 Hyderbyn i gael y Cymru y 20 ystod, a'r anffreddau cyfnodd yn gweithio gyda'i gydag. Yn ymgyrch yn gweithio, mae'r ystod y gallwn gafodd gyda gau 5 yn 6 yn gwybod a'r ystyried? Yr cyfnodd gwaith ym cyfnodd y gweithio yn cyfrifesio'u cyfrifesio'n gyfer iawn, o'r cyfnod o ddullusion o gwahagu gwahagiau i fynd i gaelio'r pwyntwil hwnnw o'r cymdeithasol i ddodol i gaelio. Rhaid i chi'n bwysig i ddweud o'r Gweithlach Cymru oedd y Adegwydiannol, Ffyrdd i Fyllfaidd, Fyllfaidd Llywodraeth Cymru i ddysgu i ddweud i ddweud i gaelio'r gyfnod, Fyllfaidd Llywodraeth Cymru i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i I ask you to make some opening remarks, cabinet secretary, but before I do so, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for making the time to present and give evidence so soon after the publication of the interim report. Thank you, convener. My apologies for an un couple of minutes late. Both Lord Advocate and I are very grateful to Dame Elish Angeline for the significant and detailed work that she's undertaken so far. I spoke with Dame Elish briefly yesterday just to convey my thanks to her prior to her appearance before this committee. When my predecessor commissioned this review jointly with the Lord Advocate, the intention was that it would assess how well the current framework is working and suggest what improvements could be made. I am sure that the committee will agree with me that, under Dame Elish's leadership, the review is bringing rigorous independent scrutiny of the framework and processes for handling complaints against the police and investigating serious incidents and alleged misconduct. I am sure that the committee will recognise that, for the vast majority of time, the many thousands of police in Scotland work selflessly, work tirelessly and often courageously in the course of their job. The report acknowledges that this is not an easy job, it is just to secretary. I am especially grateful to all those who have chosen to serve the public in this way. Equally, it is important that, when things go wrong, the police are held to account, lessons are learned and improvements are made. My predecessor believed, as I do, that we need to continually improve the system so that roles and responsibilities are clear so that there is transparency and openness and so that there is accountability in the upholding of fundamental human rights. I believe that Dame Elish's preliminary report gives us some important suggestions as to how we can improve the system. The Lord Advocate and I very much welcome this comprehensive report, but, given that it was only published on Friday, we have obviously not had the opportunity to consider and discuss in-depth its substantial findings. We will, of course, carefully consider the recommendations and engage with our partners and key stakeholders on implementation. It is vital that such detailed analysis and reflection be carried out in consultation with the principal organisations identified in the report before next steps are confirmed. As I have made clear to the committee before, whether there is unanimous agreement among stakeholders that a specific measure can be implemented quickly in order to fix something, we will seek to do that. Identifying and agreeing those measures will of course take some time, but I am happy to provide an update to the committee on progress after recess. Many of the themes and recommendations from the Justice Committee's report on its post-legislative scrutiny of the Police and Fire Reform Act 2012 are picked up in Dame Elish's report. Obviously, we will be looking at both reports in tandem when setting out next steps. Lord Advocate and I will respond to Dame Elish on her recommendations in full before 1 December later this year. I again thank her for her work so far and look forward to discussing that with the committee this morning. I now move to questions. Can I start by referring you to your response to the committee's recommendation on complaints handling when you stated whether there is unanimous agreement among stakeholders that specific measures can be implemented quickly? There is no reason why students should not seek to do that. Now that you have had sight of Dame Elish's interim report, where there are various recommendations that require legislative change, can you give the committee some assurance that those will be implemented quickly? Thank you for the question. Just as I said in my statement of where there is unanimous agreement by partners that we should move quickly, I see no reason why we should delay that. On the legislative changes and a couple of legislative changes that are suggested within the report, those will be part of the measures that I discussed during the summer recess with stakeholders and to see whether they can be agreement. Forgive me, it is a couple of days after the report. I will not commit to anything at this committee to absolutely tell you what we will be doing, but I will move with haste and pace because it is such an important matter. There is agreement in what is in our gift, and there are recommendations in the gift of the Government that I will do. Of course, when it is legislative changes that are required, again, the convener will be only to be aware of that because of her role, where there is legislative change, we would have to look at the parliamentary timetable, we would have to look at other parliamentary pressures that exist and so on and so forth, so I could only work at a pace that Parliament perhaps would allow me to do so, but notwithstanding all of that, I reiterate what I have said previously and what I have said in the statement that where there is unanimous agreement from stakeholders to move quickly on something that there should be no reason to delay that. I will press you perhaps a little bit more on that, cabinet secretary. Obviously, this is an important report, you said so in your opening remarks, and I think our committee were absolutely unanimous that the recommendations made important improvements, so rather than just seeing where we could fit it into the legislative programme, will you make a case for prioritising making those changes in the legislative programme? I think that that is a fair, fair request, in the way that there is unanimous agreement, where there is the agreement that the best route to achieve what Dame Elisha has suggested is through legislation, then of course I am happy to have that conversation with colleagues in the parliamentary business, but clearly it would take the endeavours of not just the Government but the entire Parliament to progress those matters. If we can get to the outcome that Dame Elisha is trying to get to without legislative change, of course, that is almost always a preferable route, because I think that committee and members here would understand that changing and amending legislation is not a quick fix in those matters. However, if we can only get there through legislation, there is unanimous agreement, and clearly I will do my best to progress as quickly as possible. Not always in my gift, I must say, is very much a conversation that has to take place with Parliament. I think that the committee members will do all that we can to help to see that. Rona Cymru. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to ask you about the time that has been taken to investigate complaints. We have heard that the complaints process can be lengthy and that can often have a detrimental effect on the complainers and on the subject of the complaints. Do you think that the policing bodies currently have the necessary resources to provide as quick a resolution as possible for everyone involved? Does it even come down to resources? Dame Elisha said yesterday that she would be looking to possibly try and streamline the process to make recommendations for that in her final report. Can you comment on that on the time taken that has been taken? I can completely understand from Dame Elisha's report the concerns that she has around the time that can take for complaints, particularly complaints involving senior officers, because that can have a particularly destabilising effect. She makes some very serious recommendations that we will give consideration to. She also talks about streamlining, as you rightly say. I think that Dame Elisha was pretty clear in her evidence session to this committee that the majority of complaints that come through are not complaints of gross misconduct. They can be dealt with by other routes and other avenues, a lot of them grievances. They can be dealt with by HR routes and so on and so forth. Streamlining is hugely important. There is also the complexity. I think that it would be wrong of us not to recognise that the complaints' landscape is complex. Cabinet Secretary for Justice and I can tell you that it is complex. Other people are making a complaint. There are a variety of bodies depending on the complaint and the referral process and so on and so forth. There is no denying that there is a complex landscape. Streamlining is hugely important. I hope that that cuts