 Good morning and welcome to the Justice Committee's 29th meeting of 2018. We have apologies for Jenny Gilruth and we welcome back George Adam to attend as substitute. Our first item on the agenda is consideration as to whether to take our consideration of a draft report on post-legislative scrutiny on the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act 2012 and the draft report on Brexit and the civil and criminal justice systems and policing in Scotland in private today and at future meetings. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on post-legislative scrutiny of the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act 2012. I refer members to paper 1, which is note by the clerk, and paper 2, which is a private paper. Our final scheduled evidence session is with Whomza Yousaf, Cabinet Secretary for Justice Ash Denham, Minister for Community Safety, who are accompanied by their officials. I welcome the cabinet secretary back to the committee and also the minister who is making her first appearance before us in her new role. Both the cabinet secretary and the minister have indicated the wish to make a short opening statement up to about a minute and a half each. Cabinet secretary, do you want to begin? Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. It is a pleasure to be in front of you, and I thank the committee for the opportunity to be here, but also for the very thorough and extensive evidence sessions that you have taken on this important issue. I am sure that, while a number of issues along this journey have been highlighted, the needs for reform and the principles of the 2012 act have been widely accepted. Police and Fire reform is one of the most significant public sector reforms since devolution. As members will know, reform is not just about fiscal necessity and improved efficiency, but it was prompted by unprecedented pressures on budget. We are also of course aimed to improve services and improve outcomes by creating equal access to specialist support and strengthening the connection between services and their local communities. I believe that reform has been successful so far and that there is evidence of the three key aims that are taking effect in both sectors. I should say that contrasts with the position in England and Wales, when the Home Affairs Committee recently published a report that found that the current structure is a significant barrier to the services ability to tackle national and transnational threats. I accept that it has not always been a smooth ride, it would be foolish to suggest otherwise. Reform on this scale rarely is. However, lessons from the first five years are very much being learned. Susan Deacon has overseen significant improvements within the Scottish Police Authority. There is now a strong leadership team with Police Scotland, led by the new chief constable, Ian Livingston. Policing 2026 has created a framework to allow transformation to bed-in following reform, creating a service that is responsive to the challenges of modern policing. I am aware that that can be the very short time that I have for an opening statement, so I will leave it there and say that I look forward to questions from the committee. However, I am very confident that reform has been successful, but I also, of course, need to ensure that we learn lessons from the past to inform better practice in the future. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the committee. I am also pleased to be here to discuss this legislation this morning. The Police and the Fire Reform Act created two very different organisations. The Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2016 sets out Scottish ministers' expectations of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Audit Scotland's 2015 review of fire reform concluded that the Scottish Government and SFRS had managed the merger of the eight fire and rescue services effectively. Audit Scotland also concluded that the performance of SFRS is improving and the move from eight local services to a national organisation had enhanced the scrutiny and challenge of the SFRS. Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate also confirmed that SFRS is operationally effective. I am pleased to note that the majority of submissions to the committee on fire have acknowledged, either explicitly or tacitly, that the policy intentions of the act in relation to fire reform are being met. Looking forward, SFRS transformation proposals are focused on the service delivering more for the communities of Scotland. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the brave firefighters and the staff within the service, who we now work tirelessly to keep us all safe. I thank the cabinet secretary and the minister for these opening statements. I move now to questions. Rona Cymru. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Can I just probe a wee bit further on the case for reform? If I could sort of ask you what the implications might have been had reform not taken place and we'd remained with the legacy. I think that we're on a macaille for the question. I'm going to try not to do this too often but I think that it is helpful that if we look at the financial constraints we all know that we've been under in the last decade, the austerity agenda, the pressure on budgets, you would just have to look at what is happening, for example, in other parts of the United Kingdom, to see what potentially could have happened here. In Scotland, since we've inherited, since we were in administration, the number of police officers that we inherited vastly increased, significantly increased that number of police officers. In the same term, we've seen an almost 14 per cent reduction in officers in England and Wales. I just read that home affair select committee quote, which I think was quite pertinent, which talked about the need for looking at the structure and looking at reform. So it would have been undoubtedly a huge financial burden that would have led to very, very difficult choices, which ultimately would have had impacts on policing at a local level in the