 Gweithio gynnwys y Cymruol 3 yma. Felly, gynhyrchu'r ffordd gwrdd. Rwy'n rhaid i'r wahanol yr taw i'r gwn i'r gwyligion. Mae Ystyniad o Glennwys ei hawdd i Cyllid Cymru, i lefio ar gyfer y galluame, o'r wrthugau Cymru i gael o teisio ar y cynnu ar draws. Metodau? Yr helyn wedi rŷnodd cyfrifolau, yn cyfrifolau ar y cyfrifolau? Mae rŷnodd cyfrifolau? Mae'r rŷnodd cyfrifolau? Rydym ni'n siŵs解ch fel courses, foren Search in Scotland, Theatre of Education, Arts Scotland, and the trainingRobot, where the Scotland Order 2018 draft and the third is regulation of investigatory powers, covert surveillance and property interference, code of practice Scotland order 2018 draft. I welcome Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary for justice and his officials Graham Walk, defence, security, cyber resilience division and Laurie Mitchell, directorate of legal services Scottish Government, who is particularly welcome as my niece. I can update you. She does very occasionally tests. Never writes, never phones, but does it occasionally tests. Nice to see you, Laurie. I refer members to paper one, which is a note by the clerk. Do you wish to make a short opening statement, cabinet secretary? Thank you. Yes, thank you, convener. Good morning. There are three affirmative orders being made under the regulation of investigatory powers Scotland act before the committee today. The regulation of investigatory powers, covert surveillance and property interference code of practice Scotland order 2018. The regulation of investigatory powers covert human intelligence source code of practice Scotland order 2018. The regulation of investigatory powers equipment interference code of practice Scotland order 2018. The purpose of the first two orders is to bring into force the revised code for covert surveillance and property interference and covert human intelligence sources and to revoke the existing codes. The third order seeks to bring into force the first code of practice for equipment interference. Equipment interference is the power to obtain a variety of electronic data from equipment, including computers or computer-like devices such as tablets. That activity could previously take place under the property interference provisions of the police act 1997. The UK Government decided to clarify provisions for equipment interference. The investigatory powers act 2016 sets out a statutory framework for equipment interference for the purposes of obtaining data and prevents such authorisations being made under the 1997 act. Those provisions required and were given the consent of the Scottish Parliament. With regard to the revised code, the main changes reflect the new oversight regime for all investigatory powers that come into the form of the investigatory powers commissioner. The IPC is in effect an amalgamation of three former commissioners, the chief surveillance commissioner, the interception of communications commissioner and the intelligence services commissioner. Again, consent for those provisions was granted by the Scottish Parliament. We received a small number of responses to our 12-week consultation period, where we have been able to, we have taken comments on board and we have made revisions to the codes. Those include the addition of a new paragraph in each code to remind public authorities of their data protection duties and ensure that the safeguard chapters in each code are consistent while acknowledging that there are differences in different regimes. What we are unable to do in the codes, as some of the responses requested, is to make provisions within them that are inconsistent with the provisions that are set out in the current acts. Agenda item 3 is formal consideration of the motions in relation to the affirmative instruments. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has considered and reported on the instruments and has no comment to make. The motions will be moved with an opportunity for a formal debate if that is necessary. The first motion is S5M-09720 that the Justice Committee recommends that the regulation of investigatory powers covert human intelligence sources code of practice Scotland order 2018 draft be approved. Do members have any comments? No comments. The question is therefore that S5M-09720 in the name of Michael Matheson be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The second motion is S5M-09720 that the Justice Committee recommends that the regulation of investigatory powers equipment interference code of practice Scotland order 2018 draft be approved. Cabinet Secretary to move the motion. Thank you. Do members have any comments or questions? In that case, the question is S5M-09722 in the name of Michael Matheson be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The third motion is S5M-09725 that the Justice Committee recommends that the regulation of investigatory powers covert surveillance and property interference code of practice Scotland order 2018 draft be approved. Cabinet Secretary to move the motion. Moved. Do members have any questions or comments? The question is the motion S5M-09725 in the name of Michael Matheson be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes consideration of the affirmative instruments. The committee's report will note and confirm the outcome of the debate. Is the committee content to delegate authority to me as convener to clear the final report? You are all agreed. Thank you. So it only remains me to thank the cabinet secretary and officials for attending. I suspend to allow the cabinet secretary and officials to leave. The two negative instruments are fire fighters, pension scheme, amendment and transitional provisions Scotland regulations 2017, SSI 2017 oblique 435 and forced marriage etc, protection and jurisdiction Scotland Act 2011 relevant third party order 2017 SSI 2017 oblique 461. I refer members to paper 2, which is a note by the clerk. Do members have any comments or questions on this? Is the committee therefore agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments? You are all agreed. Some volume would be good. Make sure that there is somebody out there. Agenda item 5 is a briefing on defamation. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk in paper 4, which is a private meeting. Before I welcome our panellists, I believe that we will now do a declaration of interests, which will cover this evidence session and the subsequent one to follow on policing. Any declarations of interests forthcoming, Daniel? I would just like to remind members that my wife is a practising solicitor. Liam. I will remind members that I am a member of the Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland, and that I am a practising solicitor. I am registered on the role of Scottish solicitors. Since you are doing them for the next item, I declare that I am in receipt of a police pension and I am a member of the Tired Police Service Association. Agenda item 5 is my pleasure to welcome Lord Pentland, chairman of the Scottish Law Commission and Graham McGlashan. I hope that I pronounced that right. McGlashan, thank you. Project Manager and Solicitor with the Scottish Law Reform. I thank the witnesses for their written evidence. That is always very helpful for the committee. Lord Pentland, do you wish to make a short opening statement? It might be helpful, convener. If I said just a few words, firstly, it is a pleasure to be back. I thank you for the opportunity to come along today and brief the Justice Committee on our recently published report on defamation. Graham is the project manager. He is a solicitor, seconded from the Scottish Government legal department, and he and I have been the team on this project. I am going to keep those opening remarks as brief as I can so that we have maximum possible time for questions and discussions. I am very happy to try to answer any questions that members may have about the law of defamation, what our proposals entail, the overarching themes that have informed our work. We have set out the background, as you know, to the project, the case for law reform, and a summary of our main proposals in the written submission that you mentioned, convener. Perhaps I might just reiterate that the project was inspired by a number of responses that we had to the public consultation on our ninth programme of law reform. We have just come to the end of the ninth programme. We are about to start the tenth. There were quite a number of suggestions that we should examine the law of defamation from stakeholders such as the professional legal bodies, the Law Society of Scotland, and the Faculty of Advocates, but also from media stakeholders such as BBC Scotland campaign groups such as the libel reform campaign. They were all supportive of a project to examine potential reforms in this area of the law. One of the main reasons that respondents suggested was that major reforms, as members know, had been made to the law of defamation in England and Wales by the Defamation Act of 2013. Those reforms were largely, but not entirely, excluded from Scots law. The message that we were getting from stakeholders was that this was an area of Scots law that was in need of review to establish whether similar reforms or indeed different ones might be appropriate here. As we have explained in the briefing and also in the report, much of Scots law in this area is contained in rather antiquated decisions of the courts, and a number of statutory provisions, not very many as it happens, scattered across the statute book, all from a time that predates the modern era of mass communication and the internet. As you will have seen, that has thrown up particular challenges for the law of defamation. In terms of our approach, I think that most members of the committee will be aware of the way that the Law Commission works in practice. Early on, we established an advisory group consisting of legal practitioners, academics, media representatives and others to assist us in understanding how the current law works in practice and in developing and shaping our ideas for possible reform of the law. It is a very important aspect of the Law Commission's work that we try to understand and take account of the law in other parts of the world, and that is something that we looked at in this project as well. Whilst our closest comparator was the reforms that I mentioned made to the law of England and Wales in 2013, there was also a recent body of work, a consultation paper and subsequent report on reform of the law in Northern Ireland. What we have done then is to publish a discussion paper for public consultation. That was in March of 2016. More recently, with the assistance of Parliamentary Council, with whom we work closely, we prepared a working draft of a bill that is appended to our report. We had a second round of public consultation on the bill provisions. That round of consultation attracted a very high level of interest and response. We had 111 responses to that. It is a significant number from members of the public. The theme that runs through our ideas, which I suggest is the litmus test when it comes to your assessing what you make of our proposals and how you want to go with them in due course, assuming that there is a bill. The theme is to try and strike the correct balance between two values, which really do pull sometimes in opposite directions. Firstly, freedom of expression. Secondly, protection of reputation. We make 49 recommendations in total. I suggest that the draft bill and the report constitute the most substantial proposed reform of defamation law in Scottish legal history. It includes proposals to introduce a serious harm threshold, to give greater protection to what we have described as secondary publishers, to reduce the limitation period for bringing defamation actions from three years to one, and to introduce a statutory defence of publication in the public interest. If implemented, those proposals will set out the law in this area in clear and straightforward terms in a modern and accessible statute. Thank you very much for that comprehensive opening statement, Liam McArthur. Thank you very much, Lord Pentland, for that introduction. Focusing on the latter points that you were making, looking at the recommendations, you talked about the reduction in the time period from three to one year, the serious harm threshold and also the point about a single publication date or single publication rule. All of those would seem to shift the balance from pursuer to defender. Was that a deliberate move on the part of yourself and the advisory group? I think that it is important to look at the package of reforms as a whole. There are a number of proposals that might be seen as pro-claimant or pro-pursuer. For example, the proposal is about stronger and more effective powers for the courts. The idea that the courts would be empowered to order the publication of a summary of the court's judgment. Those are steps that might be seen as promoting the right to obtain effective vindication where one's reputation has been damaged. As I said earlier, I think that what we have tried to do is to strike the right balance between those two fundamental rights throughout. The serious harm threshold, which you have mentioned, is a key principle of this package of reforms. We feel that it has important potential effects, not least in making it more difficult for powerful interests to use defamation law as a tactic or a weapon to try to silence unwelcome criticism. I am not sure that I would agree that the proposals, including the ones that you have mentioned, are necessarily pro-either sides. The whole idea is to try and get this balance correct. However, no doubt when parliamentarians come in due course to assess those ideas, you will want to consider whether you are satisfied that those proposals do get the balance right. Sorry, a rather long answer, but one of the challenges of describing the body of work is that, at one level, it is all quite technical. That is helpful. It strikes me that the intent, in some respects, appears to be to reduce the overall quantum of cases or the circumstances in which cases get brought forward. However, there is a greater degree of certainty around what happens when cases are brought forward legitimately. Is that a failure? That is true. One of the messages that we got from a range of publishers, including people working in the new media, is that having to deal with a threat of defamation proceedings can be a very difficult and intimidating challenge for such persons. It can be used, as I say, as a tactic or a weapon to try to stifle debate and to stifle the free flow of information. We are keen on giving the courts effective tools to sift out unmeritorious claims at the earliest possible stage. That is something that the courts do not really have the power to do at present. We would like to move in that direction. That has been done quite successfully in England and Wales under the 2013 act, and we have tried to learn some lessons from that. I do not understand the reassurance that you give about the balance that you have sought to strike there. Either in the advisory group or through the process of consultation, are you confident that you have been able to take the views of those who represent pursuers on a more routine basis? Absolutely. We had a number of submissions from those who habitually act for claimants. We involved them in the advisory group. They attended some seminars that we arranged. Yes, I am confident that we have taken account of those views. We have not always agreed with those representations, but that is our job. We have to come down and make an assessment at the end of the day of where we think the right direction for the law to go