out a lot of unnecessary time that is involved in some of that. On resource, we recognise that there was an increase in the workload of the park, so we increased their resources by over a third by 33 per cent. They have a budget proposal, so no doubt that they will make for the next spending review. Of course, we will look at that and give that consideration in relation to the spending review. I will not rehearse too much what I have said about police budgets. We protect the police's revenue budget and, given them a capital uplift, we will be up to the police to determine how they choose to spend that. Then there are questions for what is known as CAPD, criminal allegations against police division. That is very much to do with the Crown Office and clearly a matter for the law advocate, which the member may wish to raise with him directly. The cabinet secretary touched on the complex. That is something that the committee has heard. Do you think that that is partly due to the number of organisations that are involved in the complaints process? Do you have any initial ideas from the report about how the complaints process can be simplified? If the member will forgive me, I will be reluctant to be as firm as I would, and I will be, hopefully, after recess, because I would like to have discussions with principal partner organisations about the way forward. However, as a more general a couple of things, I reiterate that I agree with that suggestion that the complaints landscape is complex. We have to recognise that. It is important for all of us involved to recognise that. Not deliberately, so I think that it is a nature of the type of allegations, the nature of the scrutiny bodies and the fact that police is rightly one of the most scrutinised organisations that we have in the country. It is right that they are because of the power that is invested by the police. Therefore, the scrutiny has to be to the level at that. I would not say that there are too many scrutiny organisations. I would reject that suggestion, because I think that each of those organisations, the SPA, the role that they play is important, the park is extremely important, Audit Scotland of course, and the role that they play, of course, the committees in this Parliament. The scrutiny of Police Scotland, I would not suggest that there are too many organisations involved. In terms of ways forward, there are a variety of suggestions that are made by Dame Elish Angiolini. I was obviously afford over a report a few times since its release. I am particularly interested in what she says in paragraph 181, 182, which is about misconduct proceedings in particular. Again, recognising the vast majority of cases are not gross misconduct, but this is both for misconduct and gross misconduct for senior officers. Her suggestion of an independent, legally chaired panel appointed by a very senior member of the judiciary such as the Lord President. Recommendations such as this one, I think, should be given very serious consideration. We will be given very serious consideration, not entirely. It is my gift to say that these things should happen, but certainly with partner organisations I think that we can get unanimity around some of these suggestions. We will have a more robust complaints procedure and landscape for all. Whatever we do, it is going to be quite important for stakeholders to have a, even if it is on the website, a one-stop shop, almost, or portal where members of the public can go to to understand that complaints feature. There are bits of it. You can go to the Police Scotland website and there is a complaint section and so on and so forth. I think that just something that is very easy to read is not full of acronyms, is really digestible. I think that we would be quite helpful. Whatever we end up settling on, we should make sure that there is an easy-to-read, easy-to-understand format for the public to be directed to. Thank you for that, cabinet secretary. You have nicely anticipated my next question, which was about the communication to the public and speaking, if you like, in plain language, because, as you have said, it is very complex. You have basically answered that, but based on your answer, it is fair to say that members of the public are likely to struggle with the complaints procedure? In a word, yes. It is quite a complex landscape and we should reflect very carefully on what Dame Elish says about trying to make it a less land complex. We will only be able to do that to some extent. In some regards, it will be difficult because there are different bodies that have different roles and responsibilities and that is for very good reason, but we can definitely make it a less complex landscape than it currently is. Daniel Johnson One of the areas that could be acted on sooner rather than later is regarding interagency relationships. Dame Elish's interim report is quite strong on that. On paragraph 277, she characterised the relationship as being one of suspicion at times and, in particular, referring to the relationship between Police Scotland and the park. In paragraph 151, she describes the relationship between the SPA and the park regarding preliminary assessments as being not entirely as functional as it should be. I was wondering if your reflections were similar and what actions might be taken in the short term to try to improve those relationships and put them on a better and more functional footing? I agree with Daniel Johnson on the premise of his question. I would have to agree because it is very clear in Dame Elish's report from the various paragraphs that he mentions. I am not sure that it is 151 necessarily, but it is certainly 277. Plus, I think that 104 makes for quite stark reading about the relationships. That gives me cause for concern. What I would say to Daniel Johnson—I think that he will appreciate this—is that there is only so much that I can do as Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I am keen that those relationships are constructive. I am very happy to say that I have a constructive relationship with the chief constable and the chair of the SPA—of course, with the park—but we have met on only a few occasions. There is a new commissioner coming in. Of course, personalities may play a part in those conversations moving forward. However, I think that the recommendation from Dame Elish Angelini about a working group is hugely important for that very purpose. Instead of having, as she describes it, cynicism, suspicion and suboptimal relationships, if I get her word incorrect, and if the working group can understand that scrutiny and handling complaints is in the interests of everybody in public confidence and policing, then hopefully that working group can start off in a positive footing to help with those relationships. Daniel Johnson will forgive me that there is—of course, I will reflect on those recommendations. I think that the working group is a good step. Other than that, I will reflect carefully, but I am not sure that it is entirely in the gift of government to help those relationships to become more constructive. I entirely understand and agree, but I am pleased to hear the cabinet secretary's beliefs that this is a priority. Just for the record, it was paragraph 158, not 151 that I meant to say. However, yesterday, listening to Dame Elish, I was concerned that perhaps the recommendations for improving those were primarily at the governance level. I agree that the working group will be helpful and, indeed, a new commissioner of me will change matters. Some of those issues clearly reside at the level of practice and, indeed, that the people within the park and within the police themselves. I was just wondering whether the cabinet secretary would reflect that thought that those working relationships at the ground level also need to be improved, while I also bear in mind that some of those relationships are absolutely outside the scope of ministerial direction or influence. Daniel Johnson is right, and we should reflect on that. I should say that, when I mentioned that a new commissioner is coming in, that is, in no way a slight to the current commissioner at all. I think that people would recognise that she's done a very diligent job. She's appeared in front of this committee on many occasions, and everybody can see the seriousness with which she takes her role and the effort that she has personally put in. I simply make the point that, when new people come into an organisation, often that's a chance to refresh and reset some of those conversations and relationships. I take his point on, I think, with the suggestions that Dame Elish makes, and if we move on some of those and our principal partner organisations also move on some of those changes, then that can potentially in itself help to foster a better relationship through the governance arrangements. Ultimately, I'll be honest, in the years that I've been a Government minister, nothing beats just getting around the table. If you need to air some of those conversations, difficult conversations, you're much better getting