 Welcome to the 18th meeting of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing in 2017. Apologies have been received today from Margaret Mitchell. Agenda item 1 is the decision on taking business in private. Our committee agreed to take agenda item 3, which is consideration of our future work programme in private. Are we agreed? Thank you for that. Our next agenda item is an evidence session on the progress of the two independent investigations into Police Scotland's counter-corruption unit. Can I welcome Chief Superintendent Alan Spears from Police Scotland, John Foley, the chief executive of the Scottish Police Authority, Craig Satie, general secretary, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and Drew Livingstone, the service conditions officer from Unison. Can I thank those who have provided the committee with written evidence, Police Scotland, the SPS Unison and the SPF? Can I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clerk, and paper 2, which is a private paper? We are going to go straight into questions today. Can I start by asking Chief Superintendent Spears if he could perhaps elaborate on the restructuring of the professional standards department? What does that mean in practical terms in relation to complaint or misconduct? I came into post about 15 months ago, and that for me was a period of progressional change within the professional standards department. Longstanding has been a perception that professional standards are very punitive in nature, and my approach is to look at an open, transparent and more efficient approach to how we deal with complaints, and in fact all professional standards matters, and to look towards organisational learning. To help that, it was about creating a national structure. Again, we operated with a number of regional offices where it was legacy approaches and perhaps a lack of consistency. We now have a functional operating model where we have one strand, which would be complaints, one strand which would look at conduct, another strand which would look at corruption, and that is supported by some policy units. One of the key elements for me has been about how do we resolve matters at the earliest and swiftest opportunity, and that has helped by the introduction of a gateway and national assessment unit. That is about really early assessment of any information that is brought into professional standards and looking at what is the most appropriate way to address those matters. If that is passing it back to the local policing division, if it is something that can be handled within PSD, it may be a matter that can be handled by way of explanation, or in fact in some instances it is maybe a much more serious matter and it is something that our anti-corruption unit would look at. Also sitting underneath that, we have introduced a complaint resolution unit, which deals with about 55 per cent of all the complaints that we receive in Police Scotland. On an average basis, that is somewhere in the region of about 66,500 complaints. That resolution unit is to engage very early with members of the public and look to resolve those complaints. We do resolve around 50 to 60 per cent of those complaints very quickly for members of the public. That is a very helpful background. Before I bring in the other witnesses, do you think that the new arrangements are sufficient to address the deficiencies that have been identified? There has been some quite critical comments made about the way things have been handled in the past. Are the new arrangements sufficient to deal with all of that? I think that we are on a journey of change and perhaps a journey of persuasion to dispel some of the perceptions that exist. One of the opportunities that a national model presents is that in every instance I can look at very specifically who is investigating the matter. Quite frequently we know that there may be a matter in the west of Scotland that we would then investigate from the north of Scotland or in the east of Scotland from the west. Really important for me is to bring a high level of independence to those inquiries, so that is something that we have been able to do. I think that it will take a little bit of time, but I am hopeful that some of our colleagues and indeed our staff associations are seeing the benefits of the changes that we have made and recognise that we are looking to resolve matters as early as we possibly can. OK, that is helpful. Can I come to Mr Lovingston? Unison had specific concerns and my colleague Liam McArthur will be asking quite detailed questions about unison later. From a unison point of view, has the change answered some of the concerns that your organisation raised? Yes. Previously we went from a position where we did not have particularly good engagement around some of the working activities that the CCU was undertaking and that included policy development for one. Now we are in a far better place in terms of the level of engagement that takes place over how the ACU and PSD have been restructured, but also the suite of procedures and policies that we now have dialogue over. In terms of whether now we believe that there is sufficient integrity around that process, clearly we raised issues about how grievances and complaints are dealt with internally. Our perception is that there is not a truly independent body that can actually scrutinise those where they relate to employment matters as opposed to criminal. OK, that is helpful. We may explore that a bit further later. Mr Stutty, I would be interested in your view on this. We are fully supportive of the changes that are taking place. I think that there has been a lot of confusion over the piece as to what we are talking about. A lot of the discussion has been about corruption. Corruption is a very small part of the work that professional standards do. The anti-corruption unit is now far better placed to deal with that insidious crime as it takes place. Over and above that, there are three things that Mr Speer said. One was about learning and the other one was about swift resolution. That has absolutely been at the centre of what we have been pushing forward. The matter must be resolved early. It is so frustrating to open newspapers and read headlines about instances that have happened years ago. That must impact on public confidence and it impacts on the confidence of officers who are serving. I think that the assessment unit that has been set up has been a really bold and brave move. I think that we need to take some risk in this area, but I also agree that it is a journey of change and the culture of the whole organisation needs to change. I have seen a significant change in that culture under the deputy design that Ian Livingstone and Chief Inspector Spears in how they have led professional standards. It will never satisfy everybody in the very nature of the work that they carry out. There will be people who feel aggrieved, but I think that whether we will have a trust and a sort of federation response about an untrusted