is. Those areas of disagreement, as you say, may be impossible to satisfy the demand of everybody in such a process. Where would be the concerns of those who represent pursuers in relation to the balance that you sought to strike? I think that there are two that spring to mind. One is the suggestion that the serious harm threshold will constitute an additional barrier and make it more difficult for people to bring defamation claims. That has not been the experience in England and Wales. I do not think that it could be said that any serious claim has not been allowed to be pursued. The English courts have been keen to emphasise that a pragmatic approach should be taken towards this new test and that it should not be allowed to develop into an elaborate expensive procedure at an early stage in an action. Usually, it ought to be quite simple and straightforward for a court to assess, just by looking at the statement that is complained of whether or not it is likely to have caused serious harm. The team was not persuaded that that representation was at the end of the day sound. At the level of principle, we find it difficult to see why it would be right for a claim to be allowed to be pursued, where serious harm to reputation had not been caused. I know that other colleagues want to touch on that, so I will leave you with my question. On that very point, the introduction of the threshold of serious harm is one of the key proposals. I was just wondering if you could bring that to life for us, or, obviously, because that is a phrase that is open to interpretation and, potentially, subjective. I was just wondering if, A, you could describe what is meant and also describe how you would propose to codify that within proposed legislation. I suppose that each case will depend on its own particular facts. The court will have to decide on the basis of looking at the statement first, whether it is likely to have caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation. For example, an allegation of serious crime or an allegation of child sexual abuse or pedophilia or something of that nature. I do not think that any court would have difficulty in quickly coming to the view that that is likely to have caused and will continue to cause serious harm. Off the top of my head, some minor allegation about misconduct of a small-scale nature in a private relationship might not be thought to give rise to serious harm. For clarification's sake, from what you just said, it sounds as though when you are talking about serious harm, you are talking about serious harm with regard to an individual's interactions with other people, whether that is from a working standpoint or indeed an interpersonal. Would that be correct? My supplementary to that would be, to what extent could serious harm be in terms of one's personal demeanor wellbeing or mental health, which would not have any impact on interactions or not directly? Would that be taken into account? The key thing to bear in mind, perhaps, is that defamation law is concerned with the protection of reputation and with providing redress for unjustified damage to reputation. That is what the courts will look at. Does the allegation that is complained of, the statement that is the subject of the proceedings, look like a statement that is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the person who is doing the complaining? Another factor that could come into that would be where very little damage to reputation can be shown to have been caused in the particular jurisdiction where the proceedings are brought. That takes us into the realm of so-called liable tourism, which was one of the factors giving rise to the 2013 act south of the border, where proceedings were being brought by wealthy and powerful interests in the courts of England and Wales. On the back of minimal publication, perhaps a relatively low number of downloads in that jurisdiction. The courts were in the process of developing in England and Wales a common law abuse of process jurisdiction—this is before the statutory reform—to try and give greater scope for weeding out such claims at an early stage. To some extent, the statutory reform in the 2013 act and what we are now proposing builds upon that. I do not think that it is at all likely that the courts will strike out anything that looks like a serious, well-founded, arguable claim. Can I finally just ask about the time limitations that you are proposing? It strikes me in this age that the data of publication can sometimes be in doubt. We have extensive republishation going on in a number of ways, whether that is essentially people republishing things by copying and pasting or, indeed, retweeting. Could you just explain how that one-year cut-off will be interpreted? How big a shift is that? My understanding was that the current situation is that the time starts from when you first become aware of a statement being made. I was just wondering if you could clarify the impact. To what extent we are moving away from that and what extent you are looking at republications and so on? My proposal now is that the clock should start to tick when a person first publishes a statement to the public or to a section of the public. As far as republication is concerned, we heard a lot of representations from consultees to the effect that whatever the limitation period is, it should not be allowed to restart. The clock should not be reset, in other words. Each time there is a further publication, often by way of a fresh download, perhaps many years into the future. That is a clear example of defamation law having to rely on concepts that were developed perhaps more than 100 years ago, when publication meant something far more serious, far more substantial and far more difficult to achieve than it does now. It is for that reason that the project came to us in the first place and that we decided to take it up. What we are interested in at the commission is areas of the law, perhaps not of great political sensitivity, but areas of the law where, for whatever reason, society has moved ahead of the law and the law needs to catch up. I guess that the issue that that throws up is that if something is published in a relatively obscure place on the internet, a untrafficked website or some other obscure thing that essentially is not being observed and then is republished many years later on something that has huge traffic, would that subsequent publication therefore not constitute defamation? In that situation, is that not potentially quite unfair on the individual where they were quite reasonably have had no reason to have been aware of the initial publication at all? No, I think that if I may say so, that is an extremely valid point. There could be minimal publication and then many years later mass publication say on a celebrity's Twitter feed or something of that nature, what how that would be addressed is by application to the court's discretionary power to override the time limit where the circumstances of the particular case justify that being done. That's the case across the board in limitation. The courts retain a discretionary jurisdiction to disobey the strict application of a limitation period where the particular circumstances of the case justify that in order for justice to be done. Something published to the public on a remote obscure website years later republished by a national newspaper, I think that that could be quite a strong set of circumstances for the one-year limit to be disapplied, but all depends on the circumstances of the individual case of course. I just wanted to, in a similar vein that Daniel Johnson asked for elaboration on the definition of serious harm. On the other side of the argument, the introduction of a statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest, what would you be—could you elaborate on your proposals for that test? Yes. What we're doing there is putting on to the face of the statute book a common law principle, which has been developed by the courts over the past 20 years or so, essentially for the purpose of protecting responsible journalism in the public interest, even where it might not be possible for the statement to be defended on the grounds of truth. That was developed by the courts in the leading case of Reynolds against Times Newspapers. It's become known as the Reynolds defence. Albert Reynolds, the former T-shirt of the Irish Republic, brought defamation proceedings against the Sunday Times, went to the House of Lords in the case ultimately failed. The House of Lords developed this doctrine, which has been recognised in most jurisdictions across the world now to protect responsible journalism, particularly investigative journalism, where it can be shown that the publishers have acted responsibly, conducted an open-minded and fair investigation, given the subject of the report, the opportunity to answer it, even though it might not be possible, for whatever reason, for the publishers to prove the truth of the allegations by evidence. Nonetheless, the defence of publication in the public interest can apply. That is seen by the media as particularly important. It's not a defence that has been explicitly recognised in any case in the Scottish courts as yet, although the understanding and practice among those who work in this field is that it does apply. What we are doing is putting that question beyond doubt, or proposing that it should be put beyond doubt by introducing this provision. I hope that that explains it too. Yes, that was certainly of interest. Perhaps no one is willing to dip their toe in the water just yet, but if we had statutory provision, it would be absolutely clear that there was a public interest defence. There is an issue there that I know is of concern for investigative journalists. Benard, while you raise that point, and in case I forget to mention it, I think that when it comes to an area of the law like this, which is important not just to lawyers and to newspapers but to the general public, there is quite a lot to be said for putting the key principles into modern language in an accessible statute. I am not suggesting that everybody is going to rush off and start reading the defamation and malicious publications Scotland Act once it is enacted, but we did hear, for example, from the representatives of the new media that they would very much like the ability to be able to go quickly to the statute law database when they receive this letter of complaint written as they always are in extremely strong terms by claimants' lawyers and rather intimidating terms and actually just find out quickly what the law is in a provision which everybody can understand. Moving on now to definition and certainly you said that what attracted the law commission to it was that social media, other ways of communication had moved on quite substantially and perhaps defamation had not moved with it. The bill does not cover those who provide equipment. It is the take-down, notice and take-down procedure, which the defamation act in 2013 does make provision for, where if a complaint is received about a post, a website operator must identify the person making the post and if it is not possible for the complainer to do so themselves to remove it. That is in the USA, but the bill takes a different course of action. Can you explain what and why that action has been taken? That is a very difficult area and what we have discovered is that pretty much every legal system across the world has been wrestling with how to deal with this question of secondary publication or publication by internet intermediaries, people who are on one view simply providing a platform or a means of access to information that is already in the public domain. Ideally, those issues should be addressed, I would suggest, on a supranational level as they, to some extent, are by existing European Union rules, although those have been the subject of quite a bit of criticism. At least they should be addressed on a UK-wide basis, we think. Obviously, the internet does not recognise national borders and information flows freely from one jurisdiction to another. What we have proposed is essentially an interim solution pending what we hope would be that type of wider review. Trying to cut through this and recognising a distinction between those who are essentially originators of information on the one hand and those who are not on the other, so that in principle those who fall into the latter category, whom we describe as secondary publishers, would not be liable in defamation for republication. However, what we learned is that what most complainers want is to have offensive material quickly removed from the web. We are proposing that the focus should be on that, thereby confer on the courts stronger, more effective powers to order takedown or removal at an early stage of proceedings where appropriate. That, in the proverbial nutshell, is where we are coming from on this. The difficulty with that is that it involves court procedure, having to go to court, whereas the takedown, notice and takedown procedure, as outlined in the defamation art 2013, requires some just to do it, not to have to go to court, with all the expense that that may involve and delay too. That is true. We looked closely at the model provided for in the 2013 act, which you have described, convener. We took quite a bit of evidence from persons in England and Wales who have experience of it. The rather strong message that we got was that system has not worked. It is too elaborate, too bureaucratic and it is largely ignored by the internet companies. They do not like being put into the position of being a sensor, and they say that that has a chilling effect on freedom of expression, because an intermediary, someone who has not originated the statement, will very often not be in a position to defend or justify the accuracy of the statement, because they will not have access to the information on which it was based. We are trying to find a way to cut through those problems. That is the scheme that we have come up with. Yes, it may involve, ultimately, court proceedings in some cases. However, when it becomes known that the courts have more effective powers, which can be exercised right at the start of an action, it may have an influence over how publishers react in practice to complaints. You have mentioned that perhaps it is not just Scotland-wide. The rest of the UK should look at the same kind of law, but, more importantly still, it should be on a super-national basis. That is certainly something that resonates with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association where this has been talked about and the feeling has been expressed if there were more politicians and legislatures looking at this having the same solution, then that would probably balance the kind of influence that internet providers seem to have just now to be able to, as you said, just ignore this. A couple of thoughts briefly on that, if I may. It would be good if Scotland could take the lead. On this area, our proposals have attracted quite a lot of interest. Different solutions have been devised in different jurisdictions. I think that there is quite a lot to be said for ours because of its simplicity and straightforwardness, and we are relying on established concepts of authorship, editing, et cetera. I think that yes, the international dimension is important, but I do not necessarily feel that that should hold this Parliament back from itself trying to devise an appropriate solution that will work in this jurisdiction, even if it is seen as an interim solution and one that will be built on in the future. That is my thinking on the international dimension. That is very helpful. Can I