around the table and having those very frank, robust conversations. It helps frankly to let people vent what they feel are some of their issues, and it hopefully gets people working around a constructive manner. Yes, I accept that we should reflect on what Daniel Johnson says. I'm hopeful also that the working group will make a difference in those relationships. I think that John was going to come up. Before we leave that area, Cabinet Secretary, do you agree with Dame Elish's view that she expressed yesterday that the relationship between the SPA when we're looking at relationships and Police Scotland could be perceived as too cosy? I thought that was an interesting observation. I get exactly where Dame Elish Angeline is coming from. I think that she was mentioning specifically in relation to senior officers and the SPA. I think that, in Scotland, I've often said that we're such a small country that everybody ends up not knowing everybody, but particularly when we look at senior officers, a small handful of senior officers who work quite closely with the SPA, who are themselves a small team, at the very least there could be a perception that there's familiarity and the relationship is too cosy. I think that the suggestions that Dame Elish Angeline makes to try to make sure that that perception doesn't exist, I think that we should reflect on her suggestions very seriously. I already mentioned the suggestions that Dame Elish Angeline makes, the recommendations that she makes about an independently, legally chaired board in paragraph 182. I read that paragraph and that suggestion recommendation with a lot of seriousness. I think that it's something that I'll take as a matter of urgency in terms of my conversations with partner organisations, because I think that even the perception of the relationships being too cosy is not good for public confidence. Supplementary order. Yes, thank you. It was really a supplementary to Daniel Johnson's questions. Paragraph 317 refers to the fact that the police are increasingly called to deal with people with mental health problems, which can sometimes spark complaints against the police. Some of the people involved in minor incidents are taken to the police station rather than a place of health or safety. The paragraph refers to avoid escalation of the situation that requires multi-agency communication and co-operation between police and health care agencies. I wonder if I could have your view on that, if you think that this is something that should be addressed in the final report? Yes, I will look forward to the final report in its detail. Even before this report was released, the committee will be well aware of the fact that this has been a long-standing issue for police officers around the amount of time that is spent on distress calls and vulnerable people. The committee will also be aware that, at the moment, we have the roll-out of the CAMHS system for police handling of calls. That contact assessment model will hopefully, at the triage stage, be able to direct calls of vulnerability to the appropriate places that they should go. It does not mean that police officers still will not attend mental health calls and distress calls, I am sure that they still do and will, but it will hopefully reduce the number. As well as that, the Health and Justice Collaboration Board is looking at this issue and is looking to see where we can target resource, again, to where it might be better placed to handle distress calls and people with vulnerability. It is a win-win for everybody. It means that police officers can use their time more productively, but it also means that, for the individual that is concerned, they are being treated by somebody who is better suited to their needs. That should hopefully mean that there will be a reduction in complaints to the police. However, where there are complaints of this nature, they should of course be treated in the most appropriate manner and way, but hopefully we can reduce them by getting the appropriate person to see them in the first place. John Swinney I asked Amy Ellis yesterday about her recommendations 9 and 10, which cover the softer elements of the complaints process. You touched on that briefly and the opportunity that robustly followed a grievance procedure can avert things escalating. It is certainly the view that some of the matters that have escalated quite considerably may have been more appropriately addressed by a grievance procedure. That will require of course necessary training, not just for the managers but for all members of staff, both police officers and police staff, to understand the options that are available to them and the route to be followed. Could you comment on that, please? I did pick up on John Swinney's questioning of Amy Ellis in this regard. If I just pick up on some of what she said, first things first, she did say that she would return to this issue and her final report, which I think is important. Obviously, we give her the time and the space to do that. I found it very interesting. John Swinney comes from a policing background, so we all understand that well. However, even if you are not from a policing background, you can understand where there may be, for example, a relatively flat organisational structure, where there are priority opportunities to be promoted and you are not promoted. It can lead to frustrations and issues that elsewhere would be treated as grievances that are not that escalated to misconduct and disciplinary procedures, whereas Dame Elish is a central suggestion that, earlier intervention, which seeks to address behaviour, support officers through HR routes, prevent that escalation, is usually important. However, the training aspect is also a point that Dame Elish makes in terms of training on front-line officers and mediation, and in customer handling, as is described. Mediation is usually important for our partners in Police Scotland to consider. I am sure that they will reflect on it, but I think that a number of the grievances that come forward, if there is a way of dealing with them appropriately, but in a way that does not require that escalation to misconduct, then, of course, that is, hopefully, preferable to all. However, again, we will reflect on that and, of course, we will wait for Dame Elish's final report, which will return to this issue. I wonder if, as an institution, the police is risk averse in relation to personnel matters for this nature and may resort more readily to the more punitive forms, rather than managerial forms of disposing of incidents? I think that it is born out of a good place, in the sense that I think that the police take their responsibilities in these matters very, very seriously. We have to remember that Police Scotland and its national police service form, of course, is still a relatively young and new organisation, so it may be a function of that also. Whether it is risk aversiveness, whether it is some other issue, I cannot really comment too much knowledge, I am afraid, on that specific point. I would say that Dame Elish makes some important recommendations, although she will return to the issue in a final report. I think that what she recommends in an interim report should be, and I am sure that she will be given consideration by Police Scotland. I would like to take forward one of the conversations with partner organisations. I thought that the comment about front-line resolution, particularly with the mediation and customer handling, would be potentially hugely important, given the source of many complaints. You heard Dame Elish talk about some things that, of course, are important to the individual but, in the relative scheme of things, be it in another workplace, would not be viewed in that way. Perhaps the challenge for Police Scotland is that, even a day's training is a significant undertaking given the number of personnel. Is that something that might be looked at in relation to budgetary considerations at all, cabinet secretary? I know that your colleague Mr Mackay will have many representations, but there is a significant abstraction of staff that is backfilling to actually facilitate training on that scale that may be required as important. Again, as John Finnie will know from his personal experience, the good thing is, of course, that Police Scotland has in place a rigorous training procedure, whether it is for new starts or, indeed, with current officers, as we saw with the roll-out of domestic abuse training for the new legislation. They are able to take forward large-scale training opportunities at relative speed. However, of course, there is a budgetary consideration, as there was with the Domestic Abuse Act training. Therefore, if Police Scotland comes with specific budgetary proposals in that regard, it will be considered within the wider spending review picture. I am afraid that it is that line that I will often give, but it is an important one, because there will be a variety of budgetary pressures. In fact, I have come in front of this committee and there has been a variety of requests