 Good afternoon. Welcome to the justice subcommittee on policing's first meeting of 2016. I'm going to ask members to switch off mobile phones and others, and other electronic devices. The convener has submitted her apologies to Evel Health. Under standing orders, the oldest member present must chair the meeting for the purpose of choosing a temporary convener. That's why I have taken the chair today, no comments, thank you. Can I have nominations for a temporary chair please? Dwi'n meddwl i chi, rwy'n meddwl i chi. Ond ydy'r cyhoeddfeydd nesaf eich cyhoedd. Rydw i ddechrau i gael eu cymdeithasol ar y cyfrifatwyr. Ymgyrch yn ymgyrch y maes gwyfwyno ar gyfer cyflinigau cyflinigau cyflinigau. Rydw i'n meddwl i'r gweithio gyllidebyn Cymru i'r gael Cymru i'r gael cyflinigau cyflinigau i'r gael cyflinigau cyflinigau cyflinigau cyflinigau cyflinigau cyflinigau cyflinigau ffordd, byddwyd, airnodau, cymdeithas achoyn. Felly, gyda y cyfnodau, rwy'n meddwl i chi rwy'n meddwl i chi am rwy'n meddwl i chi pa ydych chi clubwyd, byddweud hynny i fod yn ambushu dyn nhw fyddai ddarffmwy o unrhyw ychydig. I fod â'r meddwl i chi'n meddwl i chi'n meddwl i chi'n meddwl a'ch troi nhw i rydw i chi gael ar gyfugir. John. Mae gweithio ar gyfer y clywed ffarras. Ysgolwyr Ffedigol Ddafod y Ffleddiol yn ddim ar y tynnu thatiogiwr yn 2014 i ei wneud o fod yn schoddwch y cyfnodau a'r mae'n iawn i'r cyfnodau a'u rhaglau'r ar gyferfyniadau i gyfnodau. A yna eich ddweud o'r prdweithio, mae'n оlyg i ddim yn ei ddim yn yn dod. Ie, mae y ddechrau'r ysgolwyr indoorsyn gyda 24 yn cael eifreiliad ac y ffordd o'r a'r byw sy'n gynyddiadau gwneud o'r pryd. Fygoff machen iawn o gyflygiau cyffraeg a'r cyfan sy'n gweithwyr i'r cyfaltylladion a bwysig i'r byffrwyrodau. So weddingd ynddiging isgwyr o'r byw sy'n gwneud dyma. Dydw i fyf spottyf hwnnw'n cyffrwyr o'r byw, ond y byw rydwg iawn sy'n cyffraeg a'r byw sy'n gyffrwyr o'r byw sy'n gweithwyr o'r byw sy'n cyffraeg a'r byw sy'n cyffraeg i'r byw We are currently managing three sets of regulations, 1996, 2013 and 2014, and that can be challenging for officers and witnesses and complainers alike. It is also suggested in that submission that superintendents with portfolios for conduct matters do not understand such important matters as what does and does not constitute misconduct. That is quite a serious statement. I have certainly read the submission, but without the detail. There certainly has been training of the new regulations, which were rolled out throughout 2013-14, and that training continues. Professional standards departments are fully engaged with divisions through superintendents who lead and support the super support act division. There is consistency applied with the regulations across the force as best we can within professional standards and the regional hubs and divisions. Chief Superintendent, you get the opportunity to see the five bullet points that relate to things about not only a grasp of the regulations process and the limitations of the powers, the use of personal opinions, including hersey to help in fair gold. I am quoting you, I am misunderstanding the balance of probabilities. Exculpatory evidence is often completely ignored by investigating officers, so it is beyond those charges with the concerns or beyond those charges with deliberating at a hearing, but also into the investigation officers. Has there been training rolled out about the new regs for that as well? Absolutely. Officers are fully conversant with exculpatory evidence, both from criminal and civil proceedings. There may be occasions that the Scottish Police Federation would wish to bring forward two professional standards to myself, and I would welcome that. SPF has full access unfettered to PSD for any such scenarios, but unfortunately neither of those instances have been brought to my attention, so I am sure that I will be able to take that up with SPF in my role as head of department. That would be helpful, I am sure. There is also mention of the counter-corruption unit and its relationship with the professional standards department. There seems to be a lack of clarity in the mind of SPF where that sits and where responsibility sits, and again, a series of comments that they will have read about that. Can you comment on that, please? Only as much as members will be aware that the HMIC review has the terms of references a matter of public record now, and there are touch points in that review as I understand it. Sorry, I should say that this is obviously historic in advance of that. I took it simply to relate to on-going matters of MISCON. Absolutely. On the occasion that the counter-corruption unit has an investigation that does not go down a criminal route, then there is a handover to professional standards for our independent assessment on the full circumstances and a new investigation where necessary will be convened under the 2014 regs. So, just to clarify, when there is a suggestion that the department acts with impunity and with scant regard for the roles of fairness and proportionality, is that something that concerns you? I would have to have some examples of that, and unfortunately, before today, I have not had that brought forward. Will you be seeking those examples now then? Absolutely. I just did not feel that it was appropriate to comment in advance of today. Yeah, yeah. Okay, thank you very much indeed. A couple of other questions that were made, please, here. It's for Mr Ross, and the dip sampling role that the authority play—how does that pan out? Can you explain? I mean, obviously, it's a check of—is it more than process? Is it about the inquiry too? We have a firm procedure in place. We actually pilot it first, and our intention is to carry out a dip sample in advance of each of our regular committee meetings and then bring a report to it. The process, as it stands, is that it's primarily our officers, but board members can also be involved, but they would identify, either on a random basis, or if there was a good reason, perhaps either geographical or otherwise, to look at some specific areas of complaints, they would then go and look at the files. Some of that, I think, comes off the computer system, the centurion system, so they would