ask you about the bill prohibits public authorities from suing such as universities or housing associations? Would that not adversely affect them in protecting their reputation and what are you thinking behind that? That is a proposal that we developed following the initial consultation exercise that was represented to us by some stakeholders, for example the libel reform campaign, that we should do this and we have decided to go with it. Essentially, we are putting on to the statute book, The Existing Law. Public authorities at present under what is known as the Darbyshire principle, after the case in which the principle was developed by the House of Lords, public authorities under the present law are not entitled to sue for defamation. Essentially, the justification is that it should be for public authorities to defend their reputation through political means or in the public sphere, rather than through the courts. Has the Darbyshire law been upheld so far? Is there any deviation from that? That is well settled. That is just putting it into the legal framework. Yes. Again, the message that we were getting was transparency, clarity and accessibility of the legal rules. I understand that the rationale behind public authorities. I suppose that universities would argue that they are autonomous entities of a Government. There has been quite a lively debate in this place over recent years. Reputational damage for them would be seen as a serious risk, particularly universities competing in an international marketplace for students and staff. I wonder whether there is a distinction to be made between universities on the one hand and public authorities in the more traditional sense on the other. The question of whether a particular organisation is a public authority is not a straightforward question. Essentially, it involves consideration of whether the bodies functions include functions of a public nature. I would have to give some thought to the position about whether university constitutes a public authority for the purposes of provision. I cannot remember if we must have looked at that specifically at some stage. One of the let-outs is for charities in which non-natural persons are charities or have purposes consisting of only one or more charitable purposes. That is one of the let-outs that we have written into the bill. The balance between whether a body is a public body is a tricky one, and it is certainly one that is not, by no means, perfect. What we have come up with, we can certainly open to ideas as to how to draw that line. It is quite a hard line to draw. It is. We have quite a lot of feedback on this at the stage of the bill consultation, as I recall. Essentially, what we have done is to take the definition of a public authority from the human rights case law and the human rights legislation. I am not sure that I would like to express a view now conclusively about the position of universities. Perhaps I could think about that. We are happy to come back to you on that. Just one final question, Lord Pentland. You have said in your opening statement that the draft bill and the report constitute the most substantial proposed reform of defamation in Scottish legal history. You will be aware that the role of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has been extended, so it could possibly look at bills. Given that it raises public interest and all of the areas that you have covered in investigative journalism and the internet, do you think that it would be more appropriate with the Delegated Powers or the Justice Committee to look at them? I am not sure that it is necessarily, for me, the chairman of the law commission to express a view about parliamentary procedure. That is a matter, I suppose, for the Parliament and the Parliamentary Bureau. We have had a number of measures recently with the DPLR committee, and they have been successful. My recollection is that the criteria for admission of bills to do that procedure are quite narrow. There has been some discussion as to whether they should be widened, but they include among them the bureau being satisfied that there is a wide degree of consensus among key stakeholders about the need for reform and the approach recommended. There is some flexibility inherent in that, but it may be that this particular piece of legislation, in view of the interest in which it has generated the strong views of stakeholders, it may be that it would be thought perhaps more suitable for the Justice Committee, but, as I say, it is not really for me to say. We are happy to support at the bill wherever it goes. I think that there are other things about referring to direct criminal law, significant financial and policing, one that is a bit dodgy. Do they have significant European convention human rights implications? That is a good point. The human rights aspect as well. As I say, wherever it ends up, and I very much hope that it does end up in some committee, we will be more than happy to continue to support it. I thank you very much. That includes our evidence session. This is obviously a very important book, and I thank the Law Commission for their work and for appearing before the committee today. I now suspend to allow a change of witnesses and a brief comfort break. Agenda item 6 is an evidence session on policing in Scotland. I refer members to papers 5, which are a note by the clerk, and paper 6, which is a private paper. We now move to the evidence session on policing in Scotland, and we will be hearing from both Ian Livingstone and Susan Deacon on a range of policing matters. As everyone knows, there are on-going live investigations being conducted by the Police Investigation and Review Commissioner concerning the Chief Constable and others, which are proceeding under statutory process. I therefore remind members to be careful to avoid exploring issues that could impinge on those investigations. I welcome Deputy Chief Constable, Ian Livingstone, QPM, Police Scotland and Professor Susan Deacon, CBA, chair of the Scottish Police Authority. I thank both witnesses for their written submissions, which are always very helpful to the committee. I understand that Susan Deacon is your first appearance, obviously, before the committee. You wish to make an opening statement, but Mr Livingstone, you are quite content just to move to questions. As members are aware, I took over as SPA chair last month, so I very much welcome this early opportunity to engage with the Justice Committee. SPA is one of our nation's most important public bodies, and it has oversight of one of our nation's most important public services, so I regard it as a real privilege to have taken on this role. The SPA has made significant progress in some areas over recent years, not least in developing policing 2026, a 10-year strategy for policing in Scotland, developed jointly with Police Scotland. However, it is also the case that the SPA has been criticised over many aspects of its leadership, its governance and its practices by the Parliament, by the Government, by Audit Scotland and by HMICS and others. I share the concerns that have been raised, and I have made very clear since coming into this post that I am determined to do all that I can to drive forward improvements in the way that the SPA operates so that the public, the Parliament, the police service and others can have full confidence in the work that we do. I think that the role of the body, as the key body that oversees and scrutinises Police Scotland, is of fundamental importance. I also believe that the job of work that needs to be done in developing policing in Scotland over the years ahead is significant. I think that we have an excellent police service, one that we can be proud of, but, like every police service in every part of the world, it needs to adapt to changes and demands and expectations. The SPA has to be fit for purpose, in my view, if it is to play its part in driving forward that process of improvement and change in the future. I have set out a number of early guiding principles that are in the written submission, convener, that I have been adopting in my early weeks as chair, and I am seeking now to embed in the way that we work as an organisation. That includes increased transparency and clarity around governance, more robust decision making, a stronger public service ethos, better trust in relationships and engagement and a process of continuous improvement going forward. I have made some early changes that I hope members will agree are steps in the right direction, but there is a job of work to be done, so I will be continuing to work hard with members of the board and with colleagues in Police Scotland to ensure that we continue to drive forward improvement in the period to come. One of the relationships that I hope that we can build and develop further is a relationship with this Parliament and its committees. I hope that, in the months and years to come, there will be various opportunities to engage at different levels with MSPs, with the committee and others, because I think that our relationship with this Parliament is very important. I thank you again for the invitation to be here today, and I look forward to the discussion. Thank you very much for the opening statement. Can I perhaps ask something that would be directed to both of you? You have acknowledged that there could be improvements, and Police Scotland and the SP have recognised that there were initial difficulties with regard to particular roles and responsibilities that I set out in the 2012 act. Can I ask both witnesses if they are confident that the 2012 act is still fit for purpose, or could it be amended to provide greater clarity and understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each organisation or in some other way? I think that, fundamentally, the legislation is right. I mean, I watched, like everyone else, from the outside in some of the early debates that took place regarding what the respective roles and responsibilities of the SPA in Police Scotland should be. I think that many of those matters were resolved and have begun to bed in, although when we come back to this, I think, and I'm sure that DCC Limited would agree that there is still much work to be done to ensure that we get the right role and relationship in place between the SPA and Police Scotland so that we deliver that effective scrutiny function that I referred to earlier. As far as structure is concerned, again, watching from the outside in a few years back, but with someone with significant interest in public services in Scotland, I believe that the creation of Police Scotland was an important and significant step forward. Actually, since coming into this role, to be honest, I've become ever more convinced that we have fundamentally a structure in place that is good for Scotland and good for policing in Scotland, both in terms of ensuring that we have the best possible specialist operations, but also that we can flex that national capability into delivering effective local policing across the country. Is there still work to be done? Absolutely. There's been a big process of integration and reform going on, taking eight legacy forces into one single service. That's still very much work in progress, and again, I'm sure that DCC Limited would have more to say on that. Fundamentally, yes, I do think that the overarching legislative framework and structures are right. I think that we all need to work together to make sure that the work is effectively as possible in the public interest going forward. I would agree with that. I think that the act is there, and I think that it's clear that, from my perspective, the delivery of policing and all the elements of that, whether that's the people, the money, the ICT responsibility to be effectively delivered, have to be under the direction and control of the chief constable. Therefore, the role of the authority is a governance function of scrutiny and accountability. In the early days, there was a little bit confusion that the authority would somehow be involved in service delivery. With hindsight, as I look back, it was perhaps because it was seen as the successor to the SPSA, which was an entirely different animal. That was about shared services and the delivery of shared services. As some of the elements of the SPSA came over to the SPA, I think that it took a bit of time to properly understand that the SPA was there as a governance board, and the service delivery other than with the exception of forensic services should rest with Police Scotland. My view, having read that act more often than I would have wished it over the last number of years at different times, the structure of the act is right. I think that our challenge and our duty and responsibility is now to allow the intent of Parliament and the intent of the act to take shape. We need to be very clear between the authority and ourselves how that will be going forward. I already feel a different atmosphere with the new chair and the new operating officer. The level of engagement, communication and openness are very different from how things have been in recent months and years. The approach to our work is just as vital, if not more so than the actual words of the legislation. Daniel Johnson Yesterday morning, Molly Alley, former SPA board member, appeared on Good Morning Scotland on Radio Scotland. She said of the SPA board, and I am quoting here, that it has a long history of poor decision making and went on to say that there was a failure of genuine independence and an unwilling for board members to challenge each other. I just want to give Professor Deacon to recognise those characterisations and what do you feel needs to be done to put those things right if you do recognise those characterisations? Professor Deacon Well, obviously, my primary focus is on looking to the future. I said on—well, when my appointment was announced that I want to learn lessons from the past but very much apply those to how we develop in the future. I believe that it is absolutely fundamental that the SPA board works effectively as a board in the space that it needs to be in, if I can just elaborate on what I mean by that. As I indicated, I think that the SPA board and its members have done a lot of good work and worked very hard, but I do not think—and I have heard this expressed in this Parliament in many occasions—that it has fully moved in to the role as being that national oversight body that is very open and outward looking. Within that has decision making processes that really stand up to scrutiny and that all can have trust and confidence in. I have looked very carefully at works such as, for example, the HMICS report last year that looked at matters of openness and transparency. I have already made some changes to the way that the—some early changes to the way that the board meets previously had a practice—again, this has been discussed in Parliament—had a practice of having public meetings, closed meetings, members meetings, committees, working groups and various variations within that in terms of when there were and weren't, for example, present and so on. Not always, in my view, as effectively supported and recorded as the decision making process should be. We now have in place a single board meeting. Within that, at the end of the agenda, we will take items in private, just as is normal practice in any public body, in local authorities, in this Parliament, in the NHS and so on. Where we do take matters in private will be for good reason. Members appreciate that there are many good reasons why certain businesses have to be conducted in private. There will be occasions where members meet less formally, but rather than being or being