organisation—I am not sure that trust is the right word, but I think that if the PSD and anti-corruption units stand up to the values of the police Scotland, respect and integrity fairness, there will go some distance to start bringing people along. That is helpful. Mr Foley, is there anything that you would like to add? Yes, if you don't mind, convener. We take these matters very seriously and we took on board the comments that were made by Drew's colleagues in Unison in relation to process and procedure, etc. It was the SPA who requested that HMICS carry out the review. You are right to say that there were a number of significant issues there, 39 in total. As far as I am aware, at the moment, 35 of those have been discharged with four remaining that are in the process. In addition to that, we also set up a CCU steering group that was chaired by a member of the police authority. That group was there to work collaboratively with police Scotland colleagues but also to scrutinise the output and the processes that were being implemented. On that group, we also had representation from the staff associations, industry unions and other external stakeholders. The output from that is what Alan has put in place at the moment. We are supportive of that. However, we know that we must continue to monitor it as we move through. We have introduced some additional processes. For example, if someone was concerned and wanted to raise a complaint or a matter in relation to a member of the anti-corruption unit, every referral that goes into police Scotland in relation to that is automatically notified to the SPA. The SPA would then dip sample in relation to those probably three or four times a year, depending on volume. To date, there have been six receded, but they are not yet at the stage of us being able to dip sample. We have to leave matters for three months because there is a period in there where people who are complaining can take what they consider to be an unsatisfactory outcome to the perk, so it would be inappropriate for us to intervene prior to that. Those processes are in place. We will continue to review them. The policing committee that has recently been set up within the authority will take a keen interest in that, so there will be regular reports to the Audit Committee on how it is performing and on stats as we move through to measure and monitor. Anything of significance will be discussed at the full board. That is helpful. Mr Sturty made a valid point. He said that it must be clear what we are talking about. For the avoidance of doubt, the agenda item is independent investigation into Police Scotland's counter-corruption unit. I take reassurance from what Chief Superintendent Spear says about openness and transparency, and that is what we all want to see, but that is what I would like to speak about just now. Welcome, Mr Spear. I know that the other participants have not been here before, and it is good to have you here. I wonder if the committee should read anything into the fact that, hitherto, it has always been a chief officer rank that has come to address those issues, but it is not on this occasion. I think that the reality is that I am working very closely with the force executive and take a lead in terms of the external inquiries that are currently on-going, and I would suggest that I am probably the subject expert in relation to those inquiries at this time and the developments that we have made within professional standards. Okay, thank you. That is reassuring. I think again for the record, it would be helpful to put on the position that we are in here. In relation to the IPT, the Investigative Powers Tribunal, that is related to six complaints, two from former police officers, their spouses, and two from servicing officers, and the complaint related to collateral interference with their privacy. The committee has had an interest in that for some time, and it is to try and understand where we go, because I do not think that anyone would want to think that the committee has not been thorough in trying to understand the issues, and it seems to become complicated and it seems to become somewhat protracted. In relation to the importance of that, I am keen that there is public confidence in the police and that the police have recourse to all methods of investigation that are legitimate and proportionate. In respect of that, the serious obtaining of more than 30 days' communications data relates to one of the cases. In relation to the fact that I understand, Mr Spears, that there are serving officers or the subject of this investigation, is that the correct figure? Given just a little bit of background, in the summer of last year, you will be aware that Chief Constable invited Durham Constabulary to come in and do an inquiry into the complaints made by the individual officers and ex-officers that you alluded to. That work was undertaken on an independent basis by Durham Constabulary and concluded with a final report being received back in our force in May of this year. Contained within that report was some indication that there may be some misconduct matters in relation to the officers who were involved in the process. Complaints in Police Scotland and conduct are two separate matters, and the conduct regulations stipulate that those officers who investigate conduct cannot have any previous involvement in any complaint handling. As a consequence of the information contained within the Durham report, we undertook to appoint the PSNI to come in and do a conduct investigation. The reality for us was that the Durham report became the pivotal report on which the PSNI conduct investigation was founded. As you are aware, it very quickly led to an inquiry that currently involves seven officers. That inquiry, which I am led to believe having spoken to colleagues in the PSNI, is near in conclusion. I am hopeful that that matter will be concluded by Christmas. What we have been doing in the background is engaging with the complainers, and in recent times we have afforded them the opportunity to come in and read the Durham report in a redacted format. At the point when the PSNI investigation is concluded, it would be Police Scotland's intention to publish a redacted version of the Durham report, which, again, I am confident is in the coming weeks. You and I both know—perhaps others don't know—that there is a difference between misconduct and criminal allegations. Did the Durham inquiry unearth any allegations in fair and criminality? There were no allegations in fair and criminality, and the matter was in fact referred to Crown Office prior to the Durham inquiry commencing. Through our engagement with Durham, they were fully aware that, should there be any influence of criminality during the inquiry, they would pause and report that through Crown Office. That was not the case. They have provided us with a very detailed and lengthy report that brings some organisation of learning, brings some recommendations and, indeed, brought some concerns regarding the