 Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the the 15th meeting of the justice sub-committee on policing in 2017. Our business today is in evidence session on governance of the Scottish police authority and can I welcome Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary for justice, and don Mcilverry head of police division, Scottish government to the meeting, and can I refer members to paper one, which is not by the clerk, and paper two, which is a private paper. I will move directly to questions. Before I do that, I would like to declare an interest as a member of the selection panel for the next chair of the Scottish Police Authority. Cabinet Secretary, I understand that as a member of the selection panel, I am bound by the Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments for Public Bodies and that all the information that I am privy to is confidential. I would appreciate that if you could confirm that panel does not interfere with my role as convener of this sub-committee and any future scrutiny of the SPA and the performance of its chair. You will keep Parliament up to date on the process and its outcome. Graffryddanian Cynwinor, as the members of the committee will be aware the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in public life regulates this particular appointment in Scottish ministers ждitions, pan Stamp Alert is bound by the commissioners code of practice. The applicants for public appointments are of course entitled to expect to see or eliminate confidentiality, and all panel members must abide by that. As a consequence, members are not able to discuss the appointment process and the information that any panel member becomes privileged is confidential As members will be aware, having received representation from just as spokesperson from the party's Parliament, I made an offer for the convener or a representative to become a panel member recognising that there are safeguards in the code to protect the integrity of the appointment process itself. For example, all panel members declare to their fellow panel members any conflicts of interest that they may have that are relevant to their participation as a panel member. In accepting the offer, convener, you have agreed to accept the code and the confidentiality that is required as part of that. I am, of course, happy to rely on the convener's judgment that it will not interfere with her role as convener of the Justice Sub-Committee on Placing and any scrutiny of the SPA chair. Of course, it is for the panel to identify appointable candidates. The decision, though, on the appointment of the chair is for Scottish ministers. The officers of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards and Public Life would be happy to provide the committee with further information on the public appointment process if the sub-committee felt that would be useful. In relation to your final point, convener, in line with the commissioner's code, all appointment decisions will be publicised by Scottish ministers. The SPA chair will be announced on the Scottish Government's website and appointed for Scotland. The announcement will include the name of the appointee, a short description of the body, a brief summary of the skills, knowledge and experience that the individual brings through the length of term of appointment, the rumouration, whether the individual holds any other appointments and, if so, what those are and the amount of rumouration for each. The activity noted in the political activity form completed by the individual appointed. Therefore, the announcement of the appointment will be set out by the code from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards. I am grateful for that clarification, cabinet secretary. Before I bring in other members, can I ask if you are satisfied that the roles and responsibilities of the SPA, as set out in the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act 2012, are still fit for purpose? Yes, I believe that they are. There may be issues about how some of those roles have been taken forward, but the role of the SPA in holding our police service to account and scrutinising the role that they take forward is a key public body, delivering an important public service. I believe that it remains relevant, and the existing arrangement with the SPA of that responsibility is still relevant and appropriate today. Rona Cymru, thank you, convener, and good afternoon, cabinet secretary. Can I ask you if you are satisfied that the SPA has taken the necessary steps to raise awareness across the justice and political arena regarding its specific role with regard to governance? Have you been involved in any discussions as to how successful the SPA has been in that endeavour? There are a number of members of the SPA who engage with a range of different stakeholders on an on-going basis. Some of them have particular lead responsibilities and key areas that they will engage with, such as the various stakeholders in relation to those matters. For example, whether that be trade union representatives or whether it be those who engage with local scrutiny committees. There are already arrangements in place for how the SPA takes that forward. You will be aware of that in the recommendations that were made by the HMICS in the review of governance and the openness of the process that the SPA had in place. It made a number of recommendations and the SPA has now got an action plan in place and a process in place with HMICS to make sure that those recommendations have been taken forward in order to strengthen those matters further and for the HMICS to be satisfied that