seen to be meetings, what I have already started to develop—we had a session with Police Scotland just two weeks ago, recently—in exactly this space. I have made these less formal meetings more about workshops and strategy sessions, and the next one will be about board development, to ensure that board members are absolutely fully versed in all their roles and responsibilities as part of that public body. There is a lot more work to be done. There are, I think, 10 different framework documents of various types under the heading of governance on the SPA website, with varying degrees of, well, somewhere more up-to-date than others, but there is certainly a real clutter there. Again, a piece of work that I have initiated and with support of HMICS, which, as I have already looked at this, matters in some detail, is that we really start to reshape some of those governance frameworks. I want people, whether they are MSPs, the public or anyone else, with an interest to be able to look into the SPA and see clearly how it functions, how it operates and be able to engage in our decision-making processes and understand them as far as possible. I recognise a number of the criticisms that have been made, but my focus is to try to learn from them and change things in the future. I think that that is helpful. If I can just refer to your written statement and, indeed, I think that you repeated it in your opening statement, you described the work that you need to do around simplification, transparency and clarity, developing strong public service ethos and building public trust. If you do not mind me saying those, those sound rather fundamental points for a body such as the SPA. Given that you described that there is a job of work to be done, could you maybe outline what you think the nature of that work is? Given that those things are so fundamental in nature that you really require to do quite a fundamental review, those things are not things that can be addressed piecemeal. If there is a requirement for you, what form should that take and what sort of timelines do you expect to conduct it to? I cannot agree more. I think that those principles are absolutely fundamental and that is why I am crystal clear that I want to make sure that the SPA is living up to the standards that should be as expected of an important public body as soon as possible. On timescales, where I can make changes quickly, I am endeavouring to do so and we also have a new interim chief officer in place that began just a couple of weeks before me, so he has also been looking at the executive functions within the organisation to make sure that they work effectively as well. There is a job of work to be done and I say openly to members that it will take many months for the SPA to really be operating in the way both in systems, culture, practice, governance structures and so on that I think it needs to do. There are particular issues regarding how the board itself functions. The cabinet secretary has actually just written to me this week seeking my assurance that I will use the performance review process that I am obliged to carry out anyway as chair to ensure that board objectives are clearly stated, not least to achieve some of the principles that you have outlined. The individual board members and their objectives are aligned with the direction of travel that I have outlined. I am pleased also that the cabinet secretary has indicated his willingness to work in partnership with the SPA to ensure that we make progress in the areas that we have touched on as quickly as possible. You are absolutely right. Those things are fundamental and, to be honest, the more that I have looked at the SPA over the months leading up to my appointment because I looked a lot from the outside in during the selection process itself and having looked at the organisation from the inside over the past number of weeks, I, too, am asking the question as to why some of those fundamentals have not been better developed. As I say, what I need to do now is to make sure that they are and that that is done at pace. I will happily keep reporting back to the committee or to the Parliament generally about what we are doing in that regard. I am just wondering whether there needs to be a single piece of review work done and a single published review, just because I think that they are so fundamental and they are so comprehensive in terms of their nature that it needs to be looked at in the round and addressed in the round and addressed publicly if we are going to really instill the sense of public trust that I think that you rightly alluded to in your written statement and your opening statement. I smiled there when you mentioned the word review because I am tempted to say that I have rarely seen an organisation that has been subject to so many different reviews. I think that there is a range of work, including the deliberation of several parliamentary committees, the work of HMICS, Audit Scotland as well and the observations that it has made in successive section 22 reports that actually gives us a very good basis upon which to act. No, I do not think that there needs to be one single process of review. I think that what there does need to be is a process of sustained and accelerated continuous improvement that puts into practice the kind of standards that I have talked about today and also have been identified in these various reports. We have a very good evidence base to build on from the scrutiny of the SPA that has already taken place. We need to drive change forward. I just ask one final question to DCC Livingston. Since you assumed your role as acting chief constable, could you tell me how many times you have met with the cabinet secretary and if you are aware if all those meetings were minited? I could not tell you certain here how many times I have met with him. I meet with the cabinet secretary at different locations. We often speak at events or conferences or award ceremonies, bravery awards, etc. I have a series of regular meetings as diaries in the chief constables diaries. In general terms, I have seen Mr Matheson easily a dozen times and spoke to him more frequently by telephone. I do not personally take a minute of those meetings. They are much more informal and have almost a reflection on where policing is and at times where I was in terms of any support or further resilience that was required to sustain Police Scotland through the current situation. Are you not aware of any minutes being taken? I am not aware, no. I have had several meetings, again, pre-arranged, but some just in the course of events and so on. Scotland is a small place and we all interact in lots of different ways and for himself. I have had several meetings with the cabinet secretary and a number of Scottish Government officials. I think that more than I would expect to be having when we get into a better shape, I think, is an organisation. I am very comfortable with the communications that I have been having. I think that, for the record and convener, I said this also when I met with you and the clerk and I have said this to other MSPs. I said it during my interview process for this post as well. I believe that it is really important to have an open flow of dialogue and communication. I think that that is right and proper. I think that there are occasions and these are a matter of judgment for all those involved. There are occasions where discussions should be treated more formally and recorded more formally and I think that moving to another place, which is around decision making, I think that that is one of the areas that really needs improved within the SPA. However, the idea that there should be regular flow of communications to my mind is just eminently important if we are going to work effectively. I think that that does not, in any sense, detract from my ability as SPA chair to assert the appropriate boundaries for the organisation between us, Government or others. In fact, I think that when you have good open dialogue and communication, it is easier to enforce those boundaries and manage them effectively with appropriate openness and trust and respect. I think that sometimes it is important to put things in context. I ask DCC Livingston directly in terms of the formative of the SPA and the SPA's decision that the chief constable should return to work. Was there any conversation or was there a meeting with the cabinet secretary and yourself? Was there any record of this meeting? Was there any official present? Is there anything that can be looked at to see what took place? Did anything take place? Was there any conversation? No, I had no conversations with the cabinet secretary regarding the fallout, if you like, from the meeting of 7 November. I did have communication with the then chair of the Police Authority. On the evening of 7 November, I asked Andrew Flanagan for an update on the Police Authority's meeting, because I knew that it had been meeting. I felt that it was important that I got that update because I had responsibility to the men and women, the officers and staff within Police Scotland, should there be a change in Phil's circumstances and in the chief constable's circumstances. I didn't get a reply to that. I didn't get a reply on Wednesday, when I was told that deliberations were on-going. I left the matter at that. I was surprised that I hadn't had a briefing or involvement from the Police Authority, but I didn't have any discussion at all with the cabinet secretary. George Adam on this supplementary point. Very quick one. DCC Livingston. Obviously, the much-publicised meeting of 7 November, where the decision was made, was informed at any point about any kind of welfare programme being put into place for your officers or people who had made complaints? Was there anything that was actually explained to you that this would be taken into account? No, there wasn't. That was the reason that I had asked the then chair for a read-out. My responsibility is to ensure that everybody's interests are maintained, where they work, the proximity of the work and the circumstances of it. Whatever that decision was, we would have implemented it and we would have taken steps to make sure that it was implemented as smoothly as possible. However, because I was not party to that decision by the authority, because my advice or views were never sought and because I was never asked to make any welfare provision, none was made. I was told on the afternoon of Friday of that week that the board had decided to continue to fill Gormley's leave, and that was the update that I received from the then chair. However, there were no welfare or wellbeing steps put in place, because I was never told that they were necessary. That would be a classic example of what Professor Deacons already said of the great relationship between SP and Police Scotland and what you said yourself about communication. It sounds very basic, but in this scenario it would be something that would have made all the difference in moving forward. Absolutely. An openness about what the decision was, and then a realisation that you would have to take certain steps if you were going to change the current operating environment within Police Scotland. We would be able to do that. You do not need weeks on end for any change to arise, but you certainly need more than a few hours so that people who have made complaints, people who have an expectation that their rights and interests will be protected, people who have an expectation that they and their families' rights and interests will be protected, or steps are taken so that we can tell them, and then we can make arrangements for their working circumstances. Just as we would if Phil were to return, there would have to be that discussion and there would be accommodation around Phil Gormley's working circumstances as well, but none of that took place at the time because I was never told that that decision had actually been taken. If I could just perhaps follow up on that point, Chief Constable, I noticed that on the interview that you gave to the Hollywood magazine, you've again stated there that you weren't personally aware of that Chief Constable was going to resume his duties. Can you say categorically that no one in Police Scotland was aware of that? No one to my knowledge, convener, but given that I am in the Chief Constable's absence, I am in the role of and having to discharge the responsibilities and duties and the accountability of the office, I would be very surprised if anyone else in the organisation had been, and I would actually be extremely annoyed and disappointed if anybody else in the organisation had that awareness and I didn't, given the responsibilities and accountability that I was carrying and continued to carry. But you can't rule out the possibility that they may have? I can't be categorical around that because I don't know what everybody else knows, but I would be extremely surprised and I would feel that it would be a real breach of protocol and extremely discourteous to me given the position that I'm currently in. Can I also just ask one more question before moving on to supplementaries? That was still on this interview where you said that you were mentioned in the press release that was put out. I think that you've challenged the content of the press release saying that you hadn't seen it, but is it not the case that the press release was merely thanking you for stepping into your duties? I acknowledge DCZ designate in Livingston for the reassurance stability and direction that he has given to officer staff partners in the chief constable's absence. Mentioning you in that way, there would be no reason to inform you in advance. It was very complimentary. I wouldn't have expected—my point was—that I hadn't seen this draft press release and yet I was mentioned in it and it's often the case and members here will be aware of that. If you are mentioned in a draft and there seem to be a number of people who were involved in preparing the draft, it's not uncommon that you're given a copy of that draft. I was just clarifying because I was asked a direct question as I'm being asked here. I was just clarifying that I hadn't seen the draft press release, notwithstanding that I was mentioned, but you're absolutely right. It was a nice remark that included me. I was going to pick up on the points that Mr Adam picked up on because I think staff welfare is very important. Can I ask you about operational implications of DCC's limits? That is the rank structure of the way that the police operates. There would be significant implications where you were unaware of something and had that information being passed. Could you explain some of the implications that there could be perhaps for on-going operations? In the role of chief constable, there are certain operations that are under statute that only I or any individual in that role can authorise. The structure of the responsibility that sits as recut in Phil's absence was that DCC Rose Fitzpatrick would then discharge the discipline function in the conduct duties again under a statutory code. The roles and responsibilities in the senior team cannot be moved around casually because they are a matter of law. I often write in a formal sense to Rose and to other colleagues in terms of what their duties and functions are. I am obliged to authorise very sensitive covert activities that would be in my name. All of those matters can be accommodated. If there are changes to circumstances as there was in the past, we will adjust and we will go forward. If there is another change, we can make those adjustments again. However, it needs time and involvement of senior police officers, including myself, to give effect