���˿���

Members will naturally be concerned by the contents of the correspondence. I point out for the benefit of people who are interested in our proceedings that it was confirmed to us that, on average, 812 officers leave Police Scotland annually. It was also identified to us that, in quarter 1 of this year, 321 officers have already left. That is a 69 per cent increase on the normal retirement rate, which is a five-year average and, therefore, quite consistent. That is directly related to retirements. There is a proposition that, if the trend carries on, the numbers will only increase and be much higher than the normal retirement rate.

I am happy to hear what other members say and perhaps come back in later. There is a range of views on the likely cause of the increase. There are two angles to the matter that the committee should explore: first, what the causes are and, secondly, what the effect is. We are perhaps most worried about the effect of the loss of officer numbers and what will be done about it.

Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of time left before recess, but it would be prudent to take further evidence on the matter as soon as we can. Who knows what will have happened by September? It seems a long way away.

I note the Scottish Police Federation’s response to the statistics. It seems to me that the view of Police Scotland or, perhaps, the Scottish Police Authority is that they are to do with changes to pension commutation calculations and eligibility to retire. Although that is accepted as perhaps one reason, it is also refuted by the SPF, which admits that there is an “advantageous financial option” in relation to considering early retirement but says that that is not the only reason.

Calum Steele of the SPF states on the record—the letter is available for the benefit of the public—that officers are “overworked and undervalued”. He specifically raises the issue of their rest being disrupted, and that is one issue that comes through when you speak to front-line officers. He also raises the physical and mental toll that the job is taking on them and states that

“they feel they are failing ... the wider public”

in relation to their ability to carry out their role.

Clearly, it is a much more complicated issue than simply that of financial pension commutations. I guess that that will lead to discussions around workforce planning, whether any of this was foreseen and whether we believe that Police Scotland or ministers are heeding warnings about retirements as a result of health issues, exhaustion and just sheer exasperation in the force. Perhaps there is an element of denial of that.

I guess that what we are worried about is how that will impact future numbers. Layered on top of that is the potential action that the SPF is recommending, which was announced yesterday, and what effect that might have on a more limited number of officers who are having to do the work of people who are not there or who are working to rule.

There is a lot going on there, but I hope that that opens up the conversation, at the very least.

Well, that as well, but also—

I presume that Police Scotland is doing modelling on the level that they expect people to come in at when they are new, and then as they rise up through the ranks into new positions. There must be an average rate of promotion, for example. Looking at that in the round, we should be able to take snapshots of future years, given projections on retirement rates, recruitment rates and promotional time lags.

Given the scale of the organisation, I presume that that all happens as a matter of course. There will be people who are far better at that than us, but let us see what it looks like; I want to know what those graphs look like for the next 12, 24 and 36 months. If at any point they demonstrate that there is a dip and that there is a problem, I do not know how on earth we will fill those gaps, because they are not the sort of jobs that we can quickly and easily draft people in to do. Perhaps I am a bit more concerned than other members are.

What is the format of this item?

It is all very well speaking to newspapers, but it would be nice for the federation to speak to the committee about it.

Thank you for letting me back in. Obviously, when you are the first to speak, it opens up the can of worms.

My question is about the issue of backfilling positions. Rona Mackay is right to point out that the aim—and Police Scotland’s wording is very specific—is that

“Police Scotland will endeavour to recruit 300+ probationers per quarter.”

That would work out at 1,200 per year, which is still less than the number who are retiring. However, there is obviously a time lag between recruitment and going live on the job, and it is fair to assume that the majority of those who will graduate and go into service will not be going into the higher-end roles. It is quite notable that, of the 1,377 who could leave in the next 12 months, approximately half are at police constable level, and that is a substantial number, but of course it is unlikely that many of the people of the cohort of 300 per quarter will be going into roles as chief inspectors, superintendents, or chief superintendents. It is therefore inevitable that those higher-ranking roles will not be filled quickly, and that is where that loss of experience is important. Rona Mackay is right to say that people with 30 years’ service will be thinking about retirement; I know that if it was me, I would be thinking about my retirement. It is the rate at which that might happen which could cause worries.