progress has been made on those issues. My recollection is that a number of those recommendations have already been completed and progress has been made on the others. There is a process for SPA and its members to engage directly with a range of different stakeholders. Can that be strengthened? I have no doubt that that is something that they should continue to look at and to make sure that they are seeking to strengthen it where that can be achieved. There will be times when particular issues arise where they will have a particular focus on engaging with a particular group of stakeholders around a particular matter. For example, the decision that the SPA is making around the proposal and the contact centre in Inverness is involved with the SPA being engaged with stakeholders in that area. The board meeting is taking place there, but there has been an extensive level of engagement with various stakeholders in that area prior to having the board meeting to make a decision on that matter. I would expect that type of approach to continue going forward. Ben Macpherson. Just a supplementary question, cabinet secretary. With regard to the specific role of the SPA and the conceptual idea of the creation of the SPA in the 2012 act, it was established to provide an arms-length body to hold the chief constable to account, while providing a clear separation between politics and policing. Of course, as an issue, it has been quite heavily covered in the political arena, the concerns around the SPA. How important it is to you and the Government that the SPA plays that role as a clear separation between politics and policing? First of all, policing is now more political in Scotland than it has ever been in my experience. That is not just since I became justice secretary. I have made the point in a number of occasions before having spent an extensive period of time in this Parliament's earlier justice home affairs committee and its justice 1 committee. In fact, I cannot really recall as looking into policing matters to any great extent. It was largely because it was seen as being a matter for the local police boards to deal with. The level of scrutiny and political interest in policing, in my view, is greater than I have ever experienced in my whole time in this Parliament. That is, as I say, away from just being justice secretary. However, I think that there are benefits that come from that, in some of the challenge that comes from it, in making sure that our police service is operating as effectively as possible, that it is responding to concerns and issues that are being highlighted by Parliament and Parliamentarians. I think that there are strengths and benefits that come from that increased scrutiny and increased political accountability. However, I think that the role of the SPA would be fair to say in recent years about the scrutiny of policing and the way in which it is scrutinising some of the changes that the police service has taken forward has improved. Examples of that are demonstrated in the reports from HMICS. A particular example would be around the C3 change, the way in which Police Scotland was taking that forward, and the report that I directed from HMICS highlighted a number of issues about how Police Scotland was taking that forward. The scrutiny process that has now been put in place by the SPA has ensured that there is greater accountability and greater oversight around how that is being managed. I would not be naive enough to say that, from the outset, it has been perfect, or that it is perfect as yet, but I think that it is improving. I am confident that it will continue to improve going forward, because it is extremely important that a significant public service such as a police service and a trust that the public put in them in the role that they fulfil, that there is appropriate accountability and scrutiny of the way in which the service has been managed, taken forward and the decisions that the organisation is making as well. I would expect that, through the review that has been taken forward by the Deputy Chair, Nicola Merchant and Malcolm Burr, the chief executive of Western Hills Council, we will help to look at what further work can be put in place to strengthen the role of the SPA in discharging that responsibility and to ensure that they are getting the right support and the right information to allow them to undertake that role effectively. Cabinet Secretary, I have a couple of questions around the current public appointments process for the SPA, but I am not alluding to the letter. Can you give your views on the current process, please, of public appointments to the SPA? Your views on it, is it successful? Has it proved successful? Have you had representations about the process? The appointment process for the SPA, whether it be a chair or whether it be a member of the SPA, is the same as it is for other public bodies where they are agreed by ministers. For example, there are health boards or another example of an area where it can do the same process. If people think that there is a particular issue about the SPA appointment process, they have to be mindful of that this is reflective of what happens in other public appointment rounds. I believe that that is still an appropriate system for going forward in public appointments. If there is a desire for a wider debate on the whole issue of public appointments, that is a separate issue. We have another appointment route, which is where permanent appointments are appointed. That is set in statute, but it is a different process for different types of bodies that have a different function. It is a process again, which