to any change. Presumably, does that require clarity not only within the organisation but with other agencies that you would have to do? Entiolwch. Again, in the absence of the chief constable, I formally received information from the Lord Advocate that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General and the Crown Agent would see me as vesting in the accountability and responsibilities of the chief constable, so should the Lord Advocate or people acting on his behalf see fit to issue a direction as in law the Lord Advocate can, that direction would come to me. At he, Mr Wolfe, would be holding me to account to discharge the chief constable's responsibilities. Those are not matters that can be—you cannot snap your fingers—they can be changed and they can be adjusted and they will be and they have been done in the past. There are constitutional issues, as you alluded to, that would need some consideration and none of that was done in early November. A very brief question, if I may, is about the separation of the functions that you have highlighted in the disciplinary. Do you feel that there is adequate resilience at chief officer level in Scotland at the moment? Is there a result of some absences? I think that at this stage there is. I think that the authority supported my proposal for an additional two assistant chief constables. We have introduced two assistant chief constables, both qualified individuals. One has specifically got a portfolio roundabout professionalism and assurance and that is looking to ensure that the standards not only of officer and staff conduct but the standards around our information handling and our information retention and storage and the assurance work that is required within the organisation. An additional chief officer, assistant chief constable, is going in to support the crime work. In terms of the senior team, I think that that additional work at assistant chief constable has supported it but it is not overly fact that the chief officer team, when I became an assistant chief constable on the loading and borders police in Edinburgh in 2009, the then ACPOL Scotland had over 30 members and I was one, eight chiefs, eight deputies, a whole series of chief officers doing functions and they were all committed and they were all busy. We have now got to the stage where I am currently operating with 12 chief officers and clearly that is a significant reduction. Those chief officers are busy but clearly the work also gets pushed down to the superintendent ranks and down into the federated ranks as well. I think that we have got enough but I do think that your observation around resilience is one that I keep my eye on and would come back to the chair of the authority if I felt that we needed to build that resilience further. Forgive me if I saw that as being one of the benefits of a single service, losing a lot of these chief officers posts but I am reassured that you feel that it is resilient at the moment. I thank you. Without being Liam Carter and for the voidance of doubt, if I could just take you back to the press release and the dispute about the necessary steps with Police Scotland having been taken to ensure situational arrangements are in place to support the welfare of all involved parties until their alleged contact issues are concluded, you have said quite categorically that you certainly weren't involved in that. Can you say equally categorically that no one in Police Scotland had any discussions about this issue? I can say categorically that no one to my knowledge had any discussions and I would reiterate what I said earlier that I would be extremely surprised and extremely disappointed if there had been such discussions without my knowledge given the position I was and I am in. But you couldn't rule out the possibility that there may have been discussions with someone that you didn't know about. No, I can't, no. Thank you. Liam McArthur. Just following on that line of questioning, I always struck me DCC Livingston as a very calm individual but it didn't escape, I think. Anybody's noticed the sense of disappointment bordering on anger at what happened on the 7th, 8th of November. Although you left it at that following your conversation with Andrew Flanagan, can you give an assurance to the committee that nobody either owned your instruction or independently then had conversations with the justice secretary's officials about concerns that you might have had about what you'd heard from Andrew Flanagan on the 7th? No, what I heard from Andrew Flanagan was that no decision had been taken or that I was told on the 8th. I heard nothing from Andrew Flanagan on the 7th and on the morning of the 8th, in response to my request for an update, I was told that deliberations were on-going. I would appear that that wasn't the case, that that had been a decision taken on the 7th, but I was told that deliberations were on-going and I would be briefed in due course. Stage, you left it at that. There was no— Well, I responded to that and said thank you, but I said I was very surprised that, given my role, I wasn't involved in any of the discussion but I left it at that. Then the next I heard from Andrew Flanagan was a text message on the Friday of that week and then I called him back where I was told that the authority had taken the decision to extend the chief constable's leave. I wasn't told that there had been a decision, a reconsideration and then another decision. I did have a conversation. I was phoned on the Thursday evening by Paul Johnston, the civil servant in the head of justice, and told that there had been a meeting involving the cabinet secretary and the then chair. The then chair had put it to the cabinet secretary that the chief constable was to return to work at 8 o'clock the next morning. Paul checked with me and said that he was aware of that. I confirmed to him that I had no knowledge of that. Just going back to the line of questioning that Daniel Johnson was probing with you, Professor Dickon, on governance issues, I welcome a number of the assurances that you made about your intentions in the role in which you see the SPA going. At various stages, you have laid a deliberate and heavy emphasis on the opportunity that you had to look at this from the outside in. To some extent, you could argue that Andrew Flanagan was in the same position in 2015 when he came into the organisation and undertook that last review. Do you not, though, perhaps see concerns that an internal review by the SPA of governance is not necessarily going to challenge the structures and the working practices in the SPA and between the SPA and the other main actors in the way that something independent of the SPA is likely to do? I recognise that there are other bodies, including the committee, who will provide a challenge function from outside, but nothing necessarily by way of a strategic across-the-board independent assessment of governance with recommendations about how that can be improved. Let me be clear that, as chair, I am determined to look very thoroughly and, as you say, strategically and comprehensively at those issues. One of the early steps that I have taken in conjunction with the interim chief officer is for us to bring in additional support to enable us to do that. As I said earlier, I am more than happy to give us a few months to keep working on that, but I am more than happy to report back to this or other parliamentary committees as we continue to make changes in the future. With regard to external review, I have to stress again that there is a considerable accumulation of external review and observation and criticism of the SPA, but it has not been translated into practice in terms of the improvements that need to be made. As I said, I particularly referenced the HMICS report from last year. I want to act on all of that. I think that that is the right thing to do to drive forward change. I have a strong view that I have expressed in many roles over the years. It is very important not to get stuck in a process of continuous and perpetual review, because what you need to do is to drive improvement and change. If I may, one of the areas where I have done that as a matter of emergency, not least based on my own observations around the kind of decision making processes that have been followed—for example, at the meeting on 7 November—is that I move very quickly to change and strengthen the way that we deal with complaints and conduct issues, which is fundamental. My predecessor, as chair, had adopted a practice whereby decisions were dealt with either at full board level or through delegated authority to the chief executive, and he had removed decision making powers from committees and in turn removed the previous complaints and conduct committee that was in place to deal with those matters. As many members will be aware, it is very important that you have a proper body that can consider those matters, that it is a smaller group of members where you build expertise around the decision making, where you put proper advice and support into the room, where you have proper papers, where you consider options and where you have, for example, appropriate handling strategies going forward, for how you are going to take forward decisions and so on. It is precisely because I observed very early that those were the kind of processes that were not in place that I took early steps to reinstate that complaints and conduct committee. We approved that at the board meeting held in December in Public Forum, and that committee is now meeting, and that is the way in which those matters will be considered in future. I think that that is a case in point where you cannot wait for another review. We are dealing with some really important live sensitive issues, and I want to make sure that whatever process is in place in my watch is robust and stands up to scrutiny. In a case like that, making early changes was absolutely critical. I think that the new Scottish Government and others could rightly look to me as chair and say, what are you doing now to make the organisation more robust, rather than wait for further review and analysis to be carried out? I stress that we are working, particularly myself and the chief officer, with support from others, including the HMICS, to look pretty comprehensively at the organisation, not just in a piecemeal way. You referred to the additional skills that you were looking to bring into the board. Can we explain what those specific skills are and whether that is indeed additional capacity over and above the board membership that is in place at the moment, or is that going to be a mix of bringing in new board members while dispensing with existing ones? The legislation provides that the authority can have up to a maximum of 15 members under the previous chair. Three positions had by choice remained unfilled. In the recent period, two other members have stood down, so, factually, we have five vacancies. One of the things that I have accelerated and worked closely with the Scottish Government public appointments and the commissioner's office to make sure that we do this as quickly as possible, but absolutely in accordance with relevant codes and so on that would be expected of a robust public appointments process. We have gone out to—the appointment process is live now, and that is on the public appointments website of the Scottish Government and on the SPA website. People are interested to look at that, and the applications close on 31 January, so that provides us with another early opportunity to strengthen the board with regard to the kind of skills and capabilities that we are bringing in. Unashamedly, we have said and we have run an initial trail around those appointments before Christmas, where we said quite clearly that we want to reach out for some of Scotland's most able and committed people to join this board. It is, as I said earlier, one of Scotland's most important public bodies. We are looking for people who might come from a range of backgrounds, but all of whom will have a passion for policing and public service and will bring to the table the capabilities and the experience and the resilience, frankly, to operate effectively at that strategic, non-executive board level in a front-facing, publicly accountable organisation. In the sense that what you have described, one would assume, are a skillset that is contained in the current board. What additional skills do you think are not currently reflected or reflected adequately enough in the board that you are trying to get at through those additional appointments? I do not want to bore members with too much detail in the appointment process, but I am happy to share more at any stage. As a matter of fact, under the previous chair, the skills matrix that was developed for the board placed particular emphasis on bringing a range of technical skills and specialist skills into the board. Many of those skills are very important, and the individuals who have come on to the board have applied those skills in a range of different ways. However, what I have identified is that we need to bolster the board in terms of its capacity and its capability to function at that broader strategic level. Within a very publicly accountable environment, that is the landscape in which we reside. I am hoping that some of the new members who join us will have a really good experience of operating in that environment, and will therefore help to drive the kinds of change that we have been talking about today. As I mentioned earlier, in addition to that, it is also my responsibility to carry out a performance review process of existing board members, and it is through that process of setting objectives and aligning that with the direction of travel that I have outlined that it will also continue to drive that change. As a matter of fact, as is the nature of any public body, obviously, different board members have different 10 years of office, so over the months and years ahead, just through the natural process of things, there will be further change within the board. Again, with any process of open public appointments, it is incumbent on me and others involved in that process to look at what we identify the needs of the board to be at that moment in time and make sure that we are bringing in appropriate capability. I stress that it is all being done through very open process and absolutely in accordance with the codes laid down by the commission and on others. Would you see it as important that the board has a geographic reach as well as a skill set reach, given that we are talking about a national force and a national board? I have done an awful lot of work over the years in the whole sphere of governance in different sectors and different organisations, and I believe really passionately in the need for a balanced board. You achieve balance in a range of different ways. Obviously, we have a lot of discussions around equality and diversity and gender balance and the like, and that is something that I want to address. The board could be better balanced in that respect. Geographical spread is important, too. On a board of 15 people, you are never going to get absolutely every part of the country or every perspective or interest around that table. What is important, as a board, is that it knows how to engage widely and effectively and address all those different ranges of interests that people have in different parts of the country and in different communities. The other thing about having a balanced board critically relates to some of the points that Daniel Johnson raised earlier. You need what is sometimes called cognitive diversity, and that is about people being willing to think differently