around budgetary pressures as well. We would have to consider that in the round, but in terms of the general thrust of what is being discussed around the training of front-line officers and mediation and customer handling, it is one that should be given very, very serious consideration. I think that John Finnie raised an interesting point for a report that stems from complaints. I think that Dame Ellish makes a number of comments regarding police culture, which does not necessarily have to. On top of what John Finnie has mentioned about grievances, paragraph 106 states that resentment around promotion could also be exacerbated by factions, favouritism or litigiousness, which existed historically within different parts of policing. Likewise, in paragraph 108, she goes on to describe in the focus group that she found that not all line managers understood the management of performance or how to use performance regulations. I was just wondering if the cabinet secretary would agree with me that I think that she should give the chief constable and the force executive some pause for thought around police culture and practice. I was just wondering whether he would agree with me that I think that one would want to see some action taken on those cultural aspects that have been highlighted, which I do not think that necessarily we might have expected to see in this report. Yes, I very simply just agree with Daniel Johnson. Again, bearing in mind that we have eight legacy forces coming together, two central organisations, but eight legacy forces coming together, there may have been quite good HR practice in terms of feedback of why you did not get a promotion, why you did not get a certain position etc etc, but clearly from what Dame Ellish Angelini is saying here that across the board the organisation has to look at that feedback loop when it comes to issues around promotions, but it is more than that. She does talk about the need to have to even give negative feedback, which can maybe be tricky. Telling constables are not ready for promotion, reluctant to consult HR professionals on police Scotland to get advice and staffing issues. For me, those paragraphs that Daniel Johnson mentioned are particularly one-way. I think that we really need to be looked at by Police Scotland. There will be, I am certain of that, but you would think that if there was a really positive focus on that and a really positive outcome in terms of how to deal with that HR in a way that provided that feedback and was positive, even if you do not get a promotion opportunity, which of course can be difficult to take, then I can imagine that the grievances and the complaints were drastically reduced, so it is in really everybody's interest that those paragraphs that Daniel Johnson highlighted, particularly I would say 106 to 108, should be of focus for the chief constable and colleagues in Police Scotland. A couple of questions on transparency that you touched on briefly earlier on. One of the issues that you probably have seen in the report is that people do not feel that they are being given enough information with which to pursue complaints, and it has been suggested that this could be improved by policing bodies having a duty to provide complainants with regular updates on the progress of their complaints, the procedures being followed and provided with a named contact. Is that something that you think has merit and that you would support? I obviously realise that you have not had much time to digest some of the recommendations, but is your instinct that that might be something that is helpful? I think that we just probably want to be careful that where we can improve the transparency and do it in a way that is swift and important, and there are suggestions about legislative change and so on and so forth, and I am not dismissing them. I think that we should give them careful consideration, but if we can do things relatively quickly that improve the transparency that carries the unanimous support, but also I would hope that the confidence of the public that we should look to do that. My view is that, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the current landscape is complex. I think that that probably gives rise to some element of public suspicion. Again, it is just a perception that I do not think that it is deliberately meant to be complex, but it probably gives rise to some public suspicions in that regard. Some of the suggestions that I made are absolutely around named contact and so on and so forth. I am sure that Robison mentioned that we should all give serious consideration to them and do what we can to improve any lack or perceived lack of transparency in the system. Do you think that a similar duty that is being suggested for complainants could be something that could also be provided to those who are the subject of complaints? Again, I think that we should give it some consideration. I think that we read very clearly from the Amelicia's report that the effect that complaints can have on the one that makes a complaint, but also clearly on the one that is being complained about. It is important that, when we are talking about fairness and transparency, we do not forget that there are often two sides of an allegation there. We have to make sure that the appropriate steps are put in place that give rise to public confidence and greater rise to public confidence, but are also fair to all those who are involved. We just have to take a bit of time to reflect on the suggestions that I made to see how we can give that confidence and inject even further fairness into the system. You will probably be aware that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner has expressed some concern about the level of discretion that Police Scotland currently has to categorise and investigate complaints in the first instance. Do you think that the Commissioner's concern is justified in that respect? We had some discussion about this yesterday, particularly in relation to serious complaints having been inappropriately recorded. I do not know if you have had a chance to reflect on what Eilish Angiolini has said in that regard, but what are your initial comments? From my initial comments on this, it was interesting that, again, when it came to the most serious complaints that were made about senior officers, Dame Eilish has a suggestion about the various stages and steps that that should go through and how that should initially be triaged and then potentially referred on. I know that the Commissioner has come in front of this committee on occasion and suggested that there is too much discretion and perhaps there is a further role for the PIRC. I have my understanding from reading the report that I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, because Dame Eilish did not consider PIRC's proposed triage role as necessary. She suggested that PIRC should be using its powers to audit Police Scotland in the SPA's complaints handling process and carry out research before any consideration of a triage role. You need to be careful when any proposals do not potentially have an unintended consequence of creating an additional bureaucracy that is not warranted for the vast majority of complaints but is related to quality of service, so that would not be necessary proportionate or logical. I think that we just have to weigh those matters up, but I noticed that it was quite stark that Dame Eilish did not consider that proposed triage role any further. I take the cabinet secretary into the area of investigation of criminal complaints. As you know, Police Scotland has a discretion to decide whether a complaint is a criminal allegation or if it is not, and whether it should be referred to the Crown Office for an independent investigation. Do you take a view on whether Police Scotland has been carrying out that process effectively at this stage? Has the Crown Office raised any concerns with you about that particular element? First things first, there is a reason and a good reason why it was my predecessor who jointly commissioned a review with Lord Advocate. Lord Advocate, I know, has written to Dame Eilish Angelini to thank her for her preliminary report, but he will be the one that will determine what is appropriate for the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal to take forward. His independent remit is important to recognise. I also noted in the report of the committee's post-legislative scrutiny that the committee welcomed the measures introduced by the Crown Procurator Fiscal Service to provide reassurance that Police Scotland is identifying and reporting appropriate cases. The very first recommendation in Dame Eilish's report proposes that all allegations of excessive force should continue to be reported immediately by Police Scotland's PSD, the professional standards department, for instruction and investigation by the independent Procurator Fiscal or by Park on the Direction of Procurator Fiscal. What we have from your own consideration is welcome measures that Police Scotland identifying and reporting