communities that we all represent as MSPs. So that would have been certainly part of it. I think that the other part is not just the impact of what would have happened if we hadn't made the reform that we did, but actually looking at what improvements in the service have been made since reform. I thought that you had some very good evidence from a number of third sector organisations, but I was particularly taken by what was said by Rape Crisis Scotland about how they thought, and I paraphrase slightly, but how they said that there would be a really transformative shift in how rape cases were investigated and approached by the police reform in comparison to the previous structure. So there's no doubt at all that without reform we would have faced huge financial pressures, and we still face those financial pressures, and we can discuss some of them and load out in the session. We would have faced really difficult decisions that would have had to be made about police numbers and so on and so forth, but also no doubt that we wouldn't have the specialists and capabilities that we have to the extent that we have if we hadn't gone ahead with reform. In those areas, if nothing else, we've been absolutely successful. Some of that is also borne out—this is the final bit—by the fact that our approach to certain specialities is now being viewed by other countries and other parts of the UK, and I think that's a great testament to the reform. Without reform, the fire services in general in Scotland would have been in quite a different position, although it's a counter-factual—it's quite difficult to say for sure. Whilst delivering the aims of reform, there have been no station closures and no compulsory redundancies, which I think is, in a challenging financial environment, something to be said for that. To echo what the cabinet secretary said about specialist resources, there has been now a much more equitable spread of access to resources across Scotland than there was under the regional system. The objectives of reform have been met. To protect and improve local services, there is equal access across Scotland to resources and to strengthen that connection between the service and local communities. We can see that coming through very strongly. Overall resilience across Scotland has improved very much. The national service is able to respond to incidents across the country in a way that legacy forces just weren't able to do. We can see that coming out if we look at things like the response that was taken to Storm Frank. There were a number of incidents across the country and the service was able to flex response to address those but also to maintain cover across Scotland, which obviously wouldn't have been as easy to do under the legacy system. Also, with major incidents such as the Glasgow school of art fire, numbers of appliances, crews, staff and a huge response like that, but also to maintain coverage across Scotland. Without reform, national resilience and outcomes may have been affected. The cabinet secretary said that she talked about some of the positive evidence and we have heard largely positive evidence, but it was a huge undertaking. Was the size and complexity of what was about to happen fully understood at the outset? Everybody benefits from hindsight. I will doubt that for a second. Obviously, in my position, that predates my role as cabinet secretary for justice. However, I have not heard anything from my predecessor that has suggested that that was going to be an easy task or that his predecessor was going to be a walk in the park by any stretch of imagination. One of the biggest pieces of reform undertaken since the evolution was always going to be challenges. That is why the scrutiny that you have done as a committee has been so welcomed. You are right that the submissions that we have had have been largely constructive and positive, but clearly from stakeholders that there are also concerns, anxieties and questions being asked. As a Government, we look forward to hearing the conclusion of your evidence sessions and the report that you will produce. Where there are lessons that can be learnt in the immediate term, we should look towards that. Where there are perhaps longer-term issues for us to look at, we should take a long-term view of that. I do not think that it was underestimated by any stretch. Those who were involved in that endeavour understood that it would be a huge task, and that it did not doubt for a second that the reform was necessary, but that it would certainly throw up more than one or two issues. Okay, thank you. Liam Kerr supplementary. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Just very briefly, we talked about the policy intentions. I think that Police Scotland is projected to be about 35 million in debt this year. I see the papers reporting today that there could be another 15 million to go on top of that. Has that policy intention been achieved? We are actually a policy intention. We are trying to look at the case for the reform at least. I am happy to answer that. I would make the point to Liam Kerr. If we had that 175 million VAT over the period of reform that was taken off both Fire and Police Scotland, that would have helped our finances fairly significantly. In terms of the deficit itself, Police Scotland—an SPA, I should say—their projections are that it will overreach. It will do better than what was expected of it in terms of financial savings, £1.1 billion. It believes that it will be able to accumulate £1.9 billion worth of savings. When it comes to the deficit, it has a plan to reduce that deficit and tackle that deficit by 2021. Clearly, there are uncertainties around some of that. That brings it being the biggest one. What that will mean for police officer numbers, what that would mean then for deficit reduction and so on and so forth, is obviously still in the air, while the uncertainty around that issue is still plaguing us. However, the savings target attached to reform, that £1.1 billion has not just been expected to be met but will be expected to be exceeded. The deficit issue, of course, is