���˿���

I am sorry to interrupt, but why are we resourcing the police to budget and not budgeting to the resource needs? With respect, it sounds to me that every answer that you have given me has been about how you balance the budget and not how much it costs to adequately police. That is a very different approach from what we are used to.

I want to take a step back and look at the wider budget. I will drill into your submissions, and specifically some of the numbers, because this is pre-budget scrutiny. You talk a lot in your submissions about the five-year capital investment plan, and the figure of £466 million crops up quite a few times. However, you say that the Scottish Government’s capital spending review suggests that there will be a shortfall of £218 million over the next five years. That is quite a jump from what you are asking for. You have partially set out your case as to what will happen if the call for £466 million is not met. You say:

“we will not be able to modernise our asset base to the minimum levels set out in our strategies.”

If you do not get the £466 million five-year capital budget that you are asking for, what will you not be able to deliver?

Just reading between the lines, it sounds as if, of your total ask rather than what you think is on offer, about half is for business as usual—it is to enable you to perform to the current standards and levels of policing—but the extra is for extra elements that you think will be needed to make the transformation that you want. Therefore, you are not in any way suggesting that what is proposed will not be enough to maintain current policing levels, current workforce levels or existing standards of service.

If you spend £15 million on body-worn cameras, that is something that you can see, touch and feel, and people will notice the difference, but if you spend it on a software upgrade, which has a net benefit to the force, no one is really interested in that.

For this financial year, 2021-22, the total capital budget is £53.7 million. I am not sure whether I read this in the papers for today or in last year’s budget submission, but my understanding is that you asked for £85.7 million, so obviously you were given a lot less than your asked for. We do not know what you will be offered this year. What effect did that £30 million shortfall have on what you wanted to do with the business?

That is interesting.

My next question is for Mr Brown of the SPA—I want to make him feel included in the conversation. The SPA’s submission says:

“The Authority will continue to make a strong case for additional funding to Scottish Government, including proposals for borrowing or up-front funding for long term disposals/bridging finance.”

How much additional funding are you asking for from the Government? It would be helpful to know that so that we have an expectation ahead of the draft budget coming out. What are the proposals for borrowing that you refer to? What will you do with the extra money that you are given or that you borrow?

I presume that there will be another one.

I want to address what seems to be a bit of a contradiction in views about the situation in legal aid. Anyone who follows Scottish legal news or who has seen any headlines over the past few days and weeks will know that the legal profession is vocal in its concern about the situation. That is quite different to what we are hearing today about the drop in revenue being simply a by-product of the drop in demand.

We heard from Citizens Advice Scotland that the number of people seeking legal assistance has gone up by more than 30 per cent in the past year, but that the amount of grants being paid out over the same period had dropped by, I think, 27 per cent.

Another illustration is that witnesses who gave evidence at a previous session said that there are “legal aid deserts” in provision in Scotland. They also mentioned that there are many and varied issues to do with access to justice that are particularly acute in island and rural communities.

It seems to me, on the one hand, that a body of people are saying that the fees structure does not work and that they are not getting enough money for they work that they do, and that people in the real world are not able to access the legal justice and representation that they deserve or want. On the other hand, the system is saying that it pays out only as much as it is asked for. That seems to be a huge contradiction. Why is there that difference of views?

That is great.

I will follow on from that. I guess that the three strings to the puppet are interlinked. One string is the set level of fees, which is out of your control; it is a policy decision for Governments. The second string is the volume of cases that are brought to prosecution. The third string is the value of cases, which we have not discussed. There is probably no magic solution to all that. Surely, an increase in one or more of those would increase the level of grants that are paid out by SLAB and the amount of revenue coming into organisations such as Pauline McNeill mentioned, which are smaller scale and seem, on the face of it, to be struggling to survive. Where do you fit into the triangle in terms of getting those numbers up? We do not necessarily want to pay out more, but if that is the right thing to do because we have an uncapped system, then so be it. Something has to give. What is the most likely outcome?

I note that the previous survey was in 2018.