appropriate cases, but importantly from Dame Eilish a serious suggestion around how to further improve that, which again Liam Kerl forgive me will take some time to reflect on, but I think it is a recommendation that should be given some various considerations in terms of the Crown's own response to that and my own discussions of course. I will speak to the Lord Advocate in good time about the interim report, but again Liam Kerl completely understands this, I know, but decisions about those criminal proceedings are entirely a matter for the Crown and rightly Lord Advocate guards, fiercely guards the Crown's independence from political interference in that regard and so he should is entirely appropriate that that is left to the discretion of Lord Advocate and the Crown. Thank you for that. On the measures very briefly, you mentioned the measures that have been brought in. Have you had any feedback on those measures and the impact of them or is it not at that stage yet? No, I haven't had direct feedback. I also obviously read the committee's report on post-legislative scrutiny. I was quite comforted by what the committee said in the report in relation to this particular matter. The evidence that you had taken and the reassurances clearly from the report that you, as a committee, had already received gave me great comfort, so I have not taken the conversation any further than that, but clearly the Lord Advocate and I will be truing the fat over this interim report and what is a matter for Lord Advocate, he will of course take forward in his independent role and of course what is a matter for other partner organisations and the Government, we will take forward. Okay, a slightly different topic, if I may. There is an issue or a concern around senior officers being subjected to their complaints being identified in the media. Do you take a view at this stage on whether the relevant regulations need to be amended in light of that to ensure they are not identified or is this not a concern at this stage? I think we should give consideration to this point. I thought Dame Alicia Angelini again was quite robust in saying that she'd had conversations with, for example, the park and others around when these things become public and the fact that that can actually have a detrimental impact on public confidence and that the practice had ceased since she had those conversations last year. In terms of, you know, actual changes in regulations and so on and so forth, excuse me, you'll forgive me, I'll again take some time to look over what Dame Alicia said, but also it's important to recognise what she herself, Dame Alicia, has said herself, and I'll quote directly, she will give quote unquote further consideration to the whole question of privacy, the public interest and the role of the media, quote, in her final report, but very much welcomes further views on this issue from the public and members of the press and media. So I think we should have the conversations, but I think Dame Alicia takes a right tone in terms of we've got to have a really honest conversation and one with a lot of cool heads around the public interest, of which there always is going to be a public interest, the role of the media in scrutinising any of these allegations. Again, there's a role there, not for investigation by the press, but certainly of public interest and so on, but also very much the rights of the individuals both making the complaint and being complained about. So these are not easy questions to get an answer to, but I welcome what Dame Alicia said thus far. I welcome the conversations that she's already had, for example, with the park and I think it is, as Liam Kerr says, a discussion that is very worthy of further discussion as time goes on. Good morning to the cabinet secretary and the panel. I'd like to ask a couple of questions around whistleblowing. I'm not sure of what level of detail you'll be able to go into, Cabinet Secretary, but I'd just like to ask a question about Police Scotland and SPA already have their own whistleblowing policies. Have you had any concerns raised with you as to whether or not those policies are fit for purpose at the present time? The interim report, as things stand, does know that Police Scotland recently published up-to-date guidance in order to allow officers to report concerns, or to whistleblow and to order a contract to the company Protect, which is whistleblowing advice limited, so that provides an independent advice for whistleblowing matters. Two things really, it tells me one that Police Scotland themselves noted that the whistleblowing procedures could be improved, but secondly it tells me, and this is the important point, that they've taken very credible action by bringing in that element of independence to improve their procedures. I think that Dame Elish did set out her intention to examine and explore whistleblowing processes. She said further evidence and further advice from stakeholders, and of course that will make up part of her final report. I think that whistleblowing policies are fit for purpose in terms of Police Scotland and SPA, but equally this is going to be an issue that Dame Elish is clearly going to come back to, and I think that it's important that we wait for that final report before we decide on any potential next steps. The perk of told the committee that Police Scotland's policy does not provide any external confidential reporting system or mechanism and suggested that this could be helped by having the perk provide an independent oversight of that. Do you think that Police Scotland's whistleblowing policy should have some sort of external body like the perk to police the police, as it were? Again, I know that Dame Elish's report suggests that protection for whistleblowers could be enhanced within policing by prescribing legislation in terms of another Scottish third party reporting body or person, so that's there, it's in the report, so we should give it some consideration. I don't want to take a view absolute here or now about that, so there's a very firm suggestion about that third party potential reporting body, so let's consider that. I know the review also took evidence from perk, suggesting that legislative amendment could be made to provide the perk with what is described as prescribed person status and the legislative powers to independently investigate these matters, but again, I go back to my answer to Jenny Gore's previous question. Dame Elish did say that she's going to return to this matter in a final report. There's some really weighty suggestions. Let's give her the time to bring forward that final report before considering the matter further, but she's laid them on the table, there'll be a matter of discussion, conversation, but let's wait for the final report, I think. Cabinet Secretary, I ask you there's an issue that has impacted on confidence in police complaints handling, and that's where police officers may retire or resign when a complaint or investigation is on-going. The committee heard that this brings non-criminal investigations to a halt, and it can be unsatisfactory for everyone involved. Would you agree that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and would you anticipate a change being required to ensure fairness in the process for everyone involved? I can understand whether there are some concerns around when allegations are made, and whether they choose to retire. There can be some ambiguity around the investigating roles and powers, so I completely understand and I'm quite keen to reflect very carefully on this. I understand that there's differing interpretations of, in terms of legislation, person serving with the police, so, again, if we're able to put that to bed and amend the relevant provisions at the earliest opportunity through unanimous agreement, hopefully, with our partner organisations, then we will give that very, very careful consideration, because where the ambiguity exists, where people think that there's a potential loophole to get out of investigations, then clearly I can, I agree with the convener's premise that that could have a detrimental impact on public confidence. When she asked me the very first question in this committee about can we move quickly in terms of legislation with a unanimous agreement, I suppose this would be one of these areas where we would look at the relevant provisions and see if we can try to give some certainty where there's, at the very least, some ambiguity. When we're not making a specific recommendation in her report 321, Damian Leitch does say that there may be merit, for example, in terms of the public interest in transparency and justice, and in line with the practice introduced in England and Wales by policing and crime act 2017 in allowing or requiring misconduct proceedings to operate even after an officer has resigned and even after he is unable or unwilling to engage with these proceedings. Is that something that you would consider looking at and that would be good to try and resolve this issue? I think that there's good practice for us to look