I think works well. I am conscious that people have issues around particular individuals on the SPA, but I do not think that that in itself would suggest that the system of appointment is one that is not fit for purpose. That is without reference to individuals. Do you consider the process to have been effective? Have you had representations about the process? It is effective in the appointment process in itself. The representations that I received were the letter that came from the parties, but I have not received representation beyond that about a desire to see the public appointment process for the chair of the SPA or for any public body that I make appointments to for it to be changed. Without rehearsing some of the challenges that have been about personnel there, do you think that any of the issues that have arisen have dissuaded—indeed, I asked you this in the chamber on one occasion—any group from coming forward to seek appointment? I am thinking particularly that the underrepresentation of women and ethnic minority groups. That is a challenge within the wider public appointment process. As a Government, we have set out our desire to see greater diversity and a greater number of women represented on our groups. On a day of 2020, we want to see 50-50 in our public bodies. In the justice side, it would be fair to say that we have made significant progress. Across the areas that come under my portfolio responsibility. I can check that figure, but I think that it is about 45 per cent of the appointments have reflected that move towards trying to get 50-50 representation on our public boards. We are making progress. I also wrote to the chair of the SPA earlier this year setting out the need to have greater diversity on the SPA. One of the options that I have asked them to consider is to consider whether they can co-opt individuals on to the SPA on particular issues in order to help to address some of those issues, which I know that they are going to give consideration to. There is an issue about the public appointment process in general and people applying to it. I know that there has been work done previously to try to make it more accessible and to encourage more people to apply to individuals, particularly from an ethnic minority. I think that that is a wider issue within public appointments rather than being specific to the SPA in itself. Good afternoon, cabinet secretary. This is the third SPA chair that we are looking at in four years, so you will be aware that perhaps there is a perception that the selection process so far has not been all-together successful. I think that there is an acknowledgement back to an extent in the First Minister's response and the cabinet secretary's statement that he had spoken to Justice Spokesman. As the First Minister had indicated in First Minister's questions, the Scottish Government was not unsympathetic to the Parliament's wish to have a role in the appointment of the SPA chair. He then went on to say in his statement to also September, cabinet secretary, that you would be in touch with Justice Spokesman within the next few days. I think that it was a clear expectation that you would speak to each of these Justice Spokesmen. Did you do so? No, I didn't. I wrote to Claire Baker, who was the lead person who wrote to me, which was supported by the other Justice Spokespersons and responded directly to her on the matter. Given the time that it was involved in this, it seemed to be the most appropriate way in which to try to expedite the process and to ensure that there was an opportunity for feedback from Justice Spokespersons on that. It seemed to be the quickest way in which to deal with it. The letter merely said that everyone was agreed—each Justice Spokesman was agreed—that the Parliament should have a greater role. It didn't stipulate how that should happen, and there was certainly, I can tell you, from some of the Spokesmen. A real expectation, there would be a discussion on that, but that didn't take place. I responded with an author to the Justice Spokespersons, and I responded to Claire Baker, who was the MSP who wrote to me on the issue with supporting signatures from the other party members, proposing what would be an offer to try to take the issue forward. I am not entirely clear what the issue would be. The point is that it was a clear expectation, cabinet secretary, that this would be discussed, albeit that we will get on to why there was some haste in this time sensitive or whatever you have just said. However, that was not done. I think that that is a mission. With the benefit of hindsight, do not you think that that would have been a better way to approach every single Spokesman to make sure that they were contacted as it seemed to be, to say that I would be in touch with the Justice Spokesman within the next few days? I am comfortable with how I dealt with it given the timeframe that we had. This is a live process that has already taken place. The closing date for the applications to this process was last week. There was a very limited amount of time in order to be able to agree this, because all those who are applying for it have to be notified that there has been a change to the process. At the same time, it also has to be agreed with the commissioner. Given the time pressures and the desire that members had to be involved in the process, that is why I took it forward in a way in which I am comfortable with the approach that I have taken on the matter. Did you not set the timetable, cabinet secretary? Do you mean the timetable for the appointment process? Absolutely. When the date was appointed 21st of August? The