conduct of a number of officers. I am able to say, Chief Superintendent Spears, if any of the seven officers are under suspension. There is no officers under suspension. We have taken some protective measures around restrictions, which is something that we would do frequently. That is about protecting the individual. It is also about protecting the organisation, but, really importantly, it is also about protecting the public. The officers who are subject to this investigation at this time are subject to a number of duty restrictions. Are you able to say what the nature of their duties is? It would probably be unfair of me to go into the final detail, because that in itself would probably identify who those officers were. Okay. Are you able to say that? The terminology that I appreciate is constantly changing, but are they connected with the professional standards department, complaints of discipline, counter-corruption or any derivatives of those seven people? Those officers previously had a role within the counter-corruption unit. Their current roles are in a different area of the business. In relation to the report, we heard from the Deputy Chief Constable Designate that this information would be made available to the committee. At the time, there were discussions. I can't find my exact words at this time, but I acknowledged that perhaps the report that we would get would be redacted or elements that would be redacted to protect the identity of individuals or circumstances that would give rise to leader. It is the 12 May that this report is received. Why has the committee not received this report by now? In really simple terms, because the report was used for the basis of the appointment of the PSNI to conduct a misconduct investigation, and that document becoming public would, on one hand, prejudice that investigation. I thought that for the benefit of the officer or subject of that investigation, it is really important that the PSNI is allowed to progress that to a conclusion. I am confident that that conclusion is in the coming weeks. That report will be made available? The redacted version of that report will be made available. We will receive a report from PSNI. I would anticipate that that will relate specifically to the conduct, but it will also relate specifically to the broader organisational learning. It is my absolute intention to take what will be a Durham report, a PSNI report and ultimately a Northumbria report and create a single report that outlines all the organisational learning that we need to put in place and in fact have put in place. I am confident that a large proportion of that has been done on the back of the significant work that was undertaken following the HMICS review. I found my words, and they were accepting that there are very sensitive areas where you undertake to make available to the committee as much of that information as legitimately can be made available, and the response from the Deputy Chief Constable was, I give you an unqualified undertaking, I will do so. I would be able to provide a summary of that, then, just what or you will just tell me now, what the nature of these allegations are, because there is continuing public interest in it, and rightly or wrongly there is a perception that this is dragging on, people are seeking to kick it into the long gas, and we have a duty as a committee to discharge our obligations to understand what this is about and understand that mechanisms are put in place to prevent our repetition. Are you able to talk about the generality of what these seven officers are facing? I know. I think that that would prejudice the PSNI inquiry and would be incredibly unfair for the officers at this time who are the subject of that inquiry, and particularly when I am unaware at this point in time as to what the findings of the PSNI investigation are. What I can do is give you an absolute assurance that the redacted document has been prepared, produced and is ready for publication at the point in which we receive a report from PSNI. Okay, two final, very small questions for me. Can you remind the committee what the Northumberland report relates to Chief Superintendent? Yes, Northumberland are part of the family of forces located next to Durham, as you will probably be aware. One of the actions that we passed initially to Northumbria was to conduct a review of complaints made against members of the counter-corruption unit between 2009 and 2016. From a capability perspective, that was a piece of work that Durham passed to Northumbria. Northumbria are in effect doing a complaint handling review of complaints made against members of the counter-corruption unit between 2009 and 2016. That in effect relates to about 23 or 24 complaints and 96 allegations. There's just endless questions with it. What stage is that at? Are you able to say the nature of the allegations? Do any of those allegations relate to criminal allegations that are made? It's a range of allegations that were made at the time that it's available account for the 96 allegations. This is a range of complaints made against members of the counter-corruption unit, largely historical in nature and made by officers and ex-officers who were subject of investigation by the counter-corruption unit. What I would emphasise is that Northumbria are not in reinvestigating the complaints, but they are conducting a complaint handling review. I am understood from speaking with Northumbria this week and we've had a very close link with them. We are hopeful that that report is also in the final stages of conclusion. People might be surprised given the sensitivity that the police attached to issues of data and issues of surveillance, that all the allegations from all those complaints would all be considered misconduct, that none of them would have inferred criminality and again you'll be familiar with why the term inferred criminality is important. Absolutely. I would be pretty certain that in some instances those complaints would have been referred to Crown Office and that I would also be confident that all those complaints would present the individual with the opportunity to refer matters to Perk. When can we get the reports, Chief Superintendent? I'm hopeful that I will have that report from Northumbria by Christmas. The indication is that it's in the final stages and we should receive that report by Christmas and it would be our intention to bring that report to you also. A similar timeframe would it be because there was now six months on from the report being received and the very final final and what will be redacted from these reports please? The redacted document will largely be about Durham and it relates to very personal information and having read the full report there is places in the document where it provides pen pictures which relate very specifically to personal details of the officers. Largely the redaction is around the personal details. It is a very transparent document because it will show specifically where those redactions are made