 I welcome everyone to the second meeting of the Justice Sub-Committee in Plesing in 2015. I can ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely as they interfere with broadcasting even when they are switched to silent. Apologies, I have been received from Margaret Mitchell. I will take, I will come to you in a minute. I am just going to do a declaration of interest first. I welcome Elaine Murray to the sub-committee and our new member, energetic and volunteering if I recall, on our first item of business today to invite Elaine to declare any interest relevant to the remit of the sub-committee. Nothing relevant to the remit of the sub-committee. Before I move on, you have something briefly you want to say, Alison. I do, convener. Thank you very much. In June, last June, a senior police officer told this committee that non-statutory stop and search of under-12s would stop forthwith. It has been revealed this week that, contrary to that assurance to this parliamentary committee, it continued unabated and by November it was at a higher level than in June when that officer said it was indefensible. That lack of regard for the authority of this Parliament is, I should say, surprising. Can I ask for an urgent meeting of this committee to recall the ACC to account for this contradiction? Yes, and as you know, Alison, where this all came too late in the day and we had already a panel of witnesses who had given up their time and their diaries and obviously to come here today so it was too late in the day for today's meeting but I do appreciate it and I take it that the committee would be agreeable to our next meeting, which would be the first meeting after recess to dealing with this matter. All agreed. Thank you very much. Item 2, sub-committees agreed to consider item 4 in our work programme in private. Are we agreed? Thank you. Now to item 3, handling of police complaints. This is the main item on the agenda today and I welcome meeting Superintendent John Mackenzie, professional standards police Scotland, Ian Ross, chair of the Complaints and Conduct Committee, SPA, Lyndsey McLeod, director of governance and assurance at the SPA, chief superintendent, is it Niven? Niven Rennie, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and Callum Steele, general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation. Now, as you know, I don't need to really say this but I will, we can't go into individual cases but we can talk about the generality here. You've also had, as you know, a letter from Linda Fabiani, I think, on an issue for which I was also personally aware, but again in the broader context to discuss it. I'm going to go straight to questions from members. Yes, Kevin. Thank you very much, convener. We have seen from the information that we have received that there has been an increase in the number of complaints received by Police Scotland and I wonder if the transition to a single service has led to that increase and beyond that, convener, I wonder if some of the complaints that have come in have been historic complaints from the previous forces. Right, so if you're just self-nominative, you indicate to me if you want to be called. Yes, I must get the titles right. Superintendant Mackenzie. Thank you very much. If I may take the first part of the question initially, the increase in rise and these are the figures from the annual statistical return that's been produced by the park indicate a 7 per cent increase. I think it's too simplistic to actually say that this is simply because of the movement to Police Scotland and I think we have to consider two significant factors of why there has been an increase by 7 per cent. The first factor is the definition of a complaint changed in April 2013. There has always been a definition in the 2006 act of a relevant complaint and that was a written expression of dissatisfaction. That's increased to that of oral electronic and written so it became easier for members of the public to make complaints and that's a good thing. The second point is, if I may highlight, the park statutory guidance used to talk about complaints called front-line resolutions. Prior to April 2013, many forces did not record front-line resolutions on their annual statistical return. These are complaints when members of the public may come in and their sergeant at the desk would give them an explanation there and then and the member of the public would say thank you very much and move on. Sometimes these would be not recorded on Centurion on the database that the return has provided. Those two elements changed in April 2013 and, as a result, they have contributed to the increase of that 7 per cent. Sorry, just to continue. Yes. In terms of the second element of the question, has there been any historical complaints? There have been some complaints that have come obviously from the historical or legacy forces as we entered into 2013, as you would expect, but nothing significant and no great change in terms of what would have been expected from that crossover period just from the march into April. I don't have the specific figures for you, but that is my understanding. Before you take in Mr Ross, I was going to let you go on. Can I ask Superintendent Mackenzie? Having served on a police board for a very long time, I was aware of a number of folks who were vexatious complainers. I just wonder if Police Scotland have inherited some of that from the force and whether some of the folks who may have stopped complaining have returned because of the birth of Police Scotland and the demise of the previous eight forces? It is a good point, certainly. There have been examples of vexatious complainers that have continued to complain as we move into the single force. Also, what has been the experience of Police Scotland is that complaints that have been dealt with by legacy forces by vexatious complainers have been brought back into Police Scotland in a different form to make a further attempt for investigation, but, again, through assessment, that has been managed through assessment. We have vexatious complainers, and a number of them have come from the legacy forces. Do you account for a significant amount of the increase, or is that the change in the legislation that makes it easier to complain? The increase is down to the change in the definition, and, more significantly, the change in the cordon practice around the front-line resolution complaints that exist. Before you move on, who assesses—you said that they are assessed—who assesses? At this moment in time, under Police Scotland, from September of 2014, there are three central assessment hubs within Scotland, one based in Glasgow, one in Edinburgh and one in Aberdeen. Those are resourced by sergeants and inspectors. Complaints will come in. A member of the public will contact Police Scotland through various means. That unit will assess that complaint to determine what category of complaint it is. It will also make initial telephone contact with that complainer so that there is a quick turnaround in terms of having a point of contact so that it knows that the complaint has been dealt with seriously. 