at in jurisdictions across the rest of the United Kingdom, and we should look towards that. I've always said that in a variety of matters. I'm often the first to make mention of the fact that other jurisdictions look towards Scotland, but clearly if there are things that we can learn of best practice, it's not always the case that such things can be translated from England and Wales to Scotland, but looking at the paragraphs that I think the convener is making mention of from 319 to 322, they will be given consideration, but again, you'll forgive me, convener. I won't commit here and now that we will absolutely do what is being asked, but we will take forward those conversations. There may well be merit in the suggestion being made by Damian Leitch and Angelini on this front. I suppose turning it round to look at it from the other aspect, given the wide-ranging and complex nature of complaints, would there be some merit in looking at a certain category of complaints that should not or should not be continued by the retirees of officers, if I looked at it that way, rather than discontinued? I'll be careful about that. I understand where Margaret Mitchell is coming from with the convener. I'll go back to my answer to John Finnie if there are more grievance-type issues that are being raised and then somebody retires as they merit in pursuing those grievances. That's a conversation that we can absolutely have, but I just think that I would like to reflect very carefully, not just with our partner organisations but particularly those that have an experienced background in HR. Excuse me about the potential implications of what's being suggested in any potential unintended consequences. What I have at the forefront of my mind is making sure that we have transparency, fairness in the system and public confidence in the system. Anything that enhances that, we should give very serious consideration to it. Given that you've mentioned a couple of times that there is clearly an impact on public confidence, are you disappointed that there isn't a specific recommendation in this area? Given that you've said several times that there is an issue that impacts on public confidence, are you disappointed that there isn't a specific recommendation on this issue? I wouldn't say that I'm disappointed. I think that there's a substantial report for an interim report. This is a really weighty document, so I think that there's a lot in there for us to reflect on. I think that just with the changes that hopefully will make in relation to the interim report, I think that we'll make a big, big difference in terms of the procedure and the handling of complaints. When I talk about public confidence, I should say that I still think that the public have high confidence in complaints being investigated. Clearly, we cannot ignore what has happened over the past few years and the fact that that might well have dented that public confidence. I'm not disappointed. I think that there's a weighty interim report. I think that there's a lot in there. I think that there will be some good changes made in the back of it. Of course, when the final report is ready for publication and is published, of course there will be further round of discussions about what more we can do to improve the process. Can I thank the cabinet secretary? That concludes our evidence session. The committee appreciates the speed at which Dimeilish has completed her interim report and looks forward to hearing the progress that the cabinet secretary makes over summer, in particular implementing legislating changes or persuading cabinet colleagues to make that a priority. Can I just finish by wishing you, cabinet secretary, a restful summer? Thank you again for appearing so soon after the publication of the report. We look forward to seeing you again after recess. Having an eight-week old baby, I'm not convinced that I'll have a restful recess, but nonetheless, I hope that you'll think of me as you are setting yourself on the various speeches that you'll all be inhabiting. I look forward to seeing you in the other side of recess. I'm a bit of an optimist. I'll suspend briefly for five minutes. Next item of business today is an evidence session on the newly introduced Scottish Biometrics Commissioner Bill. I welcome the Scottish Government's bill team to the committee. This is an opportunity for us to find out more about the purposes of this bill, which we'll scrutinise in more detail. We have with us this morning Elaine Hamilton, bill team leader, Ewan Dick, deputy director, police division and Louise Miller, directorate of legal services with the Scottish Government. I refer members to paper 2, which is a note by the clerk. I can ask Ms Hamilton to make some opening remarks to outline the bill and then we'll move to questions. Thank you, convener. The purpose of the bill is to put in place new oversight arrangements for the collection, use, retention and disposal of biometric data in the context of policing and criminal justice. By biometric data, I'm referring to fingerprints and DNA and other data that is currently being developed such as facial recognition software. Any other forms of data that may emerge in the future, which we can't even imagine at the moment, the oversight arrangements will focus on the creation of a new biometrics commissioner who will have a range of functions. The oversight arrangements will apply to Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority, and the bill allows a power for Scottish ministers to insert additional bodies should that be required in future. To ensure the impartiality of the post holder, the commissioner will be appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Parliament, and the commissioner will be accountable to Parliament for the performance of his or her functions and expenditure. The need for independent oversight arises from ethical, legal and human rights considerations associated with the use of biometric data. It is vital that the public has confidence in police use of biometric data, given that biometric data and samples captured by Police Scotland may be taken without an individual's consent. It is all the more important to ensure that there is adequate protection of rights and independent oversight of police powers in this respect. The need for independent oversight has been identified in a number of independent reports, most recently the 2018 report, by the independent advisory group on the use of biometric data. The consultation undertaken by the Scottish Government following the group's report also indicated broad support for those arrangements. Turning first to the commissioner's general function, this is to support and promote the adoption of lawful, ethical and effective practices in relation to the collection, use, retention and disposal of biometric data. That means that the commissioner will keep under review policy, practice and the law relating to biometric data in the context of policing criminal justice. The commissioner will also promote public awareness and understanding of biometric data and how police powers and duties are exercised, and indeed how those powers and duties may be monitored and challenged. The commissioner will also prepare and promote a code of practice. Finally, his or her functions also include carrying out research and making recommendations in relation to any matter that is relevant to her function. In carrying out those functions, the commissioner is required to promote, in particular, the interests of children and young people and vulnerable adults. I would now like to say just a little bit more about the code of practice. The commissioner is to prepare a code of practice in consultation with a list of prescribed stakeholders, including Police Scotland, the SPA, PERC, HMICS, et cetera, and indeed anyone else that the commissioner considers appropriate. The code must then be approved by Scottish ministers and laid before the Parliament. The content of the code can be reviewed at any time, but there must be a report on the code every four years. The bill requires there to be a code, but it does not specify the content of the code, and that is important because it allows the commissioner to use his or her own judgment and the input of stakeholders to shape the code. We would anticipate that the code will provide information and guidance, setting out the standards and responsibilities of Police Scotland and the SPA, with the aim of ensuring good practice, driving continuous improvement and enhancing accountability. SPA and Police Scotland will be legally obliged to have regard to the code. To enable the commissioner to perform his or her functions, the commissioner will have the power to request information. Should the information be refused, concealed or destroyed, then the commissioner has a remedy to the court of session who would consider the matter. If an order is made by the court, then it would be content of court to ignore it. Having considered the information about the collection, use, retention and disposal by metric data, the commissioner