process was already started by then. The appointment process had already started by the time that I had received the letter, and the process had been approved by the commissioner for ethical standards. When did the process start? I think that that is the fear. Before I bring the cabinet secretary back in, I think that we need to be mindful of the statements that were made at the beginning of this meeting and the statement that the cabinet secretary made. Questions about this particular process are not suitable to ask. I find that absolutely astounding, convener, that a simple question like, when did this process begin, cannot be answered, because it is very important, cabinet secretary. You may recall that, in the 22nd of June, I brought up this very issue of the appointment and suggested during this very sub-committee meeting with HMICS that perhaps we should look at an appointment process similar to that of other public appointments such as the FOI commissioner and the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman, where four members of the main parties are in the process. There is an independent assessor who is chaired by the presiding officer and the appointments there all seem to have been very successful. At the very least, I would have thought that that was reasonable to consider and make sure that we were fully transparent as accountable as we could. In terms of the founding legislation and the statutory requirement, quite frankly, if the political will is there, an amendment to that could have been made when Parliament reconvened. Cabinet secretary has outlined the process. The process has been agreed and we have given a commitment that the specific details of the process will not be questioned today. I think that we have to respect that. I think that my comments would be better directed to our party representative who was a co-signature with myself and others. I have to say that there is no mystery about that. I understand the process. I accept the offer that was made and I do not know whether the cabinet secretary is able to say whether any of the other party representatives have subsequently made representations. I understood that to be agreed. I think that Margaret should be… I can go from my house. I have spoken with the party spokesman from my party and the views that I am reflecting are his views for clarification. If I could perhaps… Cabinet secretary, do you want to come back in? I have not received any other representation other than the letter from Clare Baker on this issue and I have not had any informal approaches from any other justice spokespersons. I may be referring to your statement saying that we will be in touch in the next few days, cabinet secretary. If I can move on then to the next issue, which was the fact that the convener felt it necessary at the beginning of this meeting to make a declaration of interest and to ask the cabinet secretary's view, which was to the effective fact—you can correct me if I am wrong—that he was happy to rely on the convener's judgment that it would… that her participating in the process would not interfere with the role of the committee as convener. That falls short of an absolute ringing endorsement. I see you smiling and you are looking quite puzzled, cabinet secretary, but I remind you that this is the third appointment in four years and I think the public and I think those in Police Scotland and all the people who regularly look at the kind of problems—to put it mildly—that both the SPA and Police Scotland have had over the years would want you to make sure that you were putting in place the very best selection process and one that was fully accountable and transparent. The cabinet secretary has answered questions about the panel and the process and I think we need to move on now. That is your judgment, convener. I mistake by it, but I think that there is a huge question about this line of questioning and how far we have got to go for what I consider to be legitimate probing questions that the public deserves an answer to. I have to say, you know, this shouldn't be a party political issue and this shouldn't be what this is. This is about respecting a process and accepting good faith information that has been shared. We have heard from the cabinet secretary that there have been no subsequent recommendations. I am trying to imagine the situation of a senior Government minister having representations from four parties and then subsequently being questioned by a member of one of those parties. We either had a collective approach and my understanding was that we did or we didn't. I certainly wish to put on record that I have no concerns about the process that has been formed. There is a further issue about future arrangements and that is a totally different matter. However, the present process is important that the very clear signal that is sent from this committee is that there is absolutely no question regarding the integrity of this process. I have not really agreed to that. John captures my understanding of the process. I will try to move the issue on, but I agree with John's understanding of the issue. Whatever the situation relates to previous recruitment processes and future recruitment processes, there can be little doubt that we have a board at the moment who has lost and is about to lose senior members of the number. What assurances, what extra measures have been put in place to manage and safeguard continuity in terms of the work of the SPA? A couple of things. One of the things that we arranged back in June was for the appointment of a deputy chair, which previously was not in place in order to