from one another and to challenge each other in that discussion. I think that the other thing that really needs to be fostered within the SPA board is more of a culture where there will be that constructive challenge, because I think that that is vital for any board in any organisation if it is to function effectively. Iain Macpherson, Liam Kerr and Rona Mackay. DCC, in Llymestyn, mentioned the meeting on the 7 November. As a result, I wanted to, in the interests of parity, ask this question to Professor Dickon. Mindful of the per-convenigations on-going under statutory processes that the convener mentioned, as a new chair, I just wanted to give you the opportunity if and to the extent that you feel appropriate given those considerations. Did you have any comment that you wished to make on the decision making process on the 7 November last year? Obviously, it predates me. I am aware of it. My initial insight and understanding to that meeting and the previous decision making in a range of different areas came directly from my predecessor as chair in the handover briefing that he gave to me the week before I started in post. It is precisely because of some of the concerns that I had about the way that that and other meetings were being handled that, literally on my first day, where I had an informal meeting with board members, I indicated that, particularly in relation to complaints and conduct issues, we simply would not, under my watch, be handling these matters in the same way in future. I have already outlined the changes that I have made in relation to putting in place a committee to deal with that and the appropriate process around it. I really do believe that it is fundamental in any organisation, but particularly in a public body, that you have robust and effective decision making and that you have proper recording, that you have proper handling strategies, that you have proper expert advice. Not only does that enable your decisions to stand up to scrutiny, it means that, when put into practice, they are likely to be more effective. It also means that, if you have a good process, you are more likely to have good outcome in terms of the decisions that you reach. I have looked quite carefully at that particular meeting that has become the matter of considerable public attention, and I have found it wanting in many, many ways in terms of its process. I will add, since this has also been a matter of some considerable debate, that, had I been in the cabinet secretary's shoes and I have walked in those types of shoes in the past, I would have asked questions about the process as to how that decision had been made. Personally, I think that the cabinet secretary would have been feeling in his duty had he not asked those questions. I will also say for the record that, if at any stage in my tenure as chair of the SPA, the processes that I follow require to be questioned in that way by a cabinet secretary, then I would regard that I would have failed in my duty as chair. Following on from Liam McArthur's line of questioning, Professor Deacon, are you asked in some depth about the board? Are you specifically recruiting a specialist railway experience for that board, as HMICS recommended? No, we haven't specified any area of specialist background of that nature and that's after considerable consideration about what the board needs at this moment in time, it's perfectly possible that we may receive applications from someone with that background. Through the proper appointments process, it may come to pass that that background is represented on the board. However, I want to make a really important point about a board. It's actually one of the ways in which the SPA board hasn't been developed effectively in the past. The role of a board is to make sure that the right expertise is available for taking decisions. You don't put all that expertise in place through your board appointments alone. The role of a board member is to make sure that, when reaching decisions, they reach out for the appropriate advice, guidance and other expert input to take their decisions. In my view, that's one of the areas where the SPA board hasn't operated effectively enough. In the area that you mentioned, for example, there are different ways to bring in expert knowledge and advice and my expectation would be—I'd say to anybody—scrutinising us going forward. I would expect you to ask me in what ways you ensure that you have the right advice, the right evidence, the right data and the right expert knowledge as part of that decision-making process. Some of that might come from your board members but it can come from external advice as well. Perhaps I could put that question to you then. If you're not recruiting a railway specialist to the board, how will the SPA ensure, given the current context of what's going on with the BTP, that that expertise is actually there? I think that I've already answered quite fully the different ways that you ensure that you have the right expertise around decision making. Of course, the integration of the BTP is one of a number of significant areas of development in policing going forward and one of a number of significant areas of development for the board more generally. Again, DCC Livingston can say more about the integration process because that's a matter that's been led by Police Scotland, but, as far as the SPA is concerned, the SPA already has a working group looking at BTP integration. There has been a lot of work done, even just in the time since I came in, to ensure that the SPA is cited on the work that Police Scotland is leading, on the integration process and that we are putting together a clear understanding of what that integration process will look like and the costs that are likely to accrue from it. Myself and DCC Livingston have a meeting with the chief constable of the BTP and the chair of the BTPA, respectively, coming up in just a couple of weeks' time. I assure you that that's a matter that's being looked at carefully, but I stress, as I said already, that it is one of a number of significant areas of change and development within policing. My commitment is to ensure that we develop and strengthen the role of the SPA in its oversight and understanding and scrutiny and monitoring of the developments that we report effectively both through our board and where necessary to Parliament and others on how those processes are moving forward. At all times, we make sure that we do that in a way that is as open, as possible, to build public confidence and trust. As I say, Police Scotland is leading on this area of work, so if it is something that the committee wants to consider further, I would defer to DCC Livingston to speak in more detail about it. Any supplementary, are you quite content with that, Fulton? Yes, it was just a quick supplementary, convener, I would ask. It might be for DCC Livingston then, if we believe that we are still on track, to complete the integration by April 19? I think that we are. The chair of the authority said that we are now leading on the policing element of that. That is a relatively recent change. The authority actually sat on the UK-wide programme board. We then have assumed responsibility really since last autumn, and in the course of that time we have identified that there are significant issues regarding ICT issues, regarding terms and conditions, regarding pre-existing third-party contracts that will not, in my judgment and in our team's judgment, be resolved by 1 April 19. However, what we are determined to resolve by 1 April 19 is to make sure that the operational direction and control vests in the chief council of Police Scotland on that date, and then we continue post 1 April 19 to resolve those other matters. We have identified those matters. We are working very closely, as Professor Deacon mentioned, with the Transport Police Authority and the British Transport Police. We will continue with the significant amount of energy that we have, but we are determined to give effect to the legislation on 1 April 19. It is a very brief supplementary to that, convener, as well. Based on what you have said there, you do not think that there is a need to pause the current plans for integration. At this stage, I think that we will have an effective integration in place by 1 April 19, but if matters arise and they are causing difficulty, we will not be masking it or in any way saying that things are fine when they are not. I will be letting the authority know that, and I will be letting the very legitimate interests of people on this table know it as well in terms of the public debate. Maurice Corry is following on from the line of questioning. Thank you, convener. This is Ian Livingston. Good morning to you and to Professor Deacon. There have been significant concerns about following on from my colleagues, Liam Kerr's comment about the BTP officers and the changes and everything else. There have been concerns about the employment status of the BTP officers and their terms and conditions and the two-paying accross once they transfer into Police Scotland. Can you give me some idea of where we are on that? I know that it is significant, and I am talking to Bobbys on the beat in my area, who is really quite concerned. Can you give me any comfort? I can share your concern. I think that what has become clear is that this is not a merger of like with like. The merger that brought Police Scotland into being were in essence eight entities of the same nature and the same status. The office of Constable and the Workings and Practices on Terms and Conditions is different from what you have alluded to. We need to make sure that we can protect their status and entitlements as they come forward, but at the same time, we need to give them the flexibility to move fully into the full body of Police Scotland. I cannot give you comfort that we have resolved the issue, but I can give you an assurance that we are working extremely hard and that we do recognise the challenges that come around that difference in status from a BTP officer compared to a police officer within Scotland. What are those challenges that you refer to? The challenges are round about pensions, certain entitlements regarding status. They have employee status as opposed to the office of Constable that vests and officers in Scotland. Therefore, to bring that element of the organisation into policing needs some legal work, some needs work round about HR and needs to get the support and involvement of everybody involved. I think that it is entirely right and legitimate that you highlight it as a significant issue that needs to be resolved. That is one of the key elements that needs to be resolved between now and April 19. Amongst your ranks, do you feel that there is a feeling of perception that there is a difference in the status of members of Police Scotland and members of the BTP as this amalgamation comes forward? I do not think so. Over the years, I am talking about the other ranks. It has not been brought to my attention that there is an inherent tension at Constable, Sergeant or Inspector level, depending on the individuals that you speak to, the 220-odd British Transport Police officers. Like lots of things in life, it often depends on where they are, in terms of their length of service or whether they see greater opportunity that Police Scotland may bring, or whether a number of them say, I joined transport policing and I want to stay there. What we have said is that absolutely nobody will be moved away from transport policing against their will. We will honour that and we will protect that. The operational relationships over the years are extremely strong with British Transport Police and both the legacy forces are now Police Scotland. On a day-to-day basis, whether it is Heberlin, Hart's Hibs on Sunday there, whether it is international events at Murrayfield, all the movements, all the events, all the incidents, all the movements that go at the rail network within Scotland as a whole, there is a very close operational relationship and that is something that I want to build upon. If there are any tensions, I will look to resolve them and work with my colleague and Chief Constable of the British Transport Police to do that. Llemonston, if I may. You talked about an integration, but you said that the terms and conditions of the third-party contracts and the ICT will not be resolved by 1 April 2019. That, to me, is not an integration if those matters are outstanding. Can I ask if they will not be ready by 1 April 2019? When can we expect terms and conditions of third-party contracts and ICT to be integrated? I cannot answer that specifically. Again, the management of this piece of work does not—we are involved in it, Police Scotland—but it sits as a joint board with the Department for Transport and the Scottish Government. That is the overarching structure to give effect to this change. We, as the Police Service of Scotland, will clearly be working very, very hard to make sure that we are in a position to receive the officers and staff and to receive the statutory responsibility that the act has mandated. However, I am being absolutely clear that those issues have such a level of complexity that they will not be resolved by 1 April 19. What we are working to do is to make sure that we can give operational effect to the intent behind the legislation and to deal with those other matters in a considered and appropriate manner. If I am a BTP officer transferring across, I know that, on the date that I become part of Police Scotland, my pension might not be resolved, my terms and conditions might not be resolved, is that really the assurance that we can give to the BTP? Well, it is not me personally that gives that assurance. I have said to you before that that this is a Government-led programme. Professor Deykin said that you were leading the DCT. In terms of the police response in Scotland, the issues around those matters such as the pension provision, I have said to Mr Corey that I absolutely recognise that. That is core to an individual police officer, whether it is a BTP officer or Police Scotland. I am committed to doing everything that I can and within Police Scotland to resolve it. I do not think that everything is within my gift to do so, and I do not disagree that those are significant challenges. What we are trying to do is to make sure that we can give effect to the parliamentary intent and that the chief constable of Police Scotland will take operational direction and control, but there are a number of issues that will require, as we have identified them and called them out, and I have been very clear this morning, that they will require to be resolved at some time after 1 April 19. Does it concern you, then, that the transferring BTP officers look at that situation, listen to that response and say, you know what, I want no part of this, and they retire? It does concern me. As I have said previously, I know British Transport Police officers. I know how committed they are. They are very, very close colleagues. They train with us at Tilly Island when they go through their training. If they have concerns, I want to have an icon to try and allay them. It is a supplementary point on one of the points there, and it is for you, Mr Livingstone. It is about the ICT. The I6 contract was scrutinised in this building. We know where it is. We know that the challenges that there are were the integration in Scotland. There was a lot of discussion when we were scrutinising the legislation about the I6 and about the integration in the different systems. You talk about the collaborative working that goes on at the moment. Are there issues around ICT that we do not know about or that