39 per cent of complaints that come into Police Scotland are dealt with through that process of initial telephone communication, understanding the problem that exists and being able to give an explanation or come back with an explanation over the phone. However, the assessment unit will make that decision and, thereafter, it will be determined who is the most appropriate department to investigate that, whether it is a local division, a PSD, especially a crime department, or in significant and serious circumstances of criminal allegations. There may be occasions when we go direct to Crown and there are a referral to the park, so there are a number of routes in which complaints can be dealt with. If it happens in one division, does a different division do the assessment? It is not done within the same—what I am getting at is—by a disinterested group in that sense. It is clearly seen to be the next. The divisions within Police Scotland professional standards assess all complaints. The complaints that are dealt with by professional standards or assessed by professional standards are previously complaints prior to September of last year. Complaints could be assessed by the home division. That no longer happens from September. They are assessed by professional standards, so there is transparency at that point. Can I add it, Mr Ross? Thank you, chair. Just really on that subject, as part of our wider role, it is to scrutinise the way that professional standards within Police Scotland handle complaints. The very point that you have raised is one that has been discussed on a number of occasions within the Committee of Complaints. I can confirm that, in terms of the explanation, it very much was linked to particularly one or two legacy forces that did not record that particular approach. The other factor that comes into play is that there is a promotion of the openness to make a complaint. That is difficult to measure, but there is a signposting and awareness that if people have a complaint, they should raise it. In terms of SPA, in terms of our stats, it is similar to the position that existed prior to the creation of Police Scotland and the SPA, but we did inherit a number of legacy complaints, most of which have now been addressed. By their nature, they tended to be fairly complex, so that was one of the reasons that they continued into the new format. On the unacceptable actions, I can confirm that we also have such a policy. We have used it on a very limited number of occasions, but the key point is that that does not mean that, if someone complains and it is a valid complaint, it is not then taken through the full procedure. I think that that is a critical point to make. I am sure that the same applies with the Police Scotland. Can I let others in first? I know that I have a little list and I will come back to you because it is all on the same thing, really. John, followed by Elaine and then I will come back to you, Kevin. Thank you, convener. Good afternoon, panel. It is a question first and foremost to Mr Steele and then Mr Niven, perhaps. It relates to previous changes to the discipline small day regime and a significant one in 1996, which sought to remove quasi-judicial terms, as I understand, and to bring about a more managerial style of dealing with those things. That was a cultural change that did not quite materialise. Is that still the aim, as you understand Mr Steele, to have a more managerial rather than, shall we say, a militaristic approach to it? More than that, Mr Finnie. In fact, the new conduct regulations that were hoped to have been brought in at the birth of the creation of the new single service have come into being now. They are certainly designed around an intention to have earlier resolution and to be more managerial based. One of the great leaps of faith, if you like, for police officers as a consequence of that change, is that they are dealing with a set of regulations that are more managerially based, but their experiences have tended to be more adversarily based. There is a coming together of cultures there, if you like. It is probably important to say that, whilst I, in particular, and my colleagues across Scotland, were very heavily critical of the old approach to police misconduct, in respect of how it deals with our members at the early stages. The relationship that exists within the Police Service of Scotland at this moment in time is one that certainly instills confidence. Of course, only practice will show whether that confidence is well deserved. I wonder if Mr Rhaeny, given your member's… Yes, he has just wanted to comment. I would like to ask an additional question, if I may. That was given the role that your members had in adjudicating on matters. How is their relationship with the Federated Ranks altered at all, if at all? I do not think that the relationship with the Federated Ranks has altered in any great way. I agree with Callum that the whole desire now is to deal with things at the lowest possible level and to get learning from situations as opposed to punishment. That is a desire of the regulations. Unfortunately, what we are starting to see, particularly at our level, is a greater desire to investigate. More people are being brought under spotlight and the time taken for these investigations to progress is, unfortunately, far too long. The result of that is that, with a smaller number of subcontents and chief subcontents in the country, under great working pressure, that is adding to the burden that they are carrying. We are seeing examples of people's health suffering. The desire to deal with things