help to support some of the work that the chair takes forward. It also gives an opportunity for, for example, if members have got an issue about the way in which a chair is dealing with something, they have got an alternative person that they can actually take the matter up with. That role was fulfilled by Nicola Merchant, and she has been heavily involved in a range of different issues since taking on that particular role. The other thing was that the chair agreed that he would remain in post until his successor was appointed in order to allow there to be continuity and to continue to take forward the work of the board, particularly the significant work that they are taking forward around the implementation plans for 2026. The other aspect that I presume that members are referring to is the chief executive of the SPA who is taking early retirement. That recruitment process for an interim chief executive has already started and is at a very advanced stage and appointment is due to take place within the next couple of weeks to allow that again to make sure that, by the time the chief executive is due to leave, the interim chief executive has been appointed and will very quickly be able to move into post. What I have been keen to ensure is that there is not a gap in leadership that we continue to have a chair and we continue to have a chief executive. The chair will remain in post until we recruit the new chair, and alongside that, the recruitment process for the chief executive—which, as a matter for the SPA rather than the Scottish Government—is that that process started as quickly as possible so that an interim appointment could be made and that that is at a very advanced stage and appointment should take place within the next couple of weeks. That will allow the organisation then to move forward. The other aspect that I think from the SPA's point of view that will assist them is that, with the appointment of a new chair, the decision to make to appoint an interim chief executive will allow the incoming chair to assess the report that is completed by Nicola Merchant-Malcambur, looking at governance and support to the SPA board. Alongside phase 2 of the HMICS thematic review of the SPA, which is due to take place later on this year and should report by the spring of next year, to look at those issues and then make a decision on what would be the most appropriate structure going forward to support the board and to make sure that they have the right type of support to inform their decision making. A combination of that continuity until the replacements are brought in, but alongside the work that has been carried out by the review that I mentioned and the HMICS work will allow the incoming chair the opportunity to reevaluate the situation and to make decisions on what they believe would be the best structure moving forward with the organisation. You are entirely confident that there will be a smooth transition and handover in this whole process? Part of the reason for the chair staying on until there is a new chair appointed was to allow that to happen, to help to support that. However, as you are aware, there is a very advanced stage in the appointment process now for the chair and the work around looking to appoint an interim chief executive is a very advanced stage. Anytime there is a transition, there will always be some challenges that come with that, but I am confident that we have done as much as we can to try and help to smooth that process as much as we can and to support the board to allow it to be able to continue to discharge its responsibilities and to function and to take forward the work that is extremely important around 2026 to shape its agenda for the future. Stiffing apart from the process for a second, you will be aware that some of the concerns that arose around the transparency of the workings of the SPA arose at least in part as a result of concerns among the chair and perhaps other members of the media reaction to it. At the moment SPA is understandably very much in the spotlight. Are you satisfied that the reassurances that we have had that the SPA is now committed to working in a more transparent fashion will be upheld through this process, when again, as I say, they find themselves very much in the public eye? I am satisfied and I can already see it happening. For example, the board meeting that is taking place today, the papers of the board meeting were published on Monday of this week, I think that most of them were published on Monday of this week. The other thing that is worth keeping in mind is that I asked HMICS back in June of this year to look at the whole issue of openness and transparency and how the SPA was operating. HMICS made 11 recommendations. The SPA has put an action plan in place, as is the case with HMICS recommendations that, before they can be discharged, HMICS needs to be satisfied that they have made progress against those matters. From the update report, I have been able to view that progress has already been made against a number of those recommendations. I have a timeline for taking forward the other recommendations. We can already see the practical experience of the changes that the SPA has put in place. Alongside that, the additional scrutiny that HMICS offers to the recommendations that they made and the action plan that has now been taken forward by the SPA and the way in which that process has now been monitored by HMICS to make sure that it has been progressed. In the discussions that I have had with members of the SPA, they have a strong desire to make sure that they take those issues forward. I am confident that they will. It