disappeared into the ether for pay increases. We know the percentage point cost of every pay increase; that in itself raises issues, which we have flagged with Police Scotland.

On capital funding for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, I am concerned about that, because the capital funding of £32.5 million that has been announced is, in the words of the SFRS,

“not sufficient to meet all the Service’s needs.”

We know about, and we have rehearsed, some of the issues around access to facilities for firefighters. Basic personal protective equipment, decontamination and proper dignified spaces should be in 100 per cent of fire stations, and far too many are in poor condition. This budget is clearly not going to chip the surface of any of that, which I think will be a source of disappointment to firefighters.

Overall, we asked for more money, and there was a bit more money and that was welcome but, on the resource side, much of it will be swallowed up by pay increases; on the capital side, much of it will be swallowed up by inflationary pressures; and across the board it is far below what is needed for standing still, let alone for improvements and investment.

I do not disagree with a lot of what has been said by various people on the budget so far, but I am a bit confused, as the budget is now settled for this year. I am not disputing what has been said, but is this a pre-emptive strike for the next round of negotiations? We are where we are with this budget, so I am a wee bit confused by some of the stuff that members are saying.

My big concern is about body-worn cameras. I am not good with graphs and things like that, but I found the response from Police Scotland quite confusing. As Jamie Greene said, it would be good to know exactly whether the situation is due to budget or operational reasons, and why it is presented in the way that it is. We were talking about the introduction of body-worn cameras five or six years ago, and I understood then that it was close to happening, but it still has not happened.

Would it be possible to slot in somewhere a wee evidence session with somebody who knows about the matter, whether it is the SPA, or whoever the person leading on it would be? Rather than letters going back and forth, it would be better if we could just sit and talk to them and ask questions. I would prefer that, anyway.

Does anyone else want to come in? Russell Findlay can come back in, and then I will wind things up.

I want to pick up on Rona Mackay’s comments about body-worn cameras. I happened to be at a retail security industry conference recently; I spoke to an individual who supplies body cameras to police forces elsewhere, and he expressed some surprise and frustration about his dealings with Police Scotland over the years. There were numerous attempts or suggestions that Police Scotland was going to go ahead with the cameras, but that did not come to pass, and he could not figure out why. Something like that might give us a bit of a different perspective.

10:15  

Okay—thank you.

To pull together members’ comments, I probably agree with everything that has been said. There is a very challenging financial climate for Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It has been helpful to hear your comments, in particular on the information that we have received about body-worn cameras, and I will come back to that.

I have just a couple of points. I noted with interest the discussion that took place at the 23 March meeting of the Scottish Police Authority, where it discussed its budget. I have to say it was a comprehensive discussion, with a lot of probing questions for the chief constable and a helpful overview of the approach that Police Scotland will take in extremely challenging circumstances. It certainly acknowledged the hard choices and the prioritisation of resources that will be required.

Obviously, there is the issue of the pressure of pay awards. Jamie Greene is right to point out the additional funding that was provided by the Scottish Government, around 50 per cent of which has gone to pay awards.

The budget was approved. Police Scotland presented a balanced budget, which was approved by the resources committee at that meeting. I was interested in a comment by the chief constable that, to a certain extent, the difficulties and the challenges that the budget presented this year led to the budget almost never having been so informed. I am not at all saying that it is a bed of roses; nonetheless, it is obvious that a lot of work has been undertaken.

As members have pointed out, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is facing very challenging circumstances in relation to property assets, such as vehicles, and pay awards. It is a very difficult environment. I took time to look at the Audit Scotland report that the service referenced in its response and at the challenge that is posed by the legacy of the financial circumstances that the individual fire services faced at the time of their amalgamation. If anything, I would be keen to observe and monitor developments around the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service budget.

As Rona Mackay said, the budget process is now complete, and I am sure that organisations are now thinking about next year’s budget. I am pleased that we have had some helpful contributions on the budget issue, and I am happy to keep budgetary issues under review.

Finally, on body-worn cameras, I always try to strike a balance in progressing work and not getting into ping-pong correspondence. Nonetheless, on this issue, maybe we can do some follow-up work to get a bit more clarity around the context of where we are with timescales and funding. I am happy to take that away and correspond with members on how we can take forward that work, given that we have quite a busy work programme coming down the track.

Jamie, do you want to come back in?

Not on that issue, but I think that it is a very good suggestion from Rona Mackay to challenge that and keep the pressure on.

I do not know when the committee is next due to have the SPA in front of us, but it is probably not for some time. Obviously, we are already within that financial budget year and will be looking ahead to the next one. I am not a forensic accountant, and I wonder whether someone—either the SPA, the Scottish Parliament information centre or others—can help us to understand the overallocation that it talks about, because it is quite significant. Again, I am not an accountant, but in effect the SPA is saying that this year it will spend more than it has by about £30-odd million, but it is a bit unclear how that all pans out in the books.

Again, we do not want to start pre-budget scrutiny for the next financial year straight off the bat with 30-odd million quid off the bottom line that has to come out to fund this year’s investment. Very few public agencies can overspend in this way. The SPA has obviously found a clever way of accounting for it, but I would like to understand it a little bit more.

Thank you. Do you want to come back in, Russell?

Yes—just quickly in relation to the £5 million allocation for collaboration. The Police Scotland response, which is on page 5, says absolutely nothing. It just does not answer the question. We know that it might not be able to specify exactly what it is going to do, but surely it can give us some idea of what that looks like, what it is hoping to achieve and what engagement it has had with the other services. The answer is just meaningless. It is not being asked to revisit the budget but just to answer the question about what is going on with that money.

I agree. The information that we have in relation to the blue-light collaboration is light. That is possibly because it is at an early stage and work is still under way to really focus on which projects and work the collaboration will support. I might come to that under the next agenda item, but your comments are noted.

In relation to your point, Jamie, I agree that SPICe is probably our first port of call in order to get more clarity on the accounting side of the police budget with regard to the slippage that you reference. I am happy to take that away.