at the lowest possible level and to get them dealt with quickly does not seem to be materialising, particularly in respect to my members. I can see that that would add to an already heavy workload. Was there any workload assessment done of the implications of the change in regulations for the superintending ranks then? It was done. It certainly predates my time as a member of the executive. I wonder if I could ask the panel, and it is for all the members, the question of what might be referred as a service complaint. Rather than an individual, it is about the police particularly. Maybe, Mr Ross, some people might want to blame the chief constable when it is the police service that the real issue is with and how that particular aspect of moving it from the individual to seeing it as the organisational matter to be addressed. How has that dealt with you? I want to complain about Sir Stephen House. I think that it is fair to say that that does happen. I think that the figurehead is often identified as the person that we complain about, but what we tend to do is part of our procedures. There is an assessment carried out, an early assessment, and what is not uncommon in terms of the contacts that we get at that stage is that, in fact, it is more appropriate that that is referred to Police Scotland to be dealt with because, let's say, the focus of the complaint is not, in fact, a chief officer. It would be somebody else or it could be us some aspects of policy. What we certainly have tried to do, and we have put particular emphasis in the last six months, is that the initial point of contact, whether through the website or through other forms of information, highlights that and makes people more alert to it. I think that one of the recent evidence suggests that, in fact, we have probably had fewer contacts as a consequence of that, where people have identified that perhaps the actual organisation that would deal with it would not necessarily be the SPA. However, our approach, as I said to the earlier question, is that if people have an issue, we want them to raise that issue and then we can take it through the due and appropriate process. Thank you. How, if there is an outcome, so if there are issues to be learned, how is that fed into the wider policing arrangements? Well, or maybe it is too early for that for your own... I think that the general comment that I would make is that the focus is on early resolution, and it is about learning points. So irrespective of the nature of the approach, I think that we are always very keen to make sure that those are identified and those are applied, and that is also part of some of the discussions that we have with Police Scotland on a regular basis. I'll come back to you if you like. I'll have... I beg your pardon. May I just make a little comment to that? The service type complaints, those quality of service complaints are not addressed at individuals, but addressed at the organisation. They can be split into a number of categories, but from a learning opportunities perspective, within PSD we do have a portfolio and a lead in terms of learning and prevention. Our aim is to prevent as many complaints, learn from the complaints that we can, enhance the service that we can to the public, and work is on going to understand any issues that people have with policing procedure, the quality of service type complaints that exist. Sorry for a simple time. That's an excellent explanation, but I've got a bit lost understanding it. Can you give examples of what you mean by service and then learning from it and so on? Give some ordinary examples that punters like me understand. The members of the public, a number of complaints come in about vehicle recovery schemes in terms of people's cars being uplifted from the side of the road. There is a lack of explanation or understanding of the legislative guidelines in relation to the removal of vehicles. People make complaints because, one, there's a failure to understand, and two, there's sometimes a financial penalty to get their car back. As such, we have ensured or we've went back to try and provide a better explanation of the website in terms of what VRS is and try to at least provide additional information to individuals about what the expectations are in terms of the recovery of their cars. That's one example whereby we hope to reduce complaints by providing additional information to members of the public. That was helpful. Now can I move? Yes, I've got Elaine. Thank you, convener. My question really arises from my personal experience of having constituents come to me who have complaints against the police. Previously, in those circumstances, I would write to the chief constable. Now you would usually get a fairly detailed response from the chief constable or a senior officer, and fairly timidly afterwards addressing the points that have been raised by a constituent. That went on after Police Scotland was formed. That was happening recently, however. My experience has been that you get nothing back until you get a copy of a letter that has gone out to the constituent saying, I understand that you had to complain about the police, and I understand that it has been resolved satisfactorily. I feel that there is a lack of democratic accountability there. I see also that there is evidence that local commanders have stopped providing local authorities with information about complaints. Has there been a change in terms of the way in which elected representatives can take up complaints against the police on behalf of their constituents? I am quite content to address those two points. Excuse me, but we are just doing a little survey here. I have actually had that as well, where the constituent was told the resolution, and I was just simply told that it has now been resolved. Having made the contact, I was expecting at least to be seceded to the response to the constituent. You did not have that. Can we ask if it may be handled in different ways in different parts of the country? Normally, my response comes directly from the divisional commander, chief superintendent Adrian Watson, in Aberdeen's case. Likewise, I do not have issues about that at all. There we are, so it has been different experiences. By the way, I wrote to chief constable because it was an issue that only the chief constable could remedy. I think that there are other ways