will be for the incoming chair to make sure that the organisation continues to make that progress. John Foley, the chief executive in evidence to the justice committee on 7 March, stated that he was a member of the joint programme board in relation to the integration of railway policing into Police Scotland. He also made clear that he was leading in a number of the key areas. The implementation plan, the forming of the relationship with railway organisations, pensions, terms and conditions and the cost allocation models. A number of those have been highly controversial. What confidence do you have that that work will continue, particularly against the backdrop of on-going concerns that is being raised by representatives of BTP staff and officers? As it has happened since Parliament passed the legislation on the integration of BTP into Police Scotland, the role of Police Scotland has increased in the joint programme board in taking that work forward. A significant amount of the work that was being considered at that earlier stage by the SPA has now been taken forward by Police Scotland because of the operational responsibilities that it has. The reason that change has happened is because Parliament has set down the legislation as that is the approach that we are now going to integrate with it. That allowed Police Scotland to take up that greater role as well. I should also say that that has also allowed the British Transport Police to take a much bigger role in the on-going development work. I am confident that the work that has already been taken forward is making significant progress on some of the issues that you have raised. Will there continue to be issues that need to be raised, it addresses going forward? Of course there will, in any change of this nature. However, I am also conscious that the British Transport Police Federation recognised a number of weeks ago that progress has been made around issues about terms and conditions, and it welcomed that. The Scottish Government is working with them alone with others to make sure that they are updating their members as regularly as possible. That work will go forward and continue to move forward. However, what has happened now is that a greater part of that work has now been taken forward by Police Scotland because Parliament has now made it clear that it is positioning the matter and that it is now taking a much greater part in the joint programme board work. That means that the SPA is taking a diminished role in oversight of this process. Some of the areas that the SPA was looking at at that point have now switched to Police Scotland because the Parliament's will is now clearing the issues. It is now leading in some of the issues that previously would have been considered by the SPA. Cabinet Secretary, one of the other things that we have heard quite a lot of evidence from, and you will be aware that Calum Steele has come to committee. He has given us quite substantial evidence about morale within the police force. I understand that there is a lot of change going on in the police force, and Liam has indicated that there are on-going staffing issues and on-going issues around legacy arrangements from previous forces. Are you confident that all the steps that have been put in place will be enough and sufficient to significantly impact on the low levels of morale in the force? What steps are you referring to? There are a number of different operational things that are taking place. There are a number of different work streams going on. There are a variety of different initiatives taking place. I am probably referring less to a specific thing and more to the general picture of all the different work streams that are going on in the police force. Do you think that that will have a negative impact or a positive impact? Those are operational matters for Police Scotland, as you will recognise. You have evidence from Ian Livingstone in the past couple of weeks indicating his determination to take further range of measures and to acknowledge that issues around morale have been an issue of challenge for the organisation. If I recall correctly, he characterised it as that in moving forward. He did not take his people with him to a large extent. That is probably a reflection of what happened with a major change of nature. Having said that, anyone who has looked at major change programmes in the past would say that that is a common occurrence in those types of issues, but it has clearly had an impact on morale in the organisations. One of the areas that I know that the Federation had raised was the whole issue about welfare and the wellbeing of its members and what could be done to help to improve the way in which Police Scotland is addressing those issues. Ian Livingstone led in that particular work stream within the organisation, which has resulted in a new wellbeing policy that has been taken forward. It was piloted on Lanarkshire, if I recall correctly, and then they were looking to roll it out to the rest of the country. A key part of that has been bringing together staff representatives such as the Federation to help to shape that policy. Will that turn around to the organisation in terms of morale tomorrow? That will take time. I am very confident about that those in the executive team within Police Scotland recognise the issue and want to turn those issues around. They are determined to try and take four measures that can assist in doing that. Although that is an operational matter, I certainly do not get the impression from the executive team in Police Scotland that they see that this has been a low priority to them. They see