one that we have to continually keep an eye on, right that we scrutinise. However, I would say to the member that those savings are real positive. There will be a bout of overlap between our areas. We are trying to cover themes very thoroughly between reform and policy intentions, so members can judge it for themselves. Liam McArthur Good morning, panel. Just sticking on that theme, clearly we can all learn with hindsight, but the evidence that we have heard from a number of sources, I asked the chief superintendent, Ivar Marshall, who appeared for us on behalf of the Association of Police Superintendents, about the specific issues to whether the complexity had been underestimated. He was absolutely in no doubt that it had. He said that the consequences of that were that we have run a structural deficit for five years because the transformation has not generated the income that we have needed to take a patch-up and make-do approach to the budget. There were real consequences of that. I hear what you are saying about the projections of managing that budget deficit down over future years. However, we were getting those assurances back in 2012-2013 that the financial position would be sound. That was on the understanding that the VAT issue that you raised earlier, the UK Government's position on that, had again been made clear. If that was being factored in, that seems to be a high-risk strategy in terms of setting the foundations for the new police service, is it not? In some respects, it is somewhat difficult for me to go back to the time that predates my role as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and say what were the innermost thoughts of various people within the Government and the police structures around whether they overestimated or underestimated any of the challenges that they had. I have never had that impression, I must say, particularly from my predecessor, that reform would be anything other than a challenging task but a very much necessary task. What I would say about the structural deficit is that the SPA has a plan in place to get that deficit down. It will, of course, be judged on that plan. I put a caveat in there, which the SPA also put in there, that there is uncertainty around how it breaks it and what that will mean for the deficit reduction. We will wait to see. I go back to that central point. I made the reform targets for saving the £1.1 billion SPA project. They will exceed that target, £1.9 billion. I think that that is something that we cannot dismiss. That is very positive. Did the SPA take us longer to get there? I do not know, but we should get those reform savings that we think earlier that they are projected also. I think that we are in a good place. That is not to say that when it comes to any portfolio, including my own, there are not budgets that we have to balance going into financial year, some underspends, overspends that we have to do. I am keeping a close eye certainly on that budget deficit and the SPA know very well that you and the sub-committee are also keeping a close eye on that, but there is a plan to deal with it. I appreciate that, as you say, you cannot second-guest the thoughts not just of your predecessor, but of his predecessor in turn. It is safe to say that the assurances that were being given around the financial position about the savings that would be made were made in part to reassure the Parliament, which saw those savings as absolutely pivotal in allowing the police force in particular, but also the fire and rescue service to deliver against the legislation. I think that the concern is that the assurances that were being given at the moment about budget savings are similarly being offered up in an attempt to reassure. I think that what we need as a committee to understand is how solid the basis for those assurances are compared to what happened last time. You have mentioned on a couple of occasions the threat of Brexit. I think that the issue that seems to rear up most specifically in terms of determining whether those future savings can be made and the structural deficit brought down is the investment in ICT. We have heard Professor Nick Fife saying as much that HMICS has said that Police Scotland themselves have acknowledged a sizable investment in ICT, which is the only way of unlocking a large proportion of those savings. Is there an assurance that you can give the committee that you have heard what Police Scotland is saying and will be responding positively to that case? I can absolutely give an assurance that I have listened to Police Scotland. They have presented their wishes, their desires and their ICT system, which have had a public hearing as you know as well. I do not doubt the need to reform, to invest in that technology. I think that all of us that have interacted with the police, as every member of the Justice Committee here, will have done, will have heard those pleas from the police. It is important that lessons are learned from, of course, I6—again, something that the committee will have looked at in detail previously—that the robustness of the investment that is being asked for from the SPA, from Police Scotland around ICT is now something that we will look to see if we can verify the numbers, the figures, and make sure that we test that to the end-degree. You would expect us to do that. Clearly, when it comes to budget negotiations, I know that Liam McArthur will not expect me to prejudge those discussions. I am, as every cabinet secretary, in those budget discussions with the finance secretary. There is no doubt at all that he and I both, of course, keep a close eye and listen closely to what the chief constable and the chair of the SPA have to say. I should say that it will be important for us to make sure, because of previous experiences, that we absolutely just test the veracity of those figures that you would expect no less of me as a cabinet secretary to do. However, the principle of the case around ICT investment is extremely difficult to argue against. I certainly welcome the assurance that you give around the challenge function to whatever it