look at the full entity that is the file that relates to that complaint. I would emphasise, of course, that it's a closed complaint, so it's reached that point of conclusion. Really, they're looking at all aspects of that complaint, the way it was handled, the evidence, the presentation of the information, the consistency of the conclusion with the information that's actually contained within the complaint. I suppose what we're looking for is reassurance that we're happy with the way it has been conducted. It could very well be—this hasn't happened as yet—that there may be subsequent issues that we want to look further into, so, to some extent, it can lead to further discussion. It's essentially an assurance exercise, and it's also an opportunity, I suppose, for us to make sure that we fully understand the approach that's adopted by professional standards as well. I was going to pick up on that point because, clearly, with the potential for three regulations to apply to even a closed complaint, is there training for authority members on the process? Yes. We have, well, not just for authority members, but also for authority staff who are involved with complaints. There's a range of developments that we have in place. We have regular contact with key agencies. We have workshops that we have every six months for our complaints board members. We identify themes that we actually want to develop—training themes, information themes. Also, on an ad hoc basis, we will take forward additional briefings and information that may relate to things that have developed just to make sure that our members are up to speed, have a full understanding. In relation to some of the regulations, all of our members have attended, on a sort of observer-participant basis, some of the formal training sessions that Police Scotland and others organise. Okay, thank you. Two small questions, if I may. One, I think, we touched on the last time you were here. It's how the authority deals with a complaint that comes in that's effectively a service complaint that names the individual chief officer. I presume that some of those do come in, so it's not really about the police service performance rather than individual post-holders' performance. Well, it's the same approach that we take when we get any complaint that is an assessment process that's gone through. Essentially, it's part of what we would call the preliminary assessment, so we look at the complaint, we look at the information that is there. The critical thing is to try to identify what the heads of complaint are. If we can, we engage with the person who has raised the complaint to make sure that we have a full understanding of it. It could be that we're looking for additional information. Clearly, we don't carry out an investigation at that stage, but we may look for additional context to make sure that we have that full understanding. Depending on the nature of that complaint, it would, in all probability, then be taken to a complaints committee. A report is produced, the complaint is presented to the committee members and the committee members then form a view. That would be in line with the appropriate regulations and whether that's a service complaint, a complaint in terms of other aspects of conduct. Depending on the view that's adopted by the committee at that stage, it would then move on to a further stage. It could be a referral to PERC. That does happen. It's not a common, or it could be that it's clearly that the complaint is unfounded. As part of the process, clearly we acknowledge the complaint, we give regular updates on the process of the complaint to the complainer and the people who are the subject of the complaint so that they're very clear in terms of what the position is, and then we move to some form of appropriate closure or further investigation with another party. Finally, I think that in my day they would have been called vexatious complainers, but the unacceptable, persistent or unreasonable actions by complainers, the information that we have from the authority is that two of people have been subject to this policy today. Are you able to say whether either of them straying in theory of criminality, in other words false accusations of crime? To be honest, I don't have the immediate recall of the detail. I caveat it with that important point. It was more about the tone that they adopted in terms of their engagement and interaction with staff. Clearly there is a laid-down procedure, it's a policy that's been approved and it's also subject to review. The other thing that I would make very clear is that just because someone has been subject to unacceptable actions policy doesn't mean, of course, that their complaint doesn't go through the full process. It is still treated like any other complaint. Just because someone may be conducts themselves in a way that we might objectively consider unacceptable, we, of course, still treat it as a complaint. There's no difference of standard there. I want to start first of all by looking at the number of complaint cases that there have been, an increase of 22.6 per cent across the whole of Police Scotland, a reduction in the north by 8.5 per cent, an increase of 25.1 per cent in the east and a 43.3 per cent increase in the west. Has there been any analysis done to see why there is such a huge difference here and why it is that there seems to be a decrease in the north, which is bucking the trend? I can give you some context around those statistics. We, at the moment, are currently running for the year end of an overall increase of 25.4 per cent for the same financial period last year end of year. At the moment, the figures that we are reporting to force performance board today is an overall year end total of 5,663 complaints. That is an increase of just over just under 1,000 for the same period last year. Now, I think that my colleague at the previous committee explained the introduction of our new front-line resolution process, which is more than matured now. We're actually getting to a point of 47 per cent of front-line resolution. Perhaps I can put some context there to the sophisticated model for complaint handling, which absolutely brings forward the position in