that it is an important priority and they are going to try to take four measures that they believe can assist them in addressing some of those issues. However, the proof will be in the pudding. The proof will be in time whether it starts to have a positive impact on morale. In my experience, there is a range of smaller issues that could be addressed that would help to support some of those matters. It can be down to small practical issues that the service can address. From the discussion that I have had with members of the executive team, they are actively considering how they can take some of those issues forward in the coming months to try to address some of those matters. However, the wellbeing policy work that the organisation has been taking forward, I think that it will demonstrate the desire on the executive team to take forward some of the big issues that can really help to support officers on a day-in, day-out basis. I know that we will hear about governance, but perhaps you will allow me a bit of latitude on that one, please. Generally, when we talk about the Scottish Police Authority, we talk about the relationship with yourself and Police Scotland. There is another very important relationship that has a link to local policing, which is the relationship with the local scrutiny boards. Has that been impacted as a result of some of the changes? I know that my understanding is that there was liaison. People within the board were given a geographic remit to cover. Are you aware of any? I also understand that there is a wide range of different types of local scrutiny boards, but that relationship is pivotal, too. No, I agree. The member may recall that I hosted an event to bring together all the chairs of the committee to identify a range of measures that can be put in place to improve the way in which there was linkage between the local scrutiny committees, Police Scotland and, also, with the SPA, a national level. There is a range of work that has been taken forward in order to strengthen that. I think that the way in which Police Scotland and local commanders are engaging with scrutiny committees has improved. The way in which local scrutiny committees in some parts of the country are now scrutinising local police plans has improved. I think that there has been a learning curve for members of local scrutiny committees as well in looking at those issues. I think that that has improved. From some of the discussion that I have had with the committee members, in some areas they are more comfortable with how that is now working, the way in which local commanders are planning for matters and taking forward local policing plans and engaging with them, that has improved. There is a better understanding around the role that the local scrutiny committee has in that particular process. There has also been a strengthening of the link between the local scrutiny committees and the SPA itself. Is there potential to strengthen that yet further? I think that there potentially is. I would like to see the reviews that have been taken forward just now, and there will be a new chair coming in. I think that there is an opportunity to give a more formalised direct input into the SPA from the local scrutiny committees. Would that be all of the divisional scrutiny committees? I suspect not, but there will be a structure under that that could be helped to support a direct line into the SPA. I think that that could be considered in the future. I think that that would strengthen the local accountability in that tie even more so. Has it improved? Yes. Is there a scope to improve it further? I believe that there is, and I think that there are some ways in which that could be strengthened going forward. However, I do not want to pre-empt the new chair coming in to give them an opportunity to look at those issues and the reviews that have just taken place, but I think that there are opportunities to do that. I understand why you would not want to pre-empt the new chair coming in, but I do not feel quite so conscribed in terms of what I am prepared to say at this stage. I am certainly of the view that the relationship between local scrutiny committees and the SPA is not acting in the way that it should. I constantly hear complaints about the lack of responsiveness from within the SPA to local scrutiny committees. I would certainly welcome the incoming chair and his or her colleagues taking this up as something of a priority. There are also concerns that have been raised around the number of acting and temporary roles making it difficult sometimes for local scrutiny committees to get firm responses to some communications. I do not know whether that is something that has been raised with you directly in relation to Police Scotland. Not specifically in relation to those acting and temporary roles. There was an issue back when I, as a constituency member, there was a bit of frustration from local community councils in that officers were changing much more on a frequent basis. I have noticed that that has settled down that officers are spending longer in local community roles. Just for example, there is now the national chair of the local scrutiny committees. One of the options could be for them to be co-opted on to the SPA board to have that direct voice in there at an SPA level for the chair of the scrutiny committees across the country. That is something that could be explored to give that direct line in. Again, if there is a feeling from particular scrutiny committees that they are not getting the feedback that they believe that they should be, they have someone who is there that could raise that directly