There may not be a panic button now, but I do not think that we are far around the corner from pressing the panic button on this, because we do not really know how many people Police Scotland will recruit and how long it will take them to get into active service. These are questions that we must ask Police Scotland.

Notwithstanding the pay dispute, which has its own process, if there is the real-terms budget cut that is forecast and widely acknowledged, what effect will that have? Is that a capital resource or a resource budget cut or both? What effect will it have on increasing that churn? We do not want to get to a point, in a year, 18 months, or two years, where they say, “We told you so—the numbers are far lower than what is needed.”

The police are already talking about moving into front-line services people who currently work in the force but are not in local policing, for example. I am not quite sure what corporate service roles are and why those people are doing those roles and not local policing or front-line policing, but if Police Scotland is already having to take people out of those roles to fill in gaps, who will fill those back-office roles that obviously need to be done? If they did not need to be done, no one would be doing them.

The correspondence that the committee has had raises a whole bunch of questions and we should either try to take evidence or write to ask for more detail on that. I would quite like to see a forecast plan of numbers and the ranks that people will be at. The police will surely be doing long-term resource planning for the next couple of years. That might give us a better idea of when we could see a crossover between everything being just about manageable to there being a major issue for us, and the sooner we get sight of that, the better. If that major issue does not exist, that is great, but those projections should be quite easy to forecast, given the numbers.

That was years ago, and that was a very specific trial that went wrong. We get that. However, I do not understand the link between a seven-year-old decision that cost tens of millions of pounds for technology that is currently sitting there and not being used to its benefit, and the modern-day environment, when we are halfway through 2022. I think that the conversation has moved on. Technology—the software and the hardware—has certainly moved on. However, are you saying that the public mood has not moved on so, as a result of that, we should not do things, because the public are against them?

Yes. It is not necessarily on the same issue, but it follows on.

Good morning, commissioner. I have to say that I find this quite challenging. As you have said, much of the narrative being played out in the media is about a polarised debate between human rights and public safety considerations and the use of technology that enforcement agencies could and should be using.

If the SPA or ministers were to propose, say, a trial of facial search or recognition technology at a specific event or locus or just some wider policy, what test would you subject it to? Would it simply be subject to the code of practice? At what point would you feel comfortable with pushing back on political decisions or even operational matters being proposed by the police or ministers and saying, “No, I’m uncomfortable with this”?

That is helpful. The scenario that you mentioned is a useful one to put the issue in context, but there are obviously hundreds of other scenarios. My concern is about how you worded and structured your answer, in that it seemed to imply that it would be nice if they involved you, but that there is no statutory duty on them to do so. Theoretically, I guess that that means that they could do what they want in that respect within the confines of what is and is not legal—in the overt environment, anyway; we know what happens in the other world. If they did not actively involve you, you would therefore be merely an observer to the proceedings and then part of the mop-up in deciding whether any good or damage was done. Does that make you feel uncomfortable? Would you prefer a more active or statutorily powerful role?

Yes. My question follows on nicely from the point about procurement. It is not directly about that, although procurement is an issue.

I am sure that you will remember that, as far back as 2015, through the future cities project, Glasgow procured a high volume of digital surveillance cameras to replace its old analogue system, at a cost of around £24 million. Around 500 cameras currently sit there. They are capable of providing forms of facial identification if the appropriate software were to be enabled. That was quite widely reported at the time and probably quite widely resisted by many stakeholders.

Reading between the lines, it seems that the Scottish Police Federation is of the view that its operational members in front-line policing are very much in favour of much more enhanced use of technology on a proactive basis, such as the enabling of CCTV to perform certain functions around the specific targeting of people, tracking missing persons and preventing crime in certain areas of the city. However, off the back of the 60-page report that the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing published in the previous parliamentary session, the federation felt that those views had not been taken fairly into account by that sub-committee. I say that with respect to members of the current committee who sat on the sub-committee. That is just a general overview on the part of the federation.

It seems to me that there is a conflict. It seems that local authorities and operational police are very much in favour of the benefits of the technology, but they feel that its use has been thwarted by a public or political perception of the so-called big brother state argument. Where do you sit on that? Are you likely to make a more proactive recommendation to Glasgow City Council and the police on enhanced use—in other words, the switching on—of those cameras, which are sitting there and not being used to their benefit?