relation to how complaints are received and handled. Every expression of dissatisfaction is recorded in the front-line resolution disks, and that can vary month on month. Some areas regionally are up or down. Any expression of dissatisfaction is captured by the FLR, the front-line resolution teams, and 47 per cent of those, so 2,338 of those complaints are dealt with at the lowest level, never getting to a point of investigation. The officer is made aware of that complaint, so just under half of all complaints received financial year-to-date last year were resolved within the three-day week process by the FLR teams. Thereafter, anything that requires criminal investigation or further investigation for misconduct comes over into the professional standards department east, west and north, and those inquiries are either retained depending on the level of allegation or allocated out to division. We have had specialist services that are part of that process now, and some of the recorded FLR statistics are captured, for example, in the C3 communications arena, so that can be around the country. Where the call is received, that is where the complaint is captured for the FLR, the front-line resolution team. There can be a variance around statistics, and that is just one example of how the stats can be interpreted now. We are getting behind those stats to look at individual officer, the departmental and force organisational learning across the piece, but it is fair to say that the vast majority of our complaints that are captured now through the front-line capture process for all expressions of dissatisfaction that are dealt with within that three-day process and recorded on our centurion system. Indeed, the more statistics have become more sophisticated it is allowing us to get down to officer, departmental, regional and organisational learning for the force, except that there will be variations. I can certainly take that action to look at more detail behind those statistics that have been brought forward, but there are a lot of variations within the front-line resolution capture. One of the things that is interesting is why there are peaks and troughs. Obviously, it seems that nationally there is that increase, but in the north there is that decrease. I am just trying to find out if there is a reason for that, because there is a level of inconsistency there. Do you have any inkling of why there is such a difference? I think that we covered some of that previously around the consistent recording processes that have been in place since Police Scotland's inception. Previously, recording in the north was better than in the east and the west. The capture that we are now achieving across the whole of the country is consistent, bearing in mind that some of the legacy forces have been incorporated into the west. We have a number of areas where consistency of data capture, recording and how we deal with each of the complaints, is on a consistent level. Our toleration around the recorded complaints is now levelling out across the country at between £5.50 to £600 a month. We saw a seasonal variation last month with a drop nationally to £503 complaints for the month of December, but we would normally expect that, having looked back to last year's statistics for the same month, there are key points during the course of the year that I would see a national seasonal variation. Similarly, when we see dips or exception reporting, that is where we will get behind the statistics to look at the variation. Do you think that best practice in dealing with complaints is being exported right across the country? We know that some forces in the past were better at dealing with complaints than others. I think that that is a massive advantage for Police Scotland in the national force, the ability for us to consistently apply policy, the regulations, recording and data capture. I understand that, but do you think that the best practice that there was out there is now being undertaken right across the country? I think that it is fair to say that best practice is a continuous journey that will be on. I personally am looking to set up an organisational learning forum for the force, which not only captures complaints, but anything that we might identify from procedural reviews, from perp recommendations, from internal investigations that we conduct, so that we can discharge both strategic and organisational learning across the force. That is a new piece of work that is on-going just now. Mr Ross, what do you think of those differences? Do you think that consistency is taking place and that best practice is being driven right through the entire instrument? That is something that we tend to probably look at and discuss at every one of our Complaints Committee meetings. I think that, particularly as we moved into the application of a consistent approach across Police Scotland as a whole, because clearly initially there was a period where you moved from the different approaches or the approaches that had been historically in place in each of the legacy forces. Clearly we also had some fairly detailed discussions about the statistics that you have raised. We wanted to drill down and make sure that we could understand what is sat behind those. We have a satisfactory degree of reassurance that it is about now getting a consistent approach and also consistent recording, I think that the recording in particular, so that it means that a complaint is recorded in the same way as a complaint across Police Scotland as a whole. There does not appear to be any particular underlying reason in terms of some of the differences that you highlight. However, the important thing is to focus not just on the complaints and the allegations, but also on the outcomes of those complaints. That is another thing that we look at in great detail. We will continue to look for trends and we will also look at the time series that is there. We are beginning to see that there is a settling. Carol made reference to that, and we will continue to do that into the coming year and beyond. However, at present, our anticipation that it seems to be settling, as one would expect, is also in line with the reassurance that we have received from