and quite simply they're blacked out and covered over so it will be very apparent where we've redacted some personal information from that document. Thank you very much indeed. Mr Sartre, I want to just come back to you and ask a very brief additional question to the answer that you gave me when I asked about the new arrangements and how successful you thought the new arrangements would be and would they solve all the previous deficiencies that have been highlighted? You said that there were media issues from years ago that still had to be resolved. Why is that? There's issues that are playing out in the media just now that relate to practices that took place years ago and that's actually part of the crux of the matter and that's part of the Northumbria inquiry and it's part of the Durham inquiry and the longer those things drag on, it's got a massive impact on public confidence but it's also importantly got a massive impact on the individual officers. We've got officers that have now been under scrutiny for an extraordinary length of time. We've heard from Mr Spears that that's impacted on their careers because they've been unable to progress their careers in certain ways because of certain restrictions or protections and we absolutely support those protections restrictions but to me it's unacceptable that in this day and age given public confidence and given individual officers, those matters take so long. So are you confident that the new arrangements will resolve complaints quickly? I understand that there's been far less of any complaints that have come in over the last two years. Mr Spears has already spoken about, one of his intentions is for a swift response, we would push him on, we continued to push him on that and we would ask about that. I understand some of the detail of why it's taken so long, why we went to Durham inquiry but I mean our position is it's either service delivery, it's a conduct matter or it's a criminal matter and actually I think some of the practices that have taken place or some inquiries have potentially and really prolonged matters here. Because when you say that you want matters dealt with swiftly, clearly you want matters dealt with as quickly as possible for the benefit of the person that's made the complaint, for the benefit of the person that's been complained about but it would make sense to me and please correct me if I'm wrong that you set some kind of timescale within the new guidelines and arrangements that you have to say by such and such a date something must be dealt with three months down the line something must be dealt with to at least give people some confidence that there is some time frame around what they're going into. That would be very helpful, even accepting there may be sometimes where for very good reason these parameters wouldn't be kept but that would be very helpful. Touching on two similar themes that the convener just raised and good afternoon all and Mr Suthie, you touched on this in your remarks and also in your answer there with referencing the points made by the SPF and their written submission about their statement that we regret however that the apparent willingness to frustrate the remedy for officers who were wronged in the past will forever see the new ACU as an untrusted corner of the police service just like its predecessor, the CCU. Do you recognise the concerns raised by the SPF about this lack of confidence or are they being over-exaggerated? No, I recognise the concerns that they're making. I think that a lot of the concerns and I think that the Federation itself accept a lot of the change that has taken place are welcomed, I think that they said that they broadly welcomed the change. I suppose that my frustration is let's start looking forward rather than looking backward but it's absolutely necessary for the complainers and for public confidence and if officers are concerned we'll come to a resolution for these matters and once and for all we can say that they've been dealt with, the learning has been taken and we'll move on. I share your ambition to look forward as much as possible and be constructive in that frame and how do we get past this? Obviously, as you've already raised, public confidence and trust in any system is paramount to anti-corruption measures, so how do we get past this? I'm hoping that the solution that Mr Spears mentioned earlier, the Durham report, the Northumbria report and other matters that have been raised internally will all be addressed in one document and that document will be brought forward to ourselves and to others to give you some confidence that we're actually dealing with that seriously and then the proof of the pudding will be in eating as we go forward changing that culture and ensuring future things are dealt with far more swiftly than they have been in the past. Robustly, if corruption is a very insidious thing, we've got a duty to respect to protect the service and the public from people who will corrupt officers or be corrupt, they need to be weeded out quickly and out of the service and that's everyone's ambition. In terms of the public confidence, as you spoke of, obviously, the way the media reports matters is out with our control quite rightly, but once we get past the current challenges, will Police Scotland be engaged in making sure that they do all that they can through a public relations perspective or any other mechanisms to make sure that that public confidence is increased and preserved? I would hope so, that's probably one better response than I suggest. I would like to offer a couple of comments. You'll be aware from the HMICS review that made 39 recommendations. Those recommendations, if we were picking the themes from them, were about strategic oversight, about governance, how we manage intelligence and how we look at processes. What I can give the committee an assurance of today is that I meet with the head of anti-corruption unit three times a week, have a really clear oversight about the work that they undertake, and then I report to the Deputy Chief Constable on a weekly basis, but, importantly, sitting underneath that, I spoke earlier about the assessment unit, and that's really, really important because I think there has been instances in the past where pieces of work have crept into the counter-corruption unit, which might be not about corruption, but behavioural. The processes that we now have in place are very much about ensuring that the anti-corruption unit focus on the business that they should focus on, and I'm confident that the changes that we've made will allow us to do that. I completely agree with Mr Sartey in terms of some of the historical cases and maybe the reporting that still exists in the media, and perhaps a bit of time is needed just to grow the confidence in the system. We've introduced a new online integrity matters reporting system. It's a very audible, transparent system that allows me on a daily basis to see the demand of businesses flowing in, so I have a real confidence that we