of dealing with it. Perhaps you can answer that. I apologise if that is the position that you are not provided with a copy of the extensive letter or the explanation letter to the individual. As the elected member who is raising that concern, it is only appropriate that you have received or at least copied into the response so that you have a clear understanding of what the engagement has been and what the explanation is to your constituent. I would be obliged if I could take that back and try to address that. It is interesting to hear that different areas have different experiences. Everybody should have the same experience that you should get a copy of that letter. If that is not the case, I apologise for that. I will address that at the termination of this committee. In terms of the information in relation to local authorities, I am aware that, when Police Scotland commenced in 2013, there were a number of issues in terms of the provision of information to local authorities. I think that that comes down to the roles and responsibilities that used to exist in the legacy arrangements through police boards and now through the SPA. The SPA is provided with statistical information in relation to complaints and local commanders are also provided with statistical information in relation to complaints. They are all provided with the same type of information so that there is consistency across Scotland. At this moment in time, the information that exists is broken down into local areas. It is also on the SPA website. There is information given to local commanders about complaints to provide that information to local authorities. I have got Alison, followed by Kevin Ninjon. I wonder if Mr Ross or either of the SPA witnesses could give us a bit more detail about the improvement action plan that you agreed with Perk and just talk us through some of the action points. I will pass across to Lindsay, if I may. Yes, Perk carried out an audit. I think that they visited us in May of last year and they produced a report in July. There were a number of improvement areas that were identified in that report. I think that it is fair to say that, in terms of our own approach, we recognised that there were some areas where we needed to do more work and significant steps were already in plan to address that. Almost in advance of the production of the Perk report, we had the beginnings of our improvement plan and then we added to that in the light of the Perk report. I can now confirm that, in terms of that improvement plan, I think that one item that is really looking at wider governance issues is that we have completed all of those outstanding points. Perk actually revisited us in the last couple of weeks and we are waiting for their follow-up report. Clearly I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment on it. What I would say though is that, particularly from the summer of last year where we were able then to confirm a permanent structure in terms of our two complaint officers and new complaint manager and I think that critically, our Governance Insurance Director, namely Lindsay, we now have a permanent and much more mature structure and that has made an enormous difference in terms of our ability to engage. There were areas that were unsatisfactory in the early part of last year for a range of reasons, particularly around staff, resource and resilience. I am very confident of the position that we are now in and I am very hopeful that the Perk report as a follow-up will actually reflect that. There may be some points of detail that Lindsay might wish to add. Certainly working in conjunction with Perk, one of the key areas that we had to look at was actually publishing our complete handling procedures in detail. In consultation with them, they have now been published on our website and are freely available. There were other issues around what information we made available on the website, accessibility and such things. Again, they have all been completed. It was in advance of Perk visiting us three weeks ago. Perk also recommended that you should review your handling of, if you do not mind convener, legacy cases to identify any lessons learned and act on those. Have you been able to follow that through? Yes, we have. I think that that is how it was written and we did that as well. I think that it was also about the learning experience of the difference between how we would handle them and perhaps how they had also been handled within the legacy forces. The situation is that we inherited a number of legacy complaints. I think that it was on about 17, was it? We now have five remaining. In fact, they all relate to the same complainant. I think that it is fair to say that it reflects a very complex and involved case. I am satisfied where we now are at. In general, quite a number of the inherited cases were very complex and a number we moved on very quickly. However, there are five that still remain, but I say that it all relates to the one complainant. Hopefully, in the near passage of time, that will be concluded as well. The end is in sight, you hope? With the experience of a number of years of working complaints, I am always hesitant to say that it is absolutely in sight, but I am very confident in terms of our engagement and seeking to reach a conclusion. Okay, because it helps no one for these things to be so long drawn out. Thank you, convener. Yes, Kevin, sorry. Thank you, convener. I think that it would be useful for us to know who serves on Mr Ross's Complaints and Conduct Committee. Yes, very happy to... Well, I chair the committee. We have Moy Alley, one of my colleagues who is on it. We have Brian Barber. We have Lindsay Tennant. Lisa Tennant. Is the background of those folks, are they from local authorities or what's their background? Well, another name that I was about to mention is Morag McLaughlin, who was an area procurator of fiscal. Paul Rooney had been a member and he had also some procurator of fiscal experience and he has moved on. Lisa Tennant has come in. Lisa has some involvement and complaints in another sector within the solicitor area. Moy Alley was the judicial reviewer. Again, it brings very relevant experience there. Brian Barber has experience within the private sector of dealing with audit and complaint handling. In terms of myself, I was a former member of a police board and chaired