within the board. That is just an example. As I said, I am not saying that that should happen because I want to give the new chair an opportunity to look at it, but it is one area that is worth exploring to see whether we could strengthen it further. Just to bring us back to the process that we were initially talking about, the appointment of the new chair. If Parliament were to be given a permanent role in the process to elect a new chair of the SPA, what impact would that have in terms of accountability? You would need a legislative change for that process. You would need a legislative change to the existing arrangements as a ministerial appointment. I think that that begs the question why would the SPA chair be different from that of a health board chair? Why would it be different from other public appointments? That is an issue that would have to be explored and discussed. However, if there was a view that it should be similar to some of the other bodies where Parliament makes an appointment, it is worth keeping in mind that those bodies have a different role. Those bodies are often responsible for holding Government to account in various issues. At the same time, their staff, as I recall correctly, are employed by the Scottish Parliament's corporate body, because Parliament becomes responsible for them, which would raise issues around the staff that are employed by the SPA—for example, that would be all your forensic staff, the forensic services, hundreds of staff, and forensic services that they deliver, because they deliver their service provider, would become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. That would be quite a departure from what we have for any of the other public bodies that Parliament makes an appointment for at the moment, which would all have to be explored and considered in the round. That is a wider issue around public appointments. Why would the SPA chair be different from the other public bodies, given the nature of its role and its responsibility? It is there to hold to account. A major public body has a significant budget of taxpayers' money that it needs to be held to account for, and that is why we have the existing structure in place. That was an issue that was explored at the time when the legislation was going through Parliament, and that was viewed as being the most appropriate way in which we could create that proper line of accountability. Have you had any discussions with Parliament officials around an exception to the process, specifically for the SPA chair? If we were to change the legislation? No, I haven't. I see the existing arrangement in the interview panels being an exception to it. That had to be agreed by the commissioner for ethical standards in public appointments. The reason that I haven't had that discussion is because I'm not at the point where I'm saying that it should change to that process, because there are a whole range of issues in there that I don't think have been explored or considered, that would need to be considered and looked at, alongside that of other public appointments in themselves. That will turn it on its head, and it is somebody who welcomed the offer that you made in making an exception in this instance. Should we get to the position where a future chair needs to be appointed, there will be a process, and presumably there may well be a call from parliamentarians and justice spokespeople at that time. If you did it on this occasion, why aren't you doing it on the next occasion? Do you think that there's now a precedent that's been set that you say it as an exception, but it could, de facto, become the rule? The offer that I made was a genuine one to recognise the interest that Parliament has in this issue, but it is with the exception because the existing arrangement for public appointments for other public bodies is the same as it is for the SPA. I'm containing it within the SPA appointment process. Having made a decision to invite someone on to the interview panel on this occasion, it would inevitably raise questions about why that would not happen again in the future. I haven't given that consideration at this stage yet, largely on the basis that I'm hoping that an appointment of a new chair of the SPA won't be required for a while after the appointment process has been completed. Is it a successful process that makes the argument for going down the same route next time? I'm very conscious of that point as well, and it went through my mind at the time that I was making the offer. However, I think that there is some legitimacy to the argument that it would be difficult to come back from this when it comes to the appointment of the chair. It is worth putting out there that there are quite wide issues that would have to be explored if there was a view that that is an appointment that should be similar to that of the Freedom of Information Commission, because the SPA employed hundreds of staff and delivered services such as forensic services for the police and the Crown, and the Parliament would become responsible for those services in a way that I'm not aware that other public bodies that could, through the other appointment process where the Parliament appoints them, actually deliver such services. They are much more about accountability, and part of that is about holding Parliament to account. Okay, thank you. As there are no further questions from committee, I thank you cabinet secretary for attending and also thank Don McGilvery for attending as well. The next subcommittee will meet on Thursday 26 October, and I now close the 15th meeting of the Justice Subcommittee on policing. Thank you.