Chamber and committees

David Hamilton mentioned that the Lanarkshire project saved 18,000 police man-hours. As a follow-up, ACC Paton, are you able to give the committee an indication of the number of man-hours that we might save if we make progress with the implementation of the collaborative commitments, and of what the financial gain might be? That would enable us to help with calls on the budget—potentially the big health budget—to support that work.

That question was as quick as I was able to make it, convener.

I thank the witnesses for being with us, and for their feedback and comments so far. I engaged with this issue initially as a constituency MSP in Edinburgh. However, I found that the evidence that we received from the SPF, for example, ahead of today’s session resonates with the challenges that have been experienced in the capital, in that—to quote from the SPF submission—

“this area of business is the single biggest inhibitor in operational officers across Scotland being able to carry out their core function to deliver basic policing services across our communities.”

That is a challenge with which we are all wrestling, although I recognise the increase in collaboration and perseverance, and the progress and the reduction in demand.

In that context, I have two questions. First, I am, and the committee is, aware of initiatives that are being implemented by the police such as mental health triage cars in Edinburgh and a community triage service in Lanarkshire. Are you aware of other initiatives that are examples of good practice in addressing the issues around the policing of vulnerable people? How could those be rolled out, if appropriate, on a national basis?

I turn to my second question. Dr Steel, you talked about how we create a door that accepts both, if that is an accurate way to quote your key message back to you. How far away are we from that?

I am not a member of the Law Society of Scotland, but I am on its roll of Scottish solicitors. That may be of relevance at points during our deliberations.

Thank you very much, Murdo, for your assistance, and thank you, colleagues, for electing me—if that is an appropriate description—to the position of convener.

Item 3 is a decision on whether to take item 4 in private. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, minister, and to your officials. You have touched on this already, but I wonder whether you might say a bit more. In your opening statement, you said that amendments at stage 2 will be kept to an absolute minimum and, in response to a colleague, you said that they will be very technical in nature. For the benefit of the Parliament, even at this stage, and for those listening, will you say a bit more about the rationale behind that, and when the detail—some of which you relayed in a previous answer—will become clearer for those who are interested in the operation of the system?

That clarification is helpful.

Before I ask my question, I remind everyone that I am registered on the Law Society of Scotland’s roll of Scottish solicitors.

Building on the previous questions and the opening remarks, as a point of clarity, if the not proven verdict is removed, are you stating that 10 out of 12—a five-sixths majority—or unanimity would be your optimum position? Is that what you are arguing for, rather than a two-thirds majority?

Thank you. I just wanted clarity on that.

Commissioner, you have provoked a question that I have wondered about for some time. It is in relation to what you said about travel. Often, when people enter or exit other countries, biometric data is taken. Do constituents have any ability through your office—not in relation to a criminal justice investigation or any attachment to a crime but in relation to when their data is taken as they travel—to inquire as to whether that data is still held or can be deleted? Do you have that international connectivity?

Good morning to you and your officials, cabinet secretary.

You said that there was a 12 per cent increase in capital for Police Scotland in the past financial year. Given that that was, of course, in the context of a 9 per cent decrease for the Scottish Government overall, that 12 per cent increase clearly shows that investment in policing is a priority for the Government. However, as you have laid out, there is a need, whether it be in the estates review or otherwise, to continue to enhance and rationalise appropriately for a 21st century police force.

In relation to capital, the SPA and Police Scotland mentioned to the committee not only that multiyear funding would be beneficial, but that using the powers in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 to enable the force to borrow and hold reserves could make a difference. Will you comment on those proposals that the SPA made, and can you give us any update on the conversations that the Scottish Government is having, particularly with the SPA? I appreciate that the overall call from the SPA was for more capital investment at a UK level, which would help the Scottish Government provide more capital funding.