Police Scotland. In terms of those trends and the capturing of information, are there any particular areas that people are complaining about more? When I talk about areas, I am not talking about geographical areas here. Are there any particular issues that are leading to more complaints from members of the public? There are certain areas that we have focused in on, not necessarily because they have been highlighted by members of the public but because of their presence and their influence on certain officers. In an example, you may recall, we discussed this at the last time that I was here. That was about officers and restricted duties, particularly related to information management. There are topics such as that that we, probably on a very regular basis, seek updates, talk about in great detail, both in our public sessions and also in our private sessions with Police Scotland. We look to make sure that we have a full understanding of what sits behind that, the reasons for it and what steps can be taken to address it. That is an example of a particular topic that we look at and we also look at the trends and the statistics that relate to that. However, in terms of particular points that have been raised by the public, not to the same degree, no. I would not highlight any particular issue. When you have all of that data, it is immensely important that we drill down to find out if there is any particular area where there are difficulties. I want to be assured that the data that you are capturing is being used to try and find out if there are any problem areas at all. We see that very much as part of our key role. As well as dealing with certain complaints, a key role is the scrutiny of the way in which Police Scotland, through pre-professional standards and other ways, carries out that function. That is the reason for our standing item and a standing discussion in public and private sessions in our committee meetings. It also fits in with the DIP sampling. For instance, if there was an issue that we felt arose either because of a type of complaint or either because of a geographical aspect of a complaint, we would be able to factor that in terms of the DIP sampling that we would carry out. That is part of our planned intention. In terms of vexatious and persistent complainers, which Mr Finnie has previously covered, from my past experience, a lot of those situations have arisen because of very poor communication with the complainer at the beginning, which has escalated to such a huge degree. In terms of that front-line resolution response, do you think that that is helping in trying to resolve, and I know that you are not going to resolve in every occasion, but trying to resolve folks' concerns at a very early stage? Well, certainly in my experience. We have had detailed reports that have been taken to us on front-line resolution. The feedback and analysis that we have taken place has been extremely positive. It is also very helpful in terms of the person who is making the complaint, because at a very early stage and in a slightly more informal way they get the reassurance that they are seeking. It is a critical thing, of course, and we have sought reassurance at this point. If they are not satisfied at that stage, clearly they can then still escalate it, and it can go through the normal process. I think that we will continually review it. I think that we are impressed at the commitment and the approach that has been adopted with front-line resolution. I have some other questions, but I will let Alison in first. Miss Alden, in response to Mr Finnie, you said that the 2014 regs were meant to encourage openness and transparency. Pulling against that in another direction is what the SPF called a fear of overzealous consequences. Are you comfortable that the proportionality in relation to misconduct and minor misconduct issues is at the correct balance? Absolutely. Obviously, it is a very complex arena. If we look at the front-line resolution and the numbers that we are dealing with at that level, just under half of all complaints received, then into the middle ground of early interventions, which is a programme of work that professional standards engage with, along with the divisions that we meet with officers who have had four or more complaints over a 12-year period, even if there have been no action or no improvement action required, we make the officer and their supervisor aware. We will look at what we can do there to support that officer in a learning way, which is the thrust of the regulations, as I understand them, of the new regulations, and then we get to the top end of misconduct and gross misconduct. The number of hearings at the top end of the scale to answer that question about overzealousness, we have had four hearings in relation to the new regs. When you take that as an overall total of the 5,063 complaints raised since 1 April last year, it perhaps gives the panel members some feeling of the structure of where we are at in relation to pushing that out to organisational learning and officer learning at the lowest level that we possibly can in an open and transparent way for all our officers and complainers on what it is alike who rightly demand no fear or favour in relation to their complaint investigations. You can assure us that the focus, particularly at the lower end in its cleallist spectrum between minor misconduct and contractual issues through professional standards and criminal procedures, but at the lower end of that spectrum, the focus is on learning outcomes rather than punitive outcomes? Absolutely, so the regs quite rightly have been pointed out by Mr Finnie, also gives us the performance aspect there. There is no doubt that there is work to be done in the force in encouraging the support end of the divisional front end to support officers for the any warnings of improvement notification. Anecdotically, I am aware of when warning intended improvement notification is being provided to officers when misconduct has been set aside and we are looking at how we can continue to record that, but it is fair to say on a lot of occasions it does not require improvement notification. It actually requires supportive learning for the officer. We