may wish to make a recommendation. Should no response be forthcoming to the recommendation, then the commissioner would reference this in a report to Parliament, which is made public. Therefore, the sanction is name and shame, so to speak. In conclusion, what we have here is a commissioner who will encourage and support the fulfilment by Police Scotland and the SPA of their functions in a manner that respects fundamental rights, the law and ethics. The support will include promoting good practice, identifying systemic deficiencies and providing a measure of transparency, which together will promote public confidence in policing and in the criminal justice system. Thank you for those opening remarks. That is very helpful. Before I bring John Finnie in, can I ask just a question about behavioural characteristics? Can you give an example of what that would include? Excuse me, I have a bit of a summer cold. Beaveral characters include analysis of, for example, a person's gate or a person's pattern of speech, a stammer or a very defining characteristic in their behaviour. If they twitched or blinked or something like that, that could be helpful. Thank you very much and thank you for that resume, Ms Hamilton. I have a couple of questions, particularly around the status of that code. It is very hard to predict the future, but four years on, things go the way. What status does that code have and what requirements is there to adhere to it and what would the sanction be if someone hadn't adhered to it? The code of practice, as I say, will set out the standards and the responsibilities expected of Police Scotland and the SPA. The expectation is that it will have internal systems in place to ensure that there is transparency in how they exercise their powers and that those powers observe human rights and ethical considerations. If the commissioner felt that Police Scotland or SPA were not having regard to the code, then the commissioner can make a recommendation that they have regard to a certain part of the code. If Police Scotland or SPA respond, then the commissioner will consider that response. If he feels that he has not had a response, then that matter can be reported to the Parliament and made public. Therefore, there is no legal sanction for feeling to observe the code, but there is a sanction of reputational damage and I think that that is a very powerful sanction. In my discussions with Professor Wiles, who is the biometrics commissioner for England and Wales, he does not have sanctions either in terms of enforcement powers. He feels that he does not need the enforcement powers. He feels that that would adversely affect his relationship with the police forces in England and Wales. Therefore, while I can understand that there may be some concerns about a lack of teeth in practice, that does not appear to be an issue and, indeed, the provisions that are made in the bill for name and shame appear to be adequate. Can I ask about any retrospective application? No. The code of practice will come into effect on a day set by regulations by the Scottish ministers and laid before the Parliament through the affirmative procedure. I wonder if you had formed a view of what the public might think about the likelihood of compliance when we had a situation where, with regard to the role taken by the information commissioner in relation to Police Scotland's proposed deployment of cyber kiosks, it is notwithstanding the information commissioner and many other people's very precise view about the legitimacy of that. Nonetheless, Police Scotland considered it appropriate to go ahead. I think that the cabinet secretary was quite clear when he appeared before the committee on 13 June that the legality of the cyber kiosk is a matter for Police Scotland and the SPA. In terms of the remit of this particular commissioner proposed in the bill, certainly part of his remit would be looking at developing technologies and ensuring that there is proper validation of those technologies before they are deployed and ensuring that human rights and ethical considerations have been taken account of also. I want to push further on that. I am able to tell us, is there anything driving this process now? What is mandated this coming forward just now? Are there any breaches for one of a better word? If so, is it therefore time critical in terms of how we move forward on this? Thank you. No, the Scottish Government's position on this is that Police Scotland and the SPA work to very high standards. Therefore, there is no suggestion that this commissioner is required because of any deficiencies in their performance. I think that, as I mentioned in my introductory comments, there have been a few independent reports in recent years, including the independent advisory group's report in 2018 and a report by HMICS in 2016, both of which called for independent oversight arrangements. In England and Wales, there have been independent oversight arrangements for a number of years now, and therefore, there was felt to be a gap in Scotland. If we consider the times in which we live, so many processes are now propelled by technology and, in particular, by metric technology, that the Scottish Government understands that the public will naturally be concerned about issues such as privacy and security of data. Therefore, there has been an alignment of a number of factors here that now make the creation of this commissioner all the more appropriate. I ask one supplementary and then a substantive question. Just following on from the convener's question about behavioural characteristics, I have a question about the definition of biometric data that is included in the bill, partly because subsection 2 of section 23, and I accept that it may include lists, but the list of types of data does not include behavioural characteristics itself. More important, my concern stems from the fact that much machine learning does not actually codify those behavioural characteristics in terms of information as such. There is a system that can identify those behaviours, but it is not one that can articulate what information is being held by people. I have a concern that the way in which biometric data has been defined may not capture all means and manner by which biometric data is used or people identified by their behavioural characteristics. To what extent the bill team has looked into that and has covered that off? Are you confident that the definition of biometric data is comprehensive? Yes, thank you. The definition of biometric data was considered very carefully by the bill team, and we were trying to offer a very broad, comprehensive definition, which would allow for future proofing, given that this is a very fast-paced technology. Ultimately, the definition provided in this bill is not meant to define biometric data generally, but for the purposes of the bill and for setting out the scope of the commissioner's remit. Just to be clear, biometric data means information about an individual's physical, biological, physiological or behavioural characteristics, which may establish the identity of an individual, either on its own or when combined with other information. And when we say information about a person's physical characteristics, that would include, for example, facial recognition. Information about biological characteristics would include, for example, a DNA profile, which can be derived from blood, saliva, hair, et cetera. Information about physiological characteristics would include vein patterns. Information about behavioural characteristics, as I mentioned earlier, could be a person's gate or speech pattern. Therefore, in offering this definition in the bill, we have tried to be as broad as possible. Indeed, we have gone broader than other definitions of biometric data, which are currently in existence, such as the GDPR definition, which focuses more on data that has undergone some sort of chemical process. I would like to examine further whether the bill is scrutinised. There is a difference between data and information, and it is an important one, in particular with regard to machine learning. In terms of my substantive question, we have just been taking evidence regarding the preliminary report on police complaints. We have four bodies that are either involved or overseas policing. Indeed, if you include HMICS, you could argue that it is five. That is potentially introducing a sixth. I note from your policy memorandum that consideration was given to whether or not these functions could be given to another body such as PERC. Is there a concern that we are creating a crowded landscape for police governance? What steps are taken within the bill to avoid that? Indeed, could the building perhaps just cover off why providing those functions to the PERC or the SPA or some other body was rejected in favour of creating a separate commissioner? Yes, of course. We have a regulatory landscape in Scotland in terms of the roles of HMICS and PERC. It is the policy of the Scottish ministers not to create a new public body unless there is an absolute need