have a real grip, perhaps far greater than we have ever had on anti-corruption business. I welcome that, and I think that raising the integrity matters system is important, and that word integrity is so important. I just think of communities that I represent where organised crime has an unhelpful and negative effect on community coherence and also confidence in the criminal justice system, and how we tack a robust anti-corruption measure within our police service, but also a sense that in the public domain that anti-corruption is an absolute priority for Police Scotland is so important, so if I can collaborate on that going forward from a constituent perspective, then I begin to engage. I think that it's important to recognise that it's a really small fraction of professional standards business that sits within the anti-corruption unit, so we have a very, very small minority of matters that we are considering on a weekly or monthly basis. I note and recognise that. I'm interested to know why the officers of the proceedings have not been able to see a full version of the Durham report. Have they seen a redacted version since it concluded in May? The officers or complainers, including the ex-officers, have been invited in recent weeks to see the redacted version of the report. In simple terms, I say redacted, because at this point in time there's quite a considerable level of very personal detail contained within the Durham report, and I think that that is entirely inappropriate to show those officers. I get an answer to Mr Finnie. The document is very transparent and it is very clear to see from the redacted version of the report where those redactions have been made. I think that it's also really important to highlight that, in terms of those complainers, they received very detailed letters, providing them with a very detailed update against every allegation that they made. Having looked at those letters prior to them being sent to the officers, they ran into 18, 19 and 20 pages, so they've had a very detailed explanation around the complaints that they raised, and they were also presented with the opportunity should they wish to take that to refer matters to perk if they were dissatisfied with the manner in which the complaint has been handled. So, whilst a period of six months has passed, there has been considerable things happening in the background to that, their opportunity to talk to perk, their opportunity to digest very, very detailed and comprehensive letters, and now the opportunity in more recent times to see the redacted document. Will they ever be able to see the full unredacted version of it? I think that it's very difficult to do that simply because of the level of personal detail that's contained within that. I'm sorry, I just thought that when you were saying personal detail, you mean personal details about other people, because if it's a bit confused as to why it's personal. So, in really simple terms, included in that document would be a pen picture of the seven officers who are just now subject of a misconduct inquiry. That information itself would be entirely inappropriate to share when it goes into very fine detail around those officers' details, their ages, their postings to the whole raft of details. So, it's detail like that in no shape or form, having reviewed the redacted version. Do I think that they're going to see a document which would fall short of what they would expect to see? I think that the document flows and I think it would provide significant answers to many of the questions that people would have. I'm still a bit unclear as to why that amount of personal detail would go into report. Surely, it should just be the nature of the complaints. It's a really good question. I'm being honest with you. It's Durham's style of how they have written the report. I think that when we ask them to do an investigation and provide us with a report, we accept the report and the format that they would give us it in. I've given them certainly a lot of guidance in terms of the normal approach that we would have anticipated in Police Scotland, but I'm working with the report that Durham submitted to us. I think that most of the things that I might have asked have been covered. Have IPT, the Investigation Service Tribunal, got any continuing role in that, or have they continued to work with those who have been in contact with us? IPT would always sit in the background, Mr Stevenson, so what we have done in more recent times is provided them with a comprehensive update exactly where matters are. I think that they would want to see this drawn to a conclusion that would conclude with the investigation completely finished and that document published. We do, from time to time, keep in contact with the IPT in terms of the progress of that inquiry. Would it be your intention at the conclusion of this process to cross-check with IPT that you've discharged all the responsibilities that they think you should have discharged in this regard? Absolutely. We would do that through our legal services team, who would engage directly and get an absolute confidence that we've done all the things that we'd expect of us. Good afternoon. If I could maybe take us back to where the convener brought us in earlier on, Mr Livingstone. In your evidence, you pointed to a concern around the lack of independent scrutiny with the knowledge and, indeed, the powers and the ability to adjudicate within the system where issues span operational matters and employment law. Be held on, babe, if you could just, perhaps, spell it in a little more detail the basis for those concerns and then perhaps go on to say whether or not those concerns persist. Yeah, certainly, the previous situation was that we had or encountered situations where, excuse me, some of the activities of the CCU at that time didn't really acknowledge the kind of employment rights that members of police staff were entitled to. Since then, we have seen radical improvement in that area, but at the same time it would be a miss not to acknowledge the fact that where there is a focus on perhaps behaviours of police staff and bearing in mind the kind of human rights implications that the interference with those rights by a public body shall be justified where it is in accordance with the law and necessary for, among other things, public safety, then sometimes there can be a bit of a blurring of the lines between the behaviours of that individual and also how the force takes measures in order to intervene in those circumstances. Now, it's very reassuring to hear Mr Spears speak about how there's a move away from punitive measures, but I think in the main there's still an existence that would oversimplify things and focus on those behaviours. I think we have to bear in mind the fact that, sorry, I've lost my train, that there's enough integrity there that the organisation doesn't have a sole responsibility to examine where these breaches have taken place. I think policing over the last four years has had some really difficult challenges to contend with and some of the targets which have been imposed upon policing leaders have brought about some rather uncompromising situations with regards to how they balance wellbeing with how they deal with staff bodies and entities of the organisation, such as cuts to police staff and how the workload among police staff has been spread. How we see the organisation treating its people has led to some compromising in ethical challenges. So, do you refer to say that you are still of the view that the underpinning legislation needs to provide a fully independent process for complaints and for whistleblowing? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, when you consider some of the provisions which exist, particularly in England and Wales and the role of the IPCC, I think there was a situation which I think it was in relation to PC James Patrick down in England and Wales, the Metropolitan Police, and there were certain provisions which were redrafted within Home Office guidelines governing police regulations, and that forced them to actually look at that to the extent where they actually go over and above what's provided by law and legislation. If we could go back to say, for instance, the code of conduct for police staff and police officers, at the time that that was drafted, one of the attractive things within the provisions of that was the fact that it actually made mention of whistleblowing, which offered us some form of reassurance, and at the time there was no whistleblowing policy within the organisation. We've since seen a move where the Scottish Government police sponsor team have actually taken a step back from that because they feel that the law doesn't necessarily allow them to intervene because they're not an employer and they're not an embody under the provisions of PEDA. So, you know, there's some inconsistencies there and some inconsistencies north of the border that we would like to see addressed. I'm keen to bring in particularly Mr Spears but others as well, but just before I do that, another element of the concern that you were pointing to perhaps a sort of aggravating factor was what you described as a dysfunctional relationship between Police Scotland, the SPA and the Scottish Government. Again, it would be helpful to know whether you think that remains the case, what the basis of the concern was. I mean, I certainly think that it's a work in progress, I think, with all this kind of area of development. It's...there's learning to be had there and certainly all bodies involved in policing in Scotland are certainly striving to try and achieve greater standards. But at the same time, I think, some of the Dr Ali Malick study certainly pointed to some concerns and quite serious concerns about the ability of the SPA to challenge Police Scotland on some of those things. The relationship there is whether we have confidence in people to actually challenge where there is a perception of wrongdoing within the service. So the view is that complaints or whistleblowing was not taking place because there was a lack of confidence within the... I believe so, yes. Right. Mr Spears-Ib. Yes, thank you. I think that Mr Livingstone is also touching on potential proportionality and consistency and I think that for me that is really important and it's one of my really early considerations in every instance is our response proportionate and is it consistent. And I think that's where the assessment unit is really, really helpful because there is a lot of matters that will come into that unit which quite simply can be pushed back to HR colleagues or can be dealt with at a much lower level. I think it's been a step forward to see us in June this year introducing a whistleblowing policy for the force. I think the confidence internally within the organisation to report matters is improving quite significantly and I say that from the perspective of I'm seeing those reports and I'm actually seeing less reports that are anonymous and more reports where officers are prepared to speak out and if they like to put their name to the statements that they're making. So I think that there's a building of confidence within the organisation to report wrongdoing at every level. I think that we need more time to allow that to roll out but I think it's important that the whistleblowing policy just outlines a range of mechanisms that our officers and staff can use. I, on a weekly basis, monitor whistleblowing integrity matters and report that to our executives. I'm confident that that picture is changing but I'm also very confident that we are adopting a much more proportionate and consistent approach to everything that we deal with. The point that Mr Livingstone was making around the independence drawing on some of the experience elsewhere in the UK, is that something that can be captured within the current framework? I think that it can and I'll be really honest with you. I'm challenged on a daily basis from colleagues from all the staff associations. I'm challenged at times from some of the four solicitors. So I think that as an organisation in particular in the PSD environment we have become a lot stronger in how we deal with matters. I am very frequently challenged around independence and that's why, from a national perspective, I will very frequently look with my deputy chief constable at who is the most appropriate person to consider a matter and, very often, we will use individuals and groups of people from all parts of the country and I think that that brings an element of independence to that. Again, to the point that Mr Livingstone made, it's a challenge coming from the SPA as well. I mean, what's been the role of SPA and how's that evolved over the last number of months? I think that has improved significantly, Mr MacArthur. I think that required improvement, which was why we commissioned, not commissioned, but requested HMICS carry out the review, which we have acted upon. But I think that in recent times chairing the CCU reference group for these policies and processes and procedures to be tested and challenged and implemented and then the follow-through via the policing committee and the fact that complaints about officers within, for example, the anti-corruption unit, automatically get referred to the SPA is a good thing so that we can take action and constantly review. The policing committee is fairly new, so I think that that would be a good vehicle to use for those things. In addition to that, we published the revised whistleblowing policy in May. Again, that was a collaborative product between ourselves and Police Scotland, so they're very reflective. It gives us the opportunity to again have regular reports and challenge on that, which is slightly different but associated. Fully understand, Drew Livingstone's position in relation to matters being raised with the authority and not quite being dealt with promptly enough. I think that these new policies and processes will assist with that. We've also introduced more regular