a complaints committee for about five or six years in that setting. All of the members come with different but relevant experience. One thing that I want to emphasise is that there has also been on-going development and there was induction training and there has been subsequent training. In fact, we have a workshop that is taking place today where a number of bodies are there and there is further development of members. We tend to have those workshops every six months plus we have a range of other engagements in terms of member development. I never served in a complaints subcommittee myself while I was in the police board convener. One of the things that some folk saw as an advantage was that officers were able to tell folk locally, so it was grampian-wide what complaints had come in and what had been going on. At the tail end of 2013, the subcommittee was told that local commanders were no longer telling local authorities about complaints against officers. Can I ask what the position is now because Police Scotland said that those reports were coming through? I have to be honest and say that I don't know if it is an advantage or disadvantage for local review bodies to know what is going on or not. Sometimes, in some cases, what eventually happens is that others become involved in a massive complication and the complaint itself when folks stick their nose where it is not required. Can I find out what the position is in that regard? The position is that local authority scrutiny committees can of course raise issues around complaints. As has been described by John, that statistics will be made available to them. The issues that they wish to raise are very much driven by the scrutiny committee. I attend a couple of committees. All board members have a link to local authorities across Scotland, so we have total coverage. The ones that I visited have made it very clear to them that, if that was an issue that they wished to raise, we would make sure that information would be made available to them. I know that a number have, in fact, had reports on complaints. Edinburgh City has been one example just because I am aware of that. What has changed, though, is that in the past you might have had some deep sampling and detailed examination of historical cases. The only body that can now do that is the Scottish Police Authority. That is really because of your statutory right to have access to that particular type of information. However, in terms of statistical data, in terms of discussion on broader issues, a local scrutiny committee of course can raise that. In my own view, as I would encourage them to do so. Having served on a board yourself previously, Mr Ross, in the position that you are in, do you see much difference? Do you think that that is an improved system compared to what was in place previously? Are you conducting more of the sampling, the deep sampling that you have talked about, than what was done previously? The reality is that the answer is no, because one of the things that, in fact, has suffered because of a resource issue is that we were not able to start the deep sampling, particularly at a divisional local authority level as early as we would wish. What I can and am happy to confirm now is that, in fact, before the end of June, we will have carried out our first divisional visit to look at historical practices, and that will include deep sampling. I do not think that that is entirely satisfactory, and my original intention was that that probably would have happened about a year ago. It was one of the challenges that we had to address, but I am pleased to say that now we have moved forward. I wonder if Superintendent Mackenzie has got any view on the local scrutiny bodies and their locusts in that? You are not indicating Superintendent Mackenzie, but please proceed if you feel. I think that Mr Ross has highlighted what the statutory restrictions are in terms of local scrutiny boards. I do not think that there is much more comment to make beyond that, to be fair. Thank you. We want to take John now, please. Do you want to come in? I have a question. You are looking days, so I will jump in while you are quietly there, because I am looking at the PERC report. The thing that stands out from me here is that the total number of cases alleging criminality, therefore having been referred to the Crown Office and PF service, fell by almost 40 per cent to 225. This is the 2013-14 report, but this is the bit that concerns me of which just 6.7 per cent led to proceedings being taken. That is an awful lot of people having been referred to the Crown and Procreative Fiscal Service for whom no proceedings were taken. I want to know why that is and how long those people had to wait, because if I thought that I had been referred as an officer to the PF or Crown Office service, I would be very ill, I would be very worried, I would have huge concerns. At the end of the day, over 93 per cent, there are no proceedings. Can somebody shine a light on this for me? I can make a comment and I am sure that both ASPs and the Federation members will wish to make additional comments. I think that the point that you make is very valid. The timescale that is taken to move from an allegation of criminality to an end result. It is not just the timescale, it is also 93 per cent no proceedings, so there is a whole lot here that needs to be done. Absolutely. In terms of the 6.7 per cent in which proceedings are taken, from a Police Scotland professional standards perspective, however, we do not have a great deal of discretion in terms of what we report to the Crown if there is an inference of criminality. That is the difference from a member of the public. There has to be corroborative evidence for us to report to the fiscal. However, for a police officer, if there is an inference of criminality, professional standards will report that matter to the Crown. Crowns are the independent, transparent body that will allow... We know all that stuff. We have a 28-day period to report to CAPD in relation to criminal allegations. The timescale, unfortunately, is out with professional standards hands. In terms of the percentage that is moved to proceedings, again, that is for Crown to make comment on. What I would say is that it is clear that we have a categorisation process whereby we, from professional standards, will categorise criminal