for it, unless the functions cannot be carried by an existing body. To that end, a robust options appraisal was undertaken in May of last year, which did consider existing bodies such as HMICS and PERC. When it comes to HMICS and PERC in particular, they are well established in the respective areas of expertise, but they do not have a remit across all areas of biometrics. If we were to widen their remit, that could lead to a loss of focus for them and negatively impacting on the perceived authority and credibility that they have. On that basis, using an existing body was considered not optimal. To have added to the remit of those bodies would have represented a fundamental shift in their purpose. Undoubtedly, HMICS and PERC have valuable roles to play, but the options appraisal identified that they were not ideally placed to take on additional functions such as that. The need for a new parliamentary commissioner was on the basis of having a fresh approach to supporting improvements in the setting, monitoring and enforcing of standards. This option of a new body scored the highest for benefits realisation, particularly around strengthened oversight and accountability of public services. It also offered the value of ensuring a proportionate and effective approach to biometric data and additional capacity to support world-class innovation research and development. A new parliamentary commissioner would function dependently without any perception of undue influence from policing-related bodies. There are a number of reasons as to why it was felt inappropriate to use HMICS or PERC, and it was a more optimal solution to use a completely new parliamentary commissioner. Could you set out when a counter-practice will be available even in a draft form? The provisions of the bill are such that the code of practice is to be prepared by the biometrics commissioner in consultation with a list of prescribed bodies. The whole point of having an impartial commissioner is that they are not under the direction of Parliament or, indeed, Scottish ministers. Therefore, it is difficult for me to say exactly when the code of practice would be produced. I would hope that the code of practice will be the new commissioner's top priority. As I say, there is a requirement for the commissioner to prepare the code in conjunction with stakeholders, which always takes time, and then for that code to be approved by Scottish ministers and then for the code to be laid before Parliament. There is a time element here. In terms of existing material that could be drawn on to inform that code, the Scottish Government prepared a concept of operations code, which was part of its consultation last year. There will be existing standards, for example, from the forensic science regulator, which the new commissioner could choose to draw from. Therefore, one would hope that the commissioner will not be starting off with a completely blank sheet, but in terms of respecting the impartiality of the post holder, I would not like to estimate as to when that code might be produced. So, it is after the bill is published and introduced by secondary legislation? Sorry. After the bill is passed by Parliament and introduced by secondary legislation? Indeed. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit. You mentioned raising awareness. Now, I am not sure if that was just about the role of the commissioner and the new commissioner or about the legislation itself. Could you clarify that and just say how it is intended to raise awareness with the public? Yes. One of the functions of the new commissioner will be to raise public awareness of police powers and duties in respect of biometric data. Again, because the post is impartial, it will be for the commissioner to decide how he or she will go about that. We would expect the commissioner to raise with parliamentarians, with various representative groups, with the media, in order to raise awareness of rights and duties in respect of biometric data. It is always, I think, a grey area. It sounds very good, but putting into some detail and practice how you do raising awareness is not so clear. Can I ask if there is a budget for doing this? Yes. The financial memorandum sets out the costings in relation to the proposed legislation, which I cannot find at the moment. That particular part of the role has been costed. There is a budget for publications. There is a budget for travel and subsistence, so that would cover the costs of the commissioner travelling around the country, attending conferences or public meetings to provide information. There is a costing for that, but not specifically in terms of public awareness raising. It is wrapped up in the travel and subsistence and the salaries and other admin costs. And the budget is? The budget for travel and subsistence is £4,000 per annum. The administrative costs are £2,000 per annum. Do you wish to know the salary of the remuneration? Why not? The commissioner's remuneration is estimated at £57,000, and the staff salary is at £167,000, based on three full-time equivalents. That concludes our questioning. I thank the bill team for providing evidence today, and I suspend briefly to allow the witnesses to leave. Our next item of business today is a report back from the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing's meeting, which took place on 13 June 2019. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk, and invite John Finnie to give his report. On 13 June, the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing took all evidence on Police Scotland's proposal to introduce the use of digital device triage systems, commonly known as cyber gas, to search mobile phones. That session was with the cabinet secretary for justice. The cabinet secretary told the committee that it was for Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to satisfy themselves that they have the legal basis to proceed in deploying the use of cyber gas, adding that, if there is any difference in opinion in relation to law, it would be up to the courts to make a determination, although he was not advocating that particular approach. The cabinet secretary explained his intention to form an independently chaired reference group to scope the possible legal and ethical issues arising from new and emerging technological developments. He confirmed that this group could also consider existing technologies such as cyber gas. The intention is that the work of this group will be open and transparent, and that ethical and human rights considerations will be central to its work. The cabinet secretary confirmed that he is confident that lessons have been learned from the proposal to roll out cyber gas and that Police Scotland has the necessary processes in place to provide confidence and reassurance to victims and witnesses of a crime whose phones may be searched. However, he also acknowledged that Police Scotland has been unable to address the concerns raised by the Scottish Human Rights Association and the Information Commissioner's office, telling the sub-committee that it is incumbent on Police Scotland and the SBE to do their utmost to give as much confidence as possible to the public prior to deploying cyber gas. This was the final evidence session on this particular issue prior to the summer recess, and I understand that Police Scotland's intention is to deploy cyber gas in late summer. Are there any questions from members? Before we conclude in public, as this is the very last meeting of the Justice Committee before the summer recess, I want to wish everyone a very restful summer. We will return in September. However, I would also like to take a moment on the record to express the committee's thanks to our longest-serving member of the clerking team, Christine Lamberl. Christine Lamberl will be retiring from the staff of the Scottish Parliament at the end of the month and has supported the work of the Justice Committee. I think that she must have a medal for this over the past three sessions, which is something that I believe is a record. Christine Lamberl is well done for that. Christine Lamberl's dedicated and professional approach to her work has won her the respect and gratitude of all those that she has worked with over the years, so that is past and present members of committees. Her work behind the scenes has contributed immensely to the smooth running of our committees and our meetings. On behalf of the members, Christine, the Justice Committee wants to say thank you and to issue the very best for the future. I am now going to ask John Finnie on behalf of the subcommittee for policing to say a few words. There will be a very few words. You have covered it comprehensively. It is Christine Lamberl's continual support, often in the face of very testing time schedules and the like, and it is professionalism. I am very grateful sitting with my back to Christine Lamberl for all her support. A very personal thanks to her because she is very helpful to me. I will now bring this meeting to a close, at least a public part of it. We will continue in private.