have a six stage form, which is completed for every single complaint that comes into the organisation. In section 5, the officer recording that form, whether it is front line resolution or all the way up to misconduct matters, must record what the organisational or individual learning is. All that comes in consistently to myself within professional standards and we will look at any emerging trends or themes that require address at the highest level either strategically through the organisational learning function that is soon to be established across the force and much more at the supporting of the superintendents at divisional level, and that brings us that consistency nationally across the force. When we last considered those matters, we were aware of the complex legacy complaints that were around. The SBAF said to us that there are five still-outstandings around Mr Ross, and perhaps you could give us an indication of when those are likely to be concluded. You inherited them in 2013. I think that, to some extent, we do not have complete control over some of the reasons why those have not been concluded. It is a bit difficult for me to say an awful lot about them, because clearly we have to respect the confidentiality there. I would say that, in terms of the vast majority of legacy complaints that they have been dealt with, they have been concluded. There are a small number of individuals involved in the ones that are still outstanding. They are extremely complex in nature. There are a number of factors that are out with our control, and it probably depends on the conclusion of some other matters elsewhere. I can assure you that we are extremely keen to bring them to a conclusion. I would also say that we are keen to make sure that the appropriate learning comes from a full analysis of them as well. If you cover something that we have already covered, we will let you know. Okay, you can let me know. I apologise for my late arrival. When the previous sub-committee meant that the then head of perc Professor John McNeill put on record, no one has sought to prevent me from carrying out my functions, is that still the case? We have been challenged in particular in one investigation that we have undertaken. I would like to put on record that, to date, perc has undertaken 91 investigations. We are talking in relation to one investigation in particular that has been challenging. I think that, when Professor McNeill appeared at the committee last time, it was a very early stage of perc. We have obviously matured. We have undertaken a number of investigations since then. Again, Professor McNeill indicated that the early period was going to be a period of assessment to identify whether or not any additional powers may be required. If there were and if there was a weight of evidence to suggest that we had been hindered or hampered in any investigation, we would undertake discussions with the Scottish Government in relation to that. The investigation that I speak about, and obviously I require to discuss this in general terms, obviously has caused us to reflect. We are always constantly reviewing the terms of the legislation and the powers that are available to us in light of practical experience. I think that it may be worthy that the Scottish Government potentially look at whether there would be an option to consider a precognition on oath of witnesses where they were not being as co-operative, perhaps as we would like. I understand that the Police and Public Order and Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2006 does not authorise a commissioner to publish a report on a Crown Office director investigation. Just in general terms, there is a pertinent point here, which we will not touch on, but how are lessons learned, made transparent and the public interest served? You are right that in Crown Directed investigations I produce a report that goes to the Lord Advocate and he then has the opportunity to consider the information placed before him and determine whether or not a fatal accident inquiry is appropriate or whether criminal proceedings are appropriate. In those circumstances, the evidence would be tested in court and brought forward for further consideration. Would it be made public the lessons learned? It is really the lessons learned from an investigation when the report itself was not to be made public. The evidence would be rehearsed in court and in a fatal accident inquiry you will be familiar that the sheriff would be issuing a determination at the end of that which would identify salient matters. I do not know if anyone is touching this, but in its submission the SPF is highly critical of the adversarial approach taken by Perk in its investigation. Could you perhaps comment on that than the procedures and processes involved? Personally, I think that that is quite comforting. Yes, I do. I do not think that that is very helpful to say that at all. I cannot tell the committee that the Perk investigators approach all investigations with an open mind. The purpose of our investigations is to establish all the available evidence and present the facts in an impartial manner. All our investigations are evidence-based, and this is reflected in terms of the reports that we produce, some of which you appreciate are supportive of the police position and others are critical. It is presented and they are presented in a balanced fashion. For adversarial, I would be reading robust. I think that it is good. We have a single police force, and there are various aspects of looking at complaints and various aspects that seem to me not quite right. I wonder if anyone has touched on the SPF investigating its own board members and its own procedures. I know that Mr Finlay said exactly the same thing. I disagree with what has been said by Mrs Mitch all round about that. I want to point out some of the points that the SPA has made about Perk. They have said that they are fast losing confidence in the effectiveness and genia and independence of Perk. The SPF is really concerning. Further paragraph, it says, are members of reported examples of being interviewed for hours on end without rest? In one apparent witness reported that they were only able to use a toilet