have not been discussed in the process of that? Because clearly information technology is a huge part of modern policing. We know that the lack of compatibility between some of the legacy forces we know likewise UK. Is there something that we do not know about? No. You have expanded on the challenges that are there. We do not have a single operating base for our different systems within Police Scotland. We are certainly in terms of our command and control and our area control rooms, the significant progress that we have made after some undoubted errors were made. We have learned from them and we are now moving on. You will know from the discussions that we have had in terms of ACRs in the north. That period of change will give us a more stable base. We are integrating BTPs around a crime system, an HR system, a finance system, payroll matters and supplementary systems around intelligence. They are not insignificant and I am not in any way seeking to minimise them. It is right and proper that members highlight them. Thank you very much. Going back to a previous line of questioning to DCC Livingston, can I ask you if you think the way the recent events regarding the chief constable have been played out so publicly? Do you think that that has been helpful? I do not think that it has in terms of the public perception and confidence in policing and in Police Scotland. I would not comment on any of the specifics because everybody has got their own rights and families to look after their own privacy rights. What I would say is that I am absolutely clear and my own professional judgment is that there is no crisis in policing. There are issues in Police Scotland, there are issues regarding governance and accountability and it is right that we are having this discussion here today. There are specific cases that need to be addressed and need to be resolved but policing in Scotland is not beleagered. We have just come through a really busy festive period and I will use this as specific evidence rather than just assertion. We are not sitting here in the new year with undetected murders, we are not sitting here in the new year with critical incidents that went badly wrong, we are not sitting here in the new year with public events that led to injuries, officers being injured, breakdown in communications, we deal with these matters and we deal with them very effectively. A response to domestic violence, a response to road policing, a response to rape and sexual crime. The service that the men and women are providing on a daily basis, and you know that within your own communities, is extremely high. Every single murder that Police Scotland has had since it came into being has been detected. Now, I do not know because I have not done my comparative work, but I would be interested to know if there is another jurisdiction that can talk over that period of time. What we have in Scotland is an extremely committed and dedicated workforce of police officers and police staff. Police Scotland has undoubtedly had difficulties as we have brought the legacy organisations together, but I genuinely think that policing is very strong. That level of focus at times, the police service, if there is a sense of adversity or a sense of focus or misrepresentation, if anything, the very strongest pre-decore that exists gets even stronger and people continue to focus on doing their duty, serving the public, discharging the public duty that is core to policing. I think that those issues need to be discussed. We must be clearer in terms of accountability, scrutiny and public confidence. However, policing is strong in this country. We should be proud of it. I think that you must have read my mind. That was my next question. I was going to ask you to reassure the committee and the public that in the front line it is business as usual that policing has not been affected by what is being going on further up the tree. People are working extremely hard because that is their job and that is their vocation. It is disturbing every day that the level of focus and some of the issues do need resolution, but it is not for the operational police officers and police staff to do that. What they are doing is focusing on working very closely with their communities. I have said before that, in the early days and early years, everything was not ideal. Inevitably, in a very compressed time frame, when you bring such a complex organisation together, it was probably overly rigid. We put greater store on consistencies and common standards and perhaps looking at the flexibility needed, whether that was devolved and financed, whether that was allowing for localism. We recognise that one size does not fit all. We have been saying it and we mean it. We are introducing different elements right across the country, whether it is initiatives in Ayrshire, initiatives in the north-east and allowing local police officers to work with elected members, with the communities, with the people who they police who know what their needs are, to develop a policing model that works for them, with all the benefits that having that national structure provides. You have that capability, that whole access for safety and security that a single service provides. On a health analogy, if I am allowed, if your child is diagnosed with cancer or if your mother is murdered, those are atypical situations and scenarios, but everybody in the country must have access to the support and capabilities to support that, as well as the general day-to-day policing that exists. We can now do that and we have now got that capability. We need to develop further, we need to extend the level of devolvement that I am looking to introduce and we have been introducing, but policing in this country, I think, is strong, it is being tested but it is strong and it is resilient and it is committed to doing its duty. That is very reassuring, thank you. If I could just follow up on that line of questioning, both Susan Dacon has mentioned about the complaints and conduct issues and room for improvement. DCCU has just talked about some of the advantages of the single plos, being able to respond to things, but in terms of complaints, I know when the legislation was passed, there was some real concern that the previous way when you had the legacy forces, the way to deal with a complaint was, I think, a neighbouring police force would look at the complaint. I suppose, could I have your kind of view on how that worked generally and any specific or personal experience you might have of how that complaint system worked and then perhaps I can ask Susan Dacon some other things? In the previous structure that we had, you are absolutely right, convener. I think that there was a clear demarcation. If it was felt that there was a need either to review or to investigate certain circumstances in Glasgow, for example, and for public confidence and for visibility, you have then got seven other chief constables that you could have that conversation with and ask if they could dedicate resources to come in and take that forward. That still exists. We have been asked to investigate historical and complex circumstances in Northern Ireland at the moment, so we have a dedicated team that the chief constable of the PSNI is paying for, but for those very reasons, for public confidence and perception because it involves some legacy officers in the NRUC, Police Scotland was asked to carry out that investigation. That distinction is very visible and very clear, but a single service is harder to show that distinction. That is clearly where the role of the PIRC is critical in terms of that independence and that role and function. We have a very strong and open relationship with the PIRC, recognising the commissioner's independence. Increasingly, as I have seen over the past number of years as Police Scotland has evolved, the PIRC is being asked to take more investigations forward. The Crown, for example, would direct the PIRC to take a number of investigations that previously would have stayed within Police Scotland for that investigation. The single service in terms of complaints is not as easy exactly as you suggested to give that reassurance around independence. Again, that is where I think the role of the PIRC is absolutely crucial. If I could perhaps ask Susan Daton about the role of the PIRC, the present investigation with the chief constable has now dragged on for seven months. According to the last financial year, there were 30 new investigations undertaken by PIRC. That was a 34 per cent increase in work and 350 police incidents. Are you concerned about the length of time and if perhaps PIRC is properly resourced to handle those complaints? I do not think that it is for me to comment on the operation and resourcing of the PIRC. I think that is for the PIRC and others to do. In relation to the allegations that have been made about the chief constable, and as she indicated in the outset, I am not going to comment on any of the specifics that would be entirely inappropriate. However, I did speak to Kate Frame, the commissioner, yesterday. She has given me an absolute assurance that she will provide a report to the SPA as soon as she can. She has also given me a very clear assurance that her office is working hard to investigate what a number of allegations contained within various complaints that have been referred to her and that that is involved in interviewing a substantial number of witnesses. She has also stressed that it is entirely appropriate—in fact, it is right and proper—that those various statements be ingathered before the chief constable is interviewed. The PIRC has now asked him to provide dates for interview and is currently working to facilitate that with him. I hope that that is maybe helpful if I give an update on the current situation. Turning to wider questions of complaints handling more generally, and if I may, I would also like to link that to the wider point that Rona Mackay raised a moment ago about the current public debate that has taken place, because those things are connected, obviously. First of all, on the wider public debate, I completely understand why those are matters of very legitimate public interest and interest of Parliament. I think that it is critically important that all of us who are engaged in discussion in those matters ensure that we do not inadvertently call into question the operation of our police service or undermine public trust and confidence in that police service. I would endorse everything that DCC Livingston has said about how the police service is performing in the work of the 120,000 men and women who do that job. Secondly, the other thing that has been called into question as part of the debate is whether there is effective leadership in this current period, whether there is effective leadership within Police Scotland, and people have even made suggestions about the force being leader less. Nothing could be further from the truth. DCC Livingston and his team are working tirelessly to maintain and develop the police service. I have had early opportunities to meet with the senior command team in the wider leadership team of Police Scotland, as well as some of the divisional commanders in different parts of the country. I have been nothing other than impressed and reassured by the leadership that they are undertaking at the present time. I would like to put that on record. It is the case in my view that it is always important to learn, reflect and improve, as I have said already today. The arrangements that are in place for dealing with complaints, allegations and conduct issues within the police service are all part of that very new landscape that was put in place by this Parliament just a few years ago. It is important to always learn and reflect and to think about how it can be improved in the future. I share the view that I have heard by the cabinet secretary expressing in the past that it is particularly important to think about how confidentiality is better protected, both for those who complain and those who are complained against. I have had early discussions collectively with Scottish Government officials, HMICS and the PIRC about how we might reflect on the experiences that we have had so that we can work together to continue to improve and develop that system in the future, not least to take account, as I say, of matters of confidentiality. I think that a much of what was put in place within that system has been done in a way that genuinely has attempted to ensure that it is transparent, but I think that there is a balance to be struck in those processes between transparency and, as I say, protecting the privacy and the confidentiality of any parties that are involved in them. Will those discussions be minited? Will those be a matter that could be brought? The discussions that I have had with colleagues in those other organisations are just part of the normal business discussions that I would expect to have both internally within an organisation and with other partners and stakeholders, where we explore and we consider ways that we can work better together and work better in the public interest. What I have done is, again, reached out through HMICS to see whether this is another area where we can bring in additional support. The PIRC, in fact, published an audit of the SPA bit of the complaints process just before the new year. That is another report where there is a series of recommendations and areas for improvement. Again, I am not waiting to continually improve and develop. Personally, one of the factors around the process that we have is that it has a certain amount of complexity in it, and that is probably because people were working hard and cleaning policy makers to put in place a system that is robust. However, for the public to have trust and confidence, and indeed for the police service to have trust and confidence and a shared understanding of any process, it needs to have a certain clarity around it. I also think personally that there is scope for us to look at ways that we, at the very least, make that process clearer and better understood about where the different roles and responsibilities lie, and if there are ways that we can make it more streamlined and more effective in the future, then we should seek to do that. In answer to your question, I have conversations and discussions with all sorts of people all the time. I assure you that where it is necessary and appropriate to have a formal record of a meeting, I will do that more often than not. The kinds of discussions I am talking about are what I would call in the improvement space, exploratory, where you are actually trying to think about ways that you can work together and develop things going forward. I stress again that I am always more than happy to come back to this Parliament and report on what we have actually done as an outcome of those types of discussions. If I could just press you on something that you have said this morning, you are working in partnership with the cabinet secretary, which can give you just good and other people, but you also have an independent role as the chair of SP and to protect the independent deployment of police officers. You were ready on record and happy to see that you thought that the cabinet secretary was right to ask questions, but the question has been raised also about whether there may be a situation where the cabinet secretary should be using his special powers. I ask you to reflect on that. You have said that you are right to ask questions, but what is your understanding of when special powers should be used? As you yourself said earlier on, convener, it often is much easier to discuss those issues in relation to a specific