meetings with our colleagues in the trade unions and staff associations, so quarterly meetings, but twice a year we will have strategic meetings where everybody comes into the room. At that point, I think that that presents another opportunity for the staff associations and trade unions to apply scrutiny to the authority, so it works the other way. That will then bring these things to the surface if we're not dealing with matters as appropriately as we've set out. If that is the case, I'm pretty sure that the staff associations and trade unions would be making aware of that at future meetings. Is your experience of holding feet to the fire the same, is it? I'll hold feet to the fire, but I've been reassured by Mr Livingstone coming along and talking about the reporting authority. I think that there's a far better culture within the organisation just now with people willing to stand up and report upwards. I think that that's good. I think that the integrity matters is helpful. I think that the measures are put in place. I sat on one of the SPA groups looking at how matters will be resolved. I think that reporting up of matters to the SPA is helpful. The meetings with the SPA is helpful. I think that you started off the fundamental question about changing legislation. There still is an issue going back to 2006 act as the interpretation of what is a matter of employment or service and whether that can be reported to the perk or not. I would have actually thought that some of those big corruption issues wouldn't be a matter of employment or service, to be a matter of concerns. My expectation is that the perk should be in a position to pick up on some of these if they're not happy, but that's not a matter for us. That's a matter of process. I'd be reassured if the processes that the service are put in place, those issues shouldn't arise. I'm far more calm to those issues won't arise in the future, but there does have to be consideration if they did arise how people could resolve things. I think that a lot of the measures that have been put in place would probably preclude the need for legislation, but that's not a matter for me just now to push forward. Is that something that—who is it a matter for? Is it a matter for Parliament to satisfy itself that the intention around legislation is satisfied? Is this something that's been probed and rebuffed? No, if it was a matter for our association that we thought was needed for changing legislation, we would, through lobbying, put that forward. We don't see that as being the case just now, and the measures that have been put in place have given us far greater confidence now than ever before that that need won't arise. John, do you want to come in for another question? It's a question for Mr Spears and Mr Foley, and it's about the term that's been used a few times now and that's proportionality. I asked about suspension, Mr Spears, in relation particularly to the issue of the illegitimate acquisition of 32 days of communications data. This is a quote of what the victim of that, who was paid £10,000 compensation, said that they'd suffered the insuffered invasion of privacy, familial strife, personal stress and strain, and loss of long-standing friendships. There's a perception, reinforced by the situation of a chief constable who's the subject of a number of complaints who's on gardening leave, that suspension is more rigorously applied to the federated ranks to junior officers than it is to senior officers. How would you address that? I think, from my perspective, my priority is looking at officers from the rank of chief superintendent to constable. I think that the application of suspension is something we take very seriously and it is very carefully considered and balanced at times against the welfare of that officer and their families, so it is something we take very, very seriously. We do see the option to apply restrictions on duties or modified duties as an alternative to suspension. I think that it's something particularly with serious matters that we will always give serious consideration to. I think that your second part of the question is clearly a matter for Mr Folly and I would leave that with him to answer. If I could follow up on that, no one, at least of all me, wants to be a police officer doing anything other than engaged in police work and certainly not suspended from or anyone not to be able to go to their work. Is it something that any of these inquiries are going to pick up as the response of Police Scotland to what are serious accusations? Because of the fact that we don't have reports, it is simply going to trundle on and there are issues of public confidence that are essential in here. I don't doubt the good work that's going on and I'm sure that everyone's engaged in good faith, but this has happened. It's very public. Do you understand any of these forces? We'll look at the proportionality of Police Scotland's response to those accusations. I'm pretty confident that that's already captured on the elements of the Durham report. I'm also very confident that it will be captured. What does Durham say about suspension at all, Mr Spears? Well, I'm not. In this instance, when we have a number of officers restricted and subject to gross misconduct investigations just now, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on the detailed content of that report. I think that what you also have to recognise is the piece of work that Durham has done was incredibly complex. Very often, a matter of suspension can be incredibly straightforward. This whole event or series of events were incredibly complex, involving a whole range of officers. I suspect that we'll bring from it organisational learning. I think that it's really important that we take the learning from the Durham report, but we await the outcome of the PSNI investigation. What's the difference between misconduct and gross misconduct when it comes to legislation, please? It's all contained within our conduct regulations from 2014 for the Police Service of Scotland. What are they called, Mr Spears? Police conduct Scotland regulations 2014. The simple difference is about severity in terms of the actions of the officers on misconduct. The regulations would allow us to refer that matter back to the local policing division for a misconduct meeting, where they consider the most appropriate course of disposal up to the point of a final written warning. When you look at gross misconduct, you're considering the dismissal from the Police Service as an option. But not suspension clearly in this instance? Suspension is a consideration in every instance, Mr Finnie, but I think the point that I'm trying to make with the Durham investigation was incredibly complex and certainly wasn't a black and white issue. Whilst it was considered that it was deemed at the time that input in place or number of restrictions was a more appropriate outcome, if you recall, Durham's initial work was around a complaint inquiry rather than a misconduct investigation. At the point