during a seven-hour interview interrogation, provided they were accompanied by a Perk investigator. Quite simply, those types of oppressive and dehumanising activities risk fatally undermining the Perk and should have no place in any fair investigatory process. Considering that this person was a witness, do you think that that kind of scenario is the right way to conduct business? As Mrs Alders has already alluded to, the information presented by the SPF was submitted to the committee last week. I have particularly asked the Federation to supply specific information to support that perception. To date, I have not received it. I take it that when you do receive it, you will be investigating this allegation. It would be useful for our sub-committee to get the final report on that, because that kind of thing, I have to say, is a very serious allegation indeed. It does not sit particularly well with me. I do think, convener, that we need to explore that further and find out exactly what the outcome of any investigation is. I should look forward to receiving the information from the SPF as you will appreciate. It is not possible to be prescriptive about the length of any interviews that are undertaken. The intention, of course, would be to undertake them as quickly as possible, but, again, where the matter is complex or covers a number of matters, it will, on occasion, interviews will take a considerable length of time. I can assure the committee that perc-investigators are well aware of the need to have comfort and refreshment breaks, not only for the purpose of the witnesses but also for the interviewers themselves, and it certainly does not practice to accompany a witness during one of those breaks. It is also in relation to the concerns that have been raised that were in part addressed by Chief Superintendent Ald. Similarly, it would be good to hear back from Police Scotland on a report back to the committee on that. Is there a linkage, if I may ask, between the two? Your investigators, if they have come from a background where such practices were seen to be the norm, that is not what the public are looking for. The public understand that public officials, not least police officers of considerable powers, should be subject to rigorous testing, but fairness, the overriding consideration of fairness. Indeed, that is the words out of the guidance that we are using in relation to 1996, an overriding consideration of fairness to the subject constable. That is basic human rights. I hope that you will robustly pursue that. I can assure the committee that, in relation to witnesses that are interviewed by Perk, they are treated in a professional manner with dignity and are treated fairly. You will understand that there may be concerns in some quarters that not only do you feel that people will be very concerned that you are asking for additional powers in relation to the pre-recognition. I think that I suggested that the committee may wish to reflect on that. The Government would be the body responsible for providing those powers. That is what you would want. I am one of the individuals who asked and will not discuss a particular case, but I asked if you had sufficient powers, because I would be concerned if you did not have sufficient powers to do what the public expectation is of you, but I do not think that you would have more powers if individuals were subject to your attention. I could rewind back to what I said. At the time that the former commissioner appeared, it was early days. He assured at that time that the powers that were in operation and that he was operating with were sufficient. I also pointed out that we had undertaken 91 investigations, one of which has proved to be testing. However, there is no weight of evidence as yet that would suggest that we have been hindered in any of our investigations. You do not need additional powers. I think that the committee is on the record on that one. If you could feed back to the committee, if you have additional, before the sub-committee ceases to exist at the end of March, if there is additional information that we could get from either of those issues, we would be very grateful for it. I think that you should go back to Margaret. Can we interrupt Margaret in the middle of her? Yes, it was just on the SPA and where they investigate complaints against board members and procedures. There is just a comment on that. It does not seem ideal. Part of our role is to investigate complaints, but what we will do is to deal with and process complaints. There have been a small number of complaints that have included complaints against SPA officers, SPA policies and procedures and SPA board members. The approach that we have taken there would be that it would go through just the normal complaints process. Clearly, if any board members were the subject of a complaint, they included that that would be a conflict of interest. They would declare that and they would completely absent themselves from any involvement in that. That has happened and there is a consistent and robust approach taken in that respect. In terms of the preliminary assessment, that would then go forward. A decision would be made and then they would follow on in accordance with whatever that decision was. We have not had a position or a set of circumstances where a large group of board members were conflicted. Clearly, it is not impossible that that would happen. We would then have to decide how we would deal with it to ensure that there was no conflict of interest, which could even be perceived as compromising that process. Do you have any figures about numbers of complaints and what they are related to and if the outcomes were satisfactory? I do not have the figures with me. I will endeavour to get hold of those figures and I will supply them to the sub-committee. That would be helpful. I want to continue on with the perk scenario. The problem is that we only have a quarter of an hour left and we have not done anything on data protection. Very briefly, though. Again, from the SPF, they say that we consider that the perk is a great deal of work to do to build confidence with the police service that is capable of dealing with police officers, whether as