situation, rather than more generically or hypothetically. I presume that the powers that you refer to are ministerial power of direction, which exists across a very wide range of areas in the public sector landscape, and has rarely been exercised in 18 years of this Parliament. Ultimately, that is a power that resides with any minister. As I said earlier, I take very seriously the responsibilities that are now vested in me as chair of an arms-length body of Government, but all my experience tells me, including in the former life where, as a minister, I had a responsibility for more than a couple of dozen of public bodies myself, that the best way to keep that arm at arm's length is to have public bodies that are being led effectively and that are functioning effectively. It is when those things have to be called into question that ministers need to shorten the arm. They need to intervene and they need to ask questions. I am working hard to make sure that we have the right relationship with the Scottish Government. I think that that is a combination of regular communication, but it is also a clear separation of roles and functions, as is appropriate, in terms of the statutory functions of the body and the terms laid down in a whole raft of other codes and governance frameworks and so on around the operation of public bodies. I know that the best way that we can do that, the best thing that I can do, is to ensure that the SPA is operating effectively so that ministers and Government officials do not have to call into question or our processes or lack confidence in what we do. Given your previous answer, you said that if you had the sort of request—and that is the Cabinet Secretary's language—that your predecessor received in November, that you treat that as a sign of failure. Given that, do you think that, again, if you were to receive such a request that you would want to make a formal record of it? Again, I think that we are in the realms of hypotheticals, but I will return to what I said earlier. I think that this does answer your question and I think that it is incredibly important. If you have a good effect of decision making and process in place, such as around the matters that were being considered at the meeting of 7 November, almost by definition, all the process that comes before, during and after that meeting is well structured, well planned, well organised and well recorded. It is when you have situations where those things have not been done and done properly that, by necessity, you do not have that audit trail, if you like, of things being done in that way. For my part, if I were dealing with a comparable situation in the future, I would expect there to have been proper communication that, as appropriate, could be tracked prior to the meeting where soundings were taken of a range of different parties and stakeholders that would have a view and an interest. Again, DCC Livingston has talked about the Police Scotland dimension at some length, but, again, if you are then following through in a decision in a way that has proper communication and handling around it, you are just there in a different place, frankly, and all the process around that is better and more sound. I am not sure that I entirely follow you. I quite agree that those matters are important, that they need to be followed through as a matter of procedure. Those procedures need to be recorded. If there is any failure of those procedures and there needs to be some sort of intervention, by the very definition of the sensitivity of that and the need for record, that very intervention needs to be recorded, surely. To be honest, I really do not think that I can add a great deal to what I have said already today. Liam McArthur I take you on to the issue of finance. You pointed to issues around governance that need to be addressed. You recognised that, and I think that you quite rightly paid tribute to the on-going work day and daily of officers and staff. However, there have now been a succession of reports from Audit Scotland that have been pointed to weaknesses in terms of financial management. The most recent reports of the Auditor General State are Audit identified a number of instances of poor governance and poor use of public money. That is acceptable before going on to point to the need for greater effectiveness and transparency. Would you accept that the financial management in an oversight by the SPA has, at best, been haphazard to date? What would you say needs to be done now to put that right going forward? There has been a series of section 22 reports from Audit Scotland over the last few years that have highlighted a range of different shortcomings in their view around the financial management and financial stewardship of the SPA. To some extent, by extension, given the nature of the relationship, the wider financial management of the wider Police Scotland budget, which is in excess of £1 billion, is a considerable matter of public interest. It is important to note that Audit Scotland has acknowledged that in its last report to Parliament just before Christmas. There have been improvements in financial management and stewardship, and a lot of that has been through strengthening the financial management capability within Police Scotland. Indeed, that was the first year where the SPA's accounts were not qualified. It is important to note that progress has been made, and I hope that that is some assurance to members and to the wider public. That is certainly a fair point that comes through in terms of the evidence that the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing has taken. I think that the Auditor General also suggests that a good deal of further work needs to be done if that reassurance is really to deliver the improvements that we need to see. It is around detailed strategies now for implementation. What kind of assurances can you give us that those detailed strategies will be forthcoming in the coming months? I am happy to give to the students that this is an area of significant attention, both myself and Kenneth Hogg, the new interim chief officer. We have also had discussions with Audit Scotland precisely so that we can ensure that we address the issues that they have identified in various reports. The chief officer of the SPA, of course, is the accountable officer, so there are particular functions that he is looking at to make sure that he can fulfil those functions effectively. The Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee is meeting this week, and we will be looking further at the issues that are raised in the section 22 report, which again predate me, but they also raise a number of important aspects of how we can improve not just financial stewardship, but a lot of that comes back to decision making and a lot of the things that I have said earlier, but in relation to financial decision making, too. I give the assurance that the matters that are being raised in the section 22 report are areas that are part of the evidence base, if you like, that myself and Kenneth Hogg as the chief officer are using to look at the areas where we need to prioritise improvement. On a more specific point, one of the issues that drew most public attention and anger was the payments that were made out in terms of relocation and tax liability expenses to the outgoing chief executive. The cabinet secretary informed Parliament that the SPA did not have any discretion on that. It transpired that an element of it, the SPA certainly did. I would welcome your comments on that and particularly welcome assurance that steps have been taken. You have talked earlier about early action being taken in other areas, but early action is taken to ensure that this sort of payment—these sorts of instances—are unable to be repeated in the future. The particular examples that you give are, of course, the very matters that the Public Audit Committee will be considering this week. My predecessor is chair in the previous chief executive as well as two current board members who were involved in those decisions will be appearing before that committee and those matters will be explored further. As I say for my part, what I am interested in is looking to see what we can learn from those experiences to do exactly as you suggest, to try and do everything in our power to ensure that decision making around financial matters is better and stands up to scrutiny more effectively in the future. I have to say that I give an assurance that we will work very, very hard to make those improvements. I am sure that we will not get everything right. I have never known of an organisation or a human being that gets everything right, but absolutely we will work as hard as we possibly can to make sure that those arrangements are as effective as possible. The SPA itself has its processes, procedures and capability in place to be able to manage those types of matters effectively. I have just asked one final question to DCC Livingston. We regularly have representation from the Scottish Police Federation about some of the pressures on front-line policing. One of the pressures sometimes comes from more legislation being introduced and changes that have to be coped with. The most recent one within the new criminal justice act coming in and the police station duty scheme whereby we will now understand that solicitors and bar associations, Ledinburgh, Aberdeen, the Borders, Volkart and Bartonshire have all indicated that they are not going to take part. Glasgow is thinking about it and that is about a quarter of all the duty solicitors in Scotland. Could you comment on that and the issue more generally about the impact of legislation and how that affects the day-to-day job? Clearly, this change to criminal procedures are the most significant one that we have had probably since 1979-1980, so section 2 detention, section 14 as it became, six hours for purposes of investigation, all now discarded, as colleagues will be aware, following Lord Carlawy's review. The build-up to this change has been significant. We have had to train and retrain a couple of times because of issues out with our control for the implementation. The preparation towards Thursday, when the act comes into effect, has been significant. The preparation that the service has done through the custody division is to make sure that people are on call and on duty 24-7. There are a number of individuals that can be contacted to make sure that, if an officer or member of staff does have a query regarding the implementation of the new legislation and the duties and the interpretation that some experts are there to provide that insight. We have been working really, really hard towards that. The recent changes were discussed with myself and the Crown Agent, the head of the Scottish legal aid board, chief executive Colin Lancaster and Neil Wrennick, from the Scottish Government, on the back of a justice board meeting that we had last week. It was very dynamic because that scenario that you outlined was just emerging. Again, for the voids for any doubt, it was not minute. We sat round the table and sat together just after the meeting concluded. It was brought to my attention how significant that challenge was going to be from the respective bar associations. My understanding, as I sit here today, is that there is still a confidence that the new legislation can be implemented. If the Scottish legal aid board, who has the primary responsibility to make sure that there is access and there is a sufficient body and stable of solicitors available, I have a number of contingencies involved. We will also support the facility if required. That might even mean moving a particular prisoner from one area to another, simply to facilitate the legal advice that it is entitled to do if the case was of such magnitude that it merited it, or, again, based on risk and various other factors, there might be a case for liberation. There is a whole series of contingencies being built around that. We do not know until the final hour whether that comes to pass or not. I am actually in another role within the justice system. I have been working with the review of legal aid that Martin Evans has been leading. I am a member of that review board. We think that we can contribute to trying to make progress with the legal aid system, because access to legal rights is absolutely critical. There is an issue with the new act. My understanding is that the act is still going to be implemented. We hope so, because we have been up to the edge a couple of times, as you know, and I think that we need to move forward to the new system, a criminal procedure that the act is there to maintain. Yes, the officers and staff of Police Scotland have been through an enormous amount of organisational change and increased scrutiny and focus and legislative change. I think that we have a very good relationship with the Scottish Police Federation. I am speaking for myself and I listened to them. I have enormous respect for the work that they do. They have raised a number of issues with me about wellbeing and working conditions. I have taken action. We have three or ten-year strategies, but there are some very practical things that we can do to improve working conditions and how people feel about their work. The simple thing is introducing sat-navs into vehicles and looking at the trousers. It sounds a very mundane issue, but the quality of trousers that we issue and trying to take steps in that regard. I think that the very fact that we are prepared to listen and we are prepared to try to adjust some of our practices. In terms of our ability to flex to new legislation, policing is very good at dealing with unexpected things and responding very quickly. Again, one benefit of the national service is that we can concentrate, resource, we do not need eight policy units, we do not need eight governance units to do some of this background work. We do it once, we do it to a high standard and then we make sure that all officers and staff get it. Federation are crucial, absolutely crucial, as are the superintendents associations and the trade unions. Their involvement is absolutely vital to building the organisation to make it the one that we want it to be. You mentioned the movement of prisoners. We will not go into that again because it has been well raised with the Federation and I believe that we will continue to be raised. That concludes our question time. Thank you both very much for attending committee today. We now move to agenda item number seven, which is feedback from the justice sub-committee in policing on its meeting of 18 January 2018. Following the verbal report, there will be an opportunity for brief comments or questions and I refer members to paper seven, which is a note by the clerk, and invite John Finnie to provide that feedback. Thank you, convener. As you stated, the police sub-committee met on 18 January. There were two items on the agenda. One was the appointment of convener. I am grateful for members for electing me. I am also very grateful to Mary Fee for her work in it and I would like the record to show that. Mary worked in a very consensual way and I would hope to carry that forward. The other item was that we discussed in private our work programme and looking ahead, we hope next Thursday to be covering the issue of undercover policing with Her Majesty's Vector of Constabulary. I am happy to take any questions. Any questions? We also welcome Daniel Johnson to the policing sub-committee and do the declarities interests. Any other questions on that? If not, we now move into private session where the next committee meeting will be on the 13 January 2018, when we will hold two round table evidence sessions, one on