of receiving Durham's final report in May, we then took measures around the officers involved in that report and are now allowing PSNI to follow through with the misconduct investigation. I'm really trying to understand because it could be perceived in layman's terms that those have been corrupt practices that have been alleged. The fact that those are practices in a unit called the anti-corruption unit, you would imagine, does compound the severity with which they'd be looked at, but I accept a position on the suspension. Mr Foley, on the question of proportionality and junior officers suspended for what is perceived to be less serious issues than a chief constable, the subject of serious accusations on gardening leave, doesn't seem to be an option that's made available to federated ranks? Well, the situation in senior officer ranks is that the police authority takes those decisions for senior officers only and the board takes full consideration of all the facts, including complaints, and they make a determination as to whether that warrants an action and that action could be to place an officer on leave if they request that or it could be suspension. Suspension is also a consideration in matters and in relation to the chief constable currently, the decision to continue or not with a period of leave is reviewed every four weeks by the board. How much annual leave does a chief constable get, Mr Foley? From recollection, I think it's roughly about 42 days, 45 days, Mr Foley, around about that. Who's made that decision in relation to the chief constable? The board. The board. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr Foley, can I just ask you what steps the Scottish Police Authority takes to ensure the independence of an officer that's appointed to carry out an inquiry? In respect of an inquiry by perhaps Durham? Yeah, in respect of a complaint and an officer that's appointed to carry out an inquiry, how do you ensure that that officer is independent? Well, if we're talking about complaints against senior officers, which is what we deal with, the process would be that the complaint comes into, we have a small complaint section of three people and it's their sole job, that's what they do all the time, is to assess complaints and report. They would then sit down with me in relation to those complaints and we would have a legal representative as well and a board member and the decision would then be taken whether to refer the matter to the perk if it was deemed to be misconduct or gross misconduct or if we deemed it no action, further action was taken, then that's another option that we have. Okay. Convener, can I just come in with something? I'm conscious nobody has raised the fact that there is a second Durham report because the Durham report that we've been referring to and addressing to Mr Spears clearly relates to the officers in the unit who weren't senior officers. As part of the overall allegation, that touched on some of the senior officers as well and so there is a report. We have a report which relates to senior officers but in that report there is no evidence or suggestion that there is any grounds for instituting misconduct to actions or any criminality. Okay. John. Thank you. That's very interesting, Mr Foley. Will you make that report available to the committee please? In the same way that Mr Spears will be able to do the same thing at the same time, Mr Finnie? Well, it would seem that we're going to have to wait several months to... Well, we'll allow it. If you have that report already and you've already determined the outcome, could you make it available to the committee please? We'll make it available to the committee. We'll have to go through the redaction process, but you will have it before Christmas. Okay. Thank you very much indeed. I just have a couple of final questions for Chief Superintendent Spears and I don't think any other members have any further questions. Do they? Can I just ask you, Chief Superintendent, who made the decision to progress the conduct investigation and did whoever made that decision, if you can tell us, did they take into account the delay that it would take and the impact it would have on the officers? The decision to progress that matter was taken by the Deputy Chief Constable. We always would think about the wellbeing and welfare around officers, but recognise that it was really important that, based on the information contained within the Durham report that we had to progress matters in this way, so we were very, very conscious of that. We've always been very conscious that when we ask an external force to conduct a piece of work for us, we, at times, are dependent on the timescales in which they can do that. My priority is to make sure that the access as much information, as much detail is efficiently as possible can, and I hope that that inquiry can be concluded in a really timeous fashion. I recognise the challenges. We continually look at the welfare impact on all officers, so on a monthly basis I would sit down with the Deputy Chief Constable and review every suspension and look at some of the restricted officers, just to look at the timescales around that. We are very alive to the negative impact of those decisions. Were the officers involved kept up to date on every development as it took place? Specifically in relation to the timescales, have the delays been kept up to date and informed? In relation to the complainers? Yes. To be fair, Durham developed a very sound relationship with those officers. It was really important that my team's role in this was to facilitate the work that Durham was doing, but I was very conscious that they were engaging on a regular basis with the complainers on behalf of Police Scotland. Okay, that's helpful. I'm a final question. When my colleague Rona Mackay asked you a question about the reports and the redacted reports, you said that the redacted reports would not fall short of the detail that people wanted. Whose opinion is that? I guess it's a subjective opinion that we and within the force we would take. I think what the point I was trying to convey was we're not taking a report and we're turning it into something else. We're taking a report and we're simply taking out very personal details, so anyone picking up the report can read the sentence that maybe misses out the name Alan Spears. We've kept it as, I think, it's very realistic and it's very close to the report, so in no shape or form does this bear any difference to the actual report that Durham produced. What I was trying to point out to you is that it's a really clear report with simple areas taken out within that report, and it's very obvious where those redactions are taking place. Okay, thank you. Are there no further questions from members? I thank all of our witnesses for coming along today and providing us with some very useful information. I'm sure that it's a subject that we will be returning to. We now move into private session and I'll suspend briefly to allow witnesses to clear.