witnesses or suspects. Can I ask Ms Frayam how they are going to build that confidence with police officers? The lack of confidence that has been spoken about recently is a matter of perception. It is unhelpful. I have a dedicated team who are working hard to meet the demands of their role. I have confidence in them and the work that they are doing. Not only have they received positive feedback, both from the Lord Advocate and Police Scotland itself, and I think that it should be borne in mind that each of the 62 recommendations made in investigation reports have in fact been accepted by Police Scotland, so there should be some confidence built in there. Additionally, from the evidence that we have gathered in investigations, that has already been tested in some cases in court, and has been commented on favourably. You talked at the initial stage in your answer about perception. How are you going to get rid of that perception? What are you going to do? What are you going to undertake to ensure that folks' perceptions that they are being treated unfairly disappear? We are going to continue to robustly and professionally deal with witnesses and suspects. In relation to the police officers that you talk about being interviewed as witnesses, in advance of them being interviewed by perk staff, they receive a leaflet that details what the role of the perk is. Additionally, the basis on which they can be interviewed, and it sets out that they will be treated in the same way that the law is applied to members of the public. I find it surprising that officers themselves who are applying that process to members of the public appear to have some difficulty in understanding it when subject to being interviewed. I really do think, convener, that Ms Frayn needs to reflect on some of those things. The approach that is being taken seems to me to be confrontational. Here, what is required is a clearing of the air between all parties involved and discussion about how those processes take place. Mr Finnie put it on earlier. What is required here is fairness and the same attitude towards police officers as towards members of the public who may be appearing as witnesses or in other matters. I really do think that that needs to be reflected upon. I think that we, as a sub-committee, probably need to come back to that, convener. It is necessary, however, for the Scottish Police Federation to provide the evidence to Police Scotland and to perk in order for those investigations to take place. Unfortunately, SPF is not here today, but I think that there is some mechanism that we can encourage them to pass on information about particular cases to enable those investigations to take place. Can I ask about data protection? That was something that was brought up by the SPF at the last session of police combat. They were concerned that significant numbers of police officers were falling foul of data protection offences and being automatically having to be referred on to the Lord Advocate. Police Scotland had suggested that they might be able to provide figures, but the SPF's view is that little has changed over the last couple of years in terms of police officers being accused of data protection offences. I hope that I can provide members with some assurance of the work that has been on-going in relation to information management-related offences and investigations of the number of restricted officers that the committee last met and had evidence from. There is still a significant amount of officers on that restricted duties list, albeit less by way of percentage than there were this time in February 2015, when evidence was last provided. There has been a roll-out of training for all officers about lawful systems usage for officers and police staff across the whole of Police Scotland. We are at the 18,000 officers mark now, giving awareness training both in person and through electronic model training, which is the terminology used for all online training that has to be rolled out across the force. Significantly, there has been a full review of data protection, particularly around investigations where DPA features. On the restricted officers list, as we refer into the Scottish Police Authority through our quarterly conduct committee meetings, we review that regularly to ensure proportionality. Where there is a DPA offence, more than the vast majority of investigations that are on-going just now, that DPA offence accompanies an index offence for an investigation that has been brought forward, where the officer or member of staff has misused systems in relation to the investigation that is on-going. Perhaps that might be through an assault or some other matter, and they have unlawfully accessed systems. Obviously, as far as Lord Advocate's guidelines are concerned, we must refer all criminal allegations to the Crown, and that is the matter. Conflicts slightly, I would suggest, with Regulation 9, which suggests under the new 2014 regs that reasonable influence of criminality—which I would argue is a lesser threshold—is the no discretion position of the 2002 Lord Advocate's guidelines. We have reviewed all the investigations, and the proportionality around the DPA is only for those offences for the period that the officer is under investigation, and not as was previously provided by my SPF colleague, the nosy officer scenario, where the word was used last year. That has been absolutely eradicated. We accepted that some 10 years ago, when systems were rolled out, that officers were encouraged to use the system. That does not feature in our DPA investigations, and I can give members that assurance and confidence. Mr Ross, the SPA stated in the submission that it pays particular attention to information regarding officers' plays in restricted duties due to alleged data protection breaches. Are you satisfied with the information that you are receiving? We have been looking at the issue, perhaps going back quite some time, and we continue to seek reassurance and a full explanation of the reasons for officers being in restricted duties. We also look at the statistics as well. I think that there has been a slight decrease, but we will continue to examine that. To this point in time, we understand