is that Police Scotland comes forward with in relation to ICT. I think that learning lessons would perhaps be one of the most obvious of those, but if you were to find that the proposal being put forward by Police Scotland in relation to ICT ambitions do not match up, then presumably you need to make an assessment as to the implications that that has for bringing down the structural deficit within the service. As one of the issues around the structural deficit is investment in ICT and as you say, unlocking that. However, it is just worth saying that the deficit reduction plans up until 2021 are not fully dependent on ICT investment. There is an element of that, I absolutely accept that. Bear in mind that the ICT investment plan is over a much longer timescale than, for example, the deficit reduction plan that SPA currently has in place. Although it is a part of it—and I accept fully what Liam McArthur is saying—he is writing that, but it is not the only place where efficiencies can be found, can be made and can be unlocked, but his point is not lost to me. We are flexible today. We are seeing where we go with questions. On that point, cabinet secretary, HMICS has stated in its written submission that the full benefits of police reform will not be evidenced until the national ICT system is in place. It is not just SPA, it is not just a wish from the chief constable, it is pretty fundamental. Could you comment on that? I have a huge amount of respect for the inspectorate that I value what Jill Emery has to say, and I hold a lot of value in the words that she says. I am not here to argue with that. I hope that I have demonstrated an answer to Liam McArthur that any of us that have interacted with the police will understand and believe absolutely that there is a need to invest in ICT. What I am saying is that you would expect—I am sure that others would expect—the public would expect me to, of course, make sure that those figures are absolutely robust. Police Scotland, I have to say when I mention that to them, I am absolutely welcome that robust challenge to the figures, to the detail of the case. Then, of course, there is a conversation for me to have with the finance secretary about unlocking some of the money around that. That is a conversation that is taking place, of course. It is part of budget negotiations, but the finance secretary, of course, as you would understand, would want that case rigorously challenged to ensure that we do not get ourselves into a situation where perhaps we are having to commit more money and to find more money for a project that is valuable, of course, but that could be costing more to the public person than it possibly should be. I want to come back to national resilience in a moment. Given that we are talking about the ICT system, the UK Government has now accepted the principle around VAT, as you outlined in your initial comments. Presumably, having accepted the principle of that, if there was a backdating of VAT to when the issue was first raised, would that be a substantial contribution to the ICT project? Is that being pursued? It is always being pursued, if I am absolutely sure, but it would make a substantial difference to investment in the police, including, of course, to ICT if we got that 175 million between the two organisations, the vast majority of that for police. If they conceded that there was an argument around Police Scotland being able to reclaim 25 million of VAT, then if you agree with the principle, then surely you should agree with the principle, since reform took place now. I have to say that I am not holding my breath to see any movement from the UK Government on that, but if they were to act equitably and fairly on the issue, then yes, the ICT ask from Police Scotland is in and around the 300 million market shy of that. The VAT would perhaps go a fair way in helping with that investment. Going back to national resilience, without a doubt, the evidence has been very strong that if you are to hold up what has been the biggest success of reform, it has been without a doubt the ability—which, of course, is one of the three pillars—of both services to respond with more equal access. If you think about some of the big challenges that have faced the services, whether it is the art school fire or significant storms, then that has been proven. My question would be what further scope is there to enhance and build that national resilience in other areas? If you look at the third pillar around the need to strengthen the connection between services and communities, is it fair to say that, while continuing to focus and improve on national resilience, the effort and focus, particularly over the past few months, has shifted to strengthening that local connection. The evidence that we have all heard has pointed to, perhaps initially, that not being the strongest outcome of reform but that, over the past few months, we have seen significant progress. A number of local authorities have given evidence, which I am sure that you have seen, to suggest that there has now been marked improvement in those local connections, where there may be scope to go further is around issues around budgets and having more devolved budgeting and control over those budgets. It would be useful to hear over the next period of time, both in national resilience and that local connectedness, what are the key objectives of the continuing reform that you would like to see? To try to take both questions in the order that they came, in terms of the national resilience piece, I agree with John Robinson's assessment and also the assessment of a number of third sector organisations in particular that there has been dramatic improvement in many areas of police investigation and police approach to a number of issues. Again, rape crisis Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid, I thought that their evidence was particularly compelling on that front. I think that where Police Scotland will look to continue to improve and strengthen—it is probably the better word—strength in that national resilience will be in and around some of those