complaints to say, well, actually, do we believe that there is a sufficiency of evidence for this case? Again, the final decision sits with Crown. I appreciate that there is a higher test for police officers. I hear that and I see your nodding there, Mr Steele. However, if that is the case, surely there is an obligation that perhaps not with you, but maybe we need to get to the Crown office about this, to expedite those matters given the higher test for serving officers, as there should be, I think, we would agree. Is there any other comments from in this? Thank you. I think that there is an importance around proportionality and that our procedures should be scrutinised and should be transparent, and we should deal with things properly, particularly when there is an allegation of criminality. I think that your comments are quite right. We wait far too long in many occasions for the result to come back. It appears obvious at the outset that, while we are going to the Crown for confirmation, we feel that there is no real criminality in it in the first place and yet it takes a while to come back. We then start on a misconduct investigation a very often thereafter. We are experiencing occasions where, during that misconduct investigation, we are then finding new allegations of criminality, which are then referred back to the Crown, and everything ceases whilst it goes back, and we wait again. Without going into specific cases, we have a member who has been suspended for over two years, and that has been his experience throughout that time. It is definitely hanging on to making the case far more lengthy than it requires to be. There must be solutions to that. How does one ensure that there is justice for the individual while there is also a thorough investigation? What needs changed? I think that procedures perhaps at the Crown Office require to be addressed to speed up the process and get early decisions in some of those cases. Is anybody else much to comment on that? I do not agree with Nibyn Rennie in any way, shape or form, in terms of the Crown Office. The issue of proportionality, of course, is key in all of that. I am sure that you would understand that there is an understandable concern within the members of my organisation. That information has gleaned through powers that are available for criminal investigations, even though the criminal investigation in its own right may be based on a very thin allegation. As Nibyn Rennie said, we all know from the offset that it is not going to go anywhere when it gets to Crown. We serve to use powers that are not available to any other employer to put together a case from misconduct. That is not proportional. It is also not fair. In particular, some of the issues that feature there would relate to the regulation of investigative powers ripsa provisions in Scotland for and through surveillance and the likes. The issue of proportionality is key in all of this fairness. I do not want to sound like a corporate statement, but fairness, integrity and respect would be a good starting point in all of this. I am not saying that the individuals that are involved in the investigation do not do their job professionally. Of course they do. They would not be in these departments otherwise, but proportionality has to be the key. It is not all the Crown's fault. It is not always. What should we be looking at to resolve that? You should be looking at to resolve it. I think that there are two issues here. Again, comments have been made around the Crown. When you look at the figures, and you highlight the cases of two years, etc., I have been with the Crown that is a requirement for Crown to consider whether there are procedural issues to be addressed in relation to how they deal with criminal complaints about police officers. That is a major issue that has to be addressed. The second point that has been touched on is misconduct investigations in the element of proportionality. We have a locus in misconduct investigations. We have the ownership and terms of that timescale to carry out that misconduct investigation. Misconduct investigations cannot be undertaken until the completion of the criminal process. If there is a further influence of criminality when the misconduct investigation has been carried out, again we have to go back to the Crown and highlight that because we have no other option in that. In terms of the timescale, I appreciate that there will be examples that are highlighted about extensive time periods, but we can also highlight examples where there has been a quick turn around. We can highlight examples when people have been reported for criminality and there has been an assessment when the case is returned and they have not went to misconduct. It is unfair to make a general comment to say that we then move directly to misconduct because it is not the case. I think that the two issues here understand the two issues, but a length of time is something that maybe we have to look at and I do not know if it is within our, it is not within our remit really to call the Crown to account. We can certainly ask another occasion. It is the 6.7 per cent at the end of that day. There is something going wrong there when you have all these people, 90 odd per cent, even if there are extra referrals if you are doing misconduct proceeding and you find something else you have to refer it back which gives you delay in time, the tests appear to be wrong to me, to go to the Crown in the first place. I appreciate what you said about a higher level of integrity and so on if you are in this position, but it just seems to be something terribly wrong with that level. John, do you want to come in on that? You are looking at me. If only I had not been looking dizzy, that is what I was going to ask about criminal matters. Mr Steele is right, everything is about proportionality and it is to understand the restraints with which every police officer who receives an allegation of a criminal nature against another officer has to respond. Can I ask about one aspect that seems to be potentially growing and this is not about any specific case but the issue of data protection. Increasingly we are going to see more use of data, handheld data devices by operational officers seems to be and it has gone for some considerable time that there is quite a zealous approach taken to the application of data protection legislation that comes to police officers. We would all want the highest standards of integrity to apply, but if there are challenges at the moment there is likely to be increasing challenges in the future because of the growing availability of data and the readily accessibility outwith buildings, etc. Can members comment on that? I am feeling that this might also be connected to RIPSA, but I am not sure. My view on the approach for data protection and the police service and the reporting to the Crown Office for Criminalities is that the approach is perverse. The police service has got a little discretion in this because there is a direction from the Lord Advocate's office that any influence of any breach of data protection must be reported to the Crown Office. However, if I have not said it here, I have certainly said it to another public in Enos, I believe that if you were to look at every single police officer in Scotland and look at their data footprint at some point in time, they would have fallen foul of the provisions of the Data Protection Act in some way that would result in them being reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Police officers, by their very nature, are nosy people. We are encouraged to be nosy. When we have got new IT systems put before us, intelligence systems or incident recording, we are encouraged to play with them, to probe around with them, to find out how they work. In the past, when... Before we became so... You are building to a confession here, Mr Stilalia, because we are very anxious. In the past, before we became so... Before we became so heavily dominant on computers for accessing data, we had registries. In fact, I dare say that we still have registries in many police stations. We still went and looked. If you hadn't dealt with a particular kind of incident, you went and looked at how somebody else did it before. Under taking that activity today, you could potentially consider to be falling foul of data protection. The whole approach is just wrong. It shouldn't be about the accessing of data, it should be about the misuse of the data and there is no indication that there is a wholesale abuse in that regard. Yes, Mr Stilalia. I would like to highlight. Again, these investigations take some time. The people who are under investigation have restrictions placed on them, which often prevent them from accessing particular data, which restricts the job that they do. For a managerial point of view, we have officers who may be particularly able who we can't utilise in their specialism because of restrictions that have been placed on them. For a case, ultimately, they will probably be exonerated in any event. It's wider than just the prosecution and its implications for the service delivered to the public as well. I was going to bring Alison in, but just before you do it, of the figures that were referred to of the 225 referrals to Crown Office, any idea many of these were to do with data protection, alleged data protection breaches? I mean, are we looking, is that something that's substantive in this or a red herring? I don't have those figures, unfortunately. However, what I can say is, from the number of restricted officers that we have in Police Scotland just now, a third of officers are on restriction as a result of reports of data protection breaches. You could, however, provide us with a breakdown of the 225. Yes, you can. I don't think that that would be subjudice because it's just what they're being reported for. So, if we could have that information, in particular a breakdown of the section, so if it's data protection forming the whole or part of it, we would like to know. John. I posed two very quick questions, please. Yeah, well, I was going to let Alison in because it seemed to have opened up an issue here that let Alison in. John, one question, then Alison the question, then your other question. It was a question to Mr Ross, which is closely linked and indeed ties in with your previous referral to your role when you chaired at that. And it's the issue of vexatious complainers. Is that something ultimately that will be following up the potential? I know we're early in the stages. And the second part of that, if I may... That's sneaky, but on you go. It was the counterbalance to that, Mr Ross. And that is that in a previous life you rightly promoted the level of letters of appreciation from the public that came in. And if someone's gone out of the way to do that. So whilst we're talking a lot of negative terms, there's a lot of people who speak very highly. And is that something that could be published? I want to leave part that just now because I want to go back to what we were dealing with I think it was to do with the point that I started with, isn't it? About access to information. Yes. Unauthorised access to information to databases is in itself a misuse. And I'm slightly concerned with Mr Steele's approach. It's precisely because people are nosy people that there are restrictions in place to stop unauthorised access to data. So it's not surely a training issue that needs to be much more greatly understood within the place service. Yes, thank you. Can I perhaps give an example, which I think will probably explain what I've certainly contextualised largely what I was referring to? I, in a past life, was very fortunate to have served in the very beautiful Isle of Harris. Now, thankfully, the Hebridean people, as I am known to have a great affection and affinity for, are largely law-abiding individuals, and not much happens in the way of criminality. But that being said, I spent five and a half years in Inverness before I went to Tarboton, Harris, and I had a great deal of knowledge about the activities of criminals in and around the Inverness area. So whilst I may have had responsibility for a policing beat in and around the Hebrides, I had much to offer my colleagues in Inverness by being able to look at the incidents that were taking place there. Now, it may well have been that on an on-going daily basis, depending on what was taking place, that I had nothing to offer because the incidents did not spark a light in my mind as to who may or may not have been responsible. But that didn't mean that the potential for having benefit to those that I had left behind didn't exist. And the same happened in a verse when I left Harris, when I went to police in the highlands again in Dingwall. So there are always opportunities for police officers to be nosy. There is nothing wrong with being nosy. There is nothing wrong with looking to find at what is taking place in terms of the activities of individuals that you may or may not have had responsibility for. Where there is problem, and this is where criminal misuse comes in, is a genuine criminal misuse in terms of the information being passed there after, is when nominal records have got nothing at all to do with policing activity is engaged in. But many members fall foul off looking at incidents that someone says, that's got nothing to do with your beat, it's done only with your area and therefore you shouldn't have been looking and that is the wrong test. I wonder if Mr Ross has anything to say to that. Well, does anybody else want to comment, Mr Ross? On the specifics of the issue of data or Mr Finnie's question, I'm happy to try and respond to both, if you wish. Both, please. Okay, well, firstly on Mr Finnie's question, we don't use and we don't recognise the title of exaceous. I think that has a whole range of other implications. It's about unacceptable actions and behaviour. And as I said at an earlier stage today, that is probably the more about the manner of their interaction and the way in which they conduct themselves, particularly with other people and particularly our staff. But the critical factor is that if they do make representations which involve a complaint, then we will still assess that complaint. What you sometimes find though, it's a complaint that's already been dealt with, it's been finalised and you've got people recycling a complaint in a way which has some unfortunate manner and some unfortunate language that you use with people. And that's when we would begin to initiate that. But it's rarely done, but it has been done. On the issue of data, I can confirm that certainly in terms of our scrutiny, particularly in private sessions of the Complaints Committee, that we look at reasons and we look at, in fact, in great detail, when it's a standing item, officers that are suspended and also officers that are restricted duties. We do touch on it in the public session, but the reason we take it in private is that it allows a much more detailed and open discussion and that is discussed at every Complaints Committee meeting. And I can also confirm that specifically on the issue of data management, that has been raised and it's been raised with chief officers who are present at the Complaints Committee meeting. One of the things that we actually raised was the basis on which such decisions were made and to ensure that there was a consistency of approach. In fact, the designated DCC, Deputy Chief Constable, in fact, has reported to us orally on that particular point and did give a satisfactory response. I just wondered if Chief Superintendent, you looked as if you wanted to come in, but you didn't. No, no, no, nothing intended. So you get this. Yes, yes, Superintendent. Simply to reiterate a small point, the legislation is clear and the Lord Advocate's guidance is clear. Again, it's not the disclosure of personal information, it's the obtaining of personal information. Again, we go back to the conversation that we had earlier on, the influence of criminality, no discretion in terms of our approach and Mr Ross has highlighted the term consistency. To achieve a consistency of approach we have no option other than to report to crime. Just touching on this view that there are wholesale issues of data protection issues within Police Scotland, when you look at the number of restricted officers for data protection in comparison to the number of officers in Police Scotland, we are talking about a very small number, but there are lessons to be learned, there are additional training opportunities, the reiteration of the standards that exist, it's clear that that does exist and we have to continue to work with that. Is that the influence of criminality and the lack of discretion that we have with that? I think that what would be useful for the committee is to write to the Crown and just let them take note of the evidence that we've had from you and ask them if they wish to comment. We wouldn't necessarily need to call them here, but if there's something wrong at the Crown process end as well, I'm not saying there is, then it gives the Crown the opportunity to return to it. John, did you have another question? Just if, Mr Ross, the issue of letters of appreciation, that aspect there, if there was any way of promoting the overwhelming good practice that takes place, we're at a committee talking about this because it is such a small and unrepresented. Can I just echo the point that a number of people have made? I think that we should, and that is that in terms of the performance, the conduct and the commitment of police officers in Police Scotland, it's overwhelmingly one that has the best interests of the people of Scotland, and that's my consistent and absolute experience. I think that you raised a very good point. I think that we tend to get somewhat focused on the complaint side of the business quite rightly, so it's important and it must be handled well. There is an expectation in terms of behaviour and conduct from police officers, and it's a very high one, but I think that as a consequence of that and perhaps it's something that's been slightly lost in the transition, and I know what you're talking about in terms of the Northern Constabulary and the Joint Northern Police Board, there was that opportunity to highlight that, and I'm very happy to take that away from here today, and I will raise it with the board. What I would say within the board itself, there are a number of occasions when we have raised and congratulated and applauded Police Scotland and officers for things that they have done, but it's not a formal process as such, but I just want to put that recognition on the record today. Sometimes even MSPs get thank-you cards. They're so rare, you keep them framed. Can I say thank you very much and I'm looking forward to more details of this business of the criminal proceedings and only the 6.7% leading to proceedings being taken in particular, the number that are data protection and data protection connected in some manner. Thank you very much. Now I move into private session as we agree.