the reasons behind it. We understand some of the duties that exist. We understand the need in terms of the compliance with Lord Advocate's guidance, and we will continue to monitor that closely. I just want to distance myself from what Mr Stewart said. I do not think that we have the evidence in front of us to make such strong statements as you have just made. It is important that we recognise the independence of Perk. I think that that is absolutely vital. I think that we have got to look at the allegation that has been made here, and that we need to come back to it. It may well be that that allegation is unfounded, if that is the case. That is what we will have to deal with. However, I think that we have got to. We would be failing in our duty not to follow up on what is a very serious allegation. Evidence session, not a debate between members at the moment. We have a commitment from the witnesses that we will provide information if they get the information that is provided. I have one slight question. It has been put to me that the system that we operate in terms of complaints against a place is a bit complicated as far as the complainer understanding who investigates what. Is there a case for complaints other than those that can be resolved at the front line to be directed through the park and then redirected to the appropriate organisation? Do you think that there would be any merit in that? There may be some merit in one organisation. Assuming that responsibility, I think that it would have to be balanced off about the level of bureaucracy in relation to redirecting some of the work back to other organisations. Do the police in the SPA feel about that? There is always a suspicion around people investigating themselves. Would that be helpful? I think that the point to make is that, particularly in terms of our role, and I particularly look at chief officer investigations and SPA officer and board investigations, we do not investigate ourselves. However, what we do have—and I think that it is quite logical—if you are an employer, you will conduct part of the complaint process and you will take that through, in our case, the preliminary assessment. At that stage, you would then take whatever is the appropriate next steps. I certainly think that if you are an employer, it is not illogical that you should have a role in terms of the management of that complaint process. Of course, it is vital that it is seen as being transparent, fair and robust. The other thing that is an important point is the way in which people can clearly access the complaint process. That is something that we have put a lot of time and effort into, and we have progressed that significantly. I think that there is still room for further improvement. The difficulty is that, where people make contact with something where the name police appears, it is making sure that you can assist them so that they can identify who then deals with that particular complaint. Certainly, within the SPA, we have put a great deal of effort in trying to make sure that that is smooth and as clear as possible. In terms of the signposting and the way in which people target their complaint to the particular body, there have been some issues in the past, but it is improving. However, there is room for further improvement. From the perspective of Police Scotland, I think that from our position, absolutely for me, front-line resolution, the complaint sombersman has fairly commented on the Police Scotland position there. Where that actually sits for me is pretty moot. I would be comfortable with however it is captured. That is the rationale that we have approached in terms of notwithstanding whether there is an actionable complaint at the FLR front-line resolution and almost half of those are resolved at that level. We still capture that as a complaint. We record it on the six-stage form. It is accessible and transparent for audit from both the SPA and Perk's perspective should any audit come forward. It is there to retrospectively examine around about our rationale and learning and finding and what the outcome was. Only one point six of all individuals who have resolutions achieved through front-line resolution come back to the organisation seeking some clarity on points. I think that the expeditious nature of the concept wherever that may sit here is something that I would be comfortable with. I will absolutely take on board Mr Ross's point that the complaint would naturally need to be pushed towards Police Scotland for that specialist technical knowledge piece, to answer the quality of service matter or whatever that may be, particularly in criminal matters. A general question, obviously investigating complaints or dealing with complaints, takes up an enormous amount of time. That comes at a cost as well. I wonder if you were aware of the Apologies legislation about to be discussed next week at stage 3 where you can expect regret, acknowledge something has happened, say your sorry and undertake to look into the incident. Would that be helpful in aiding an earlier resolution and when there is more satisfactory to the general public? Forgive me, I am not sighted on all of that, but I would be most definitely interested in it. It is certainly an unlegislative piece of work that we do just now in terms of our expressions of apologies for those complaints that we uphold. That would be most helpful to be involved in that discussion. Anyone else? I also am not familiar with the detail of it, but the principle, as you have described, is one that I would agree with. I would also make the point that it is important, and it is something that I certainly feel the SPA does do, if a mistake has been made and it is important to make that very clear and to express that in a full and appropriate manner to the complainer. We have done that. On parts position, the complaint handling reviews that we see, we regularly see that Police Scotland make apologies initially on recognition of their errors. I was flagging up her stage 3 of her bill that made missibility. It might help more, but I am even more apologize. Finally, any further questions from any members? We will have to. Thank you very much to the witnesses for your opinions.