challenges that we face around cybersecurity and cyber resilience. It will continue to do the work that it is doing on child protection and human trafficking as well. Of course, the terror threat, which, if you look over the past 12 months in the UK, we know that that challenge can take many different forms. There is no doubt about that. There is then looking at what they have done in and around the area of sexual offences and domestic abuse, which you again heard comparing evidence around and seeing how that capability can be rolled out across other parts of the service. I thought that the evidence from the chief constable was incredibly stark. I thought that that was statistically used. In his words, I think that it was that 320 murders have been committed since Police Scotland was formed, and all but two of them had been detected. I think that the two that were involved were undetected when it came to serious organised crime. I should say that that is the other capability, which I know that Police Scotland, if I am a national perspective, is looking to strengthen its approach and its investigation and disrupting of serious organised crime. The second part of our question, which I imagine will be a fair part of your evidence gathering session around local issues. Again, I thought that the evidence from local authorities was challenging, in some respects. I think that they were quite frank in saying that, in the first years of reform, they had not worked to their expectations. However, I definitely detected from the evidence sessions that many of them were saying that they are in a much better and much improved situation. I am also heartened by the chief constable's words on that. I am paraphrasing not directly quoting, but the chief constable who said on many occasions that he is very keen to see how he can further devolve aspects of policing to local authorities and local communities, ultimately. We are looking at how we strengthen from a national perspective. I heard evidence from local authorities suggesting that the Scottish Government and some aspects need to be involved in some of that local conversation. A bit more, we have the convener scrutiny forum that involves the Scottish Government official level, which meets a couple of times a year, which helps to add to that. There are statutory obligations on both the police and the Government when it comes to policing about engaging with and consulting with local authorities. However, I have to say that, of all the evidence sessions that you have taken, the input from local authorities is one that I have kept a really close eye on. I am very keen that there are improvements to be made, which evidently from the evidence that there are, that we should make those improvements. Are there parts of the UK that are looking at some of the evidence and outcomes now that both services are quite far down the line, or are there other parts of the UK that are looking? I know that there is talk about reform elsewhere. Are you aware of that? Just going by the budget, there was mention of reform around the police service by the chancellor. I do not doubt for a second that there are many parts of the UK looking at what we have done here in Scotland. It would be also fair to say that there has been a fair bit of international interest in Police Scotland and the reform process that they have undertaken as well. That is recognising, I think, with humility, no doubt that there were challenges, of course, but not forgetting that one of the key successes of Police Scotland and the reform will be judged by making our community safer. If I look at the statistics from 2012-13 to now, the Crime and Justice Survey estimates that a 13 per cent reduction in recorded crime overall is from reform. We have seen some really positive indicators about keeping our community safe, and it is not a surprise to me that other parts of the UK and indeed internationally are looking at the achievements of Police Scotland. Minister, you have not had an opportunity to comment on the local scrutiny aspect and any other aspect that was covered in Shona's questions. I would like to add from a fire perspective. I think that when we think about fire, we often think about obviously responses to fires, but obviously the fire and rescue service cover so many other aspects, a variety of other incidents that they respond to. Things that are growing, such as climate change. That can be things like flooding, which we have seen across Scotland quite a lot over the past few years, and the fire and rescue service responds to that. Equally, that can also involve dry weather, which can lead to wildfires, which we saw in the summer, and we saw the great response that the fire service made to those this year. Also, things like terrorism as well, so the national resilience, the fact that the national service has that capability in order to respond to incidents of this type, is a very important part of their role. When I was doing visits during the summer, I went to visit Dumfries station, and that is one of their new specialist water rescue stations. Obviously, I went out to see a demonstration of the capabilities that they had there. The officers that were there were very clear with me that the ability to do the water rescue, to have that specialism in Dumfries, was very important to them because of the fact that they are being required to use it so much locally. In fact, since they started that in 2017, they have been called out for water rescue 28 times already, so they are using it an awful lot. Also, they were very pleased to be part of that national picture as well, to have that capability and to be able to respond not just locally but across the broader picture. On how the fire service interacts with local communities, I think that there is some very good evidence that the way that the legislation was set up, particularly with the local senior officers, the LSOs, was enshrined in the legislation in 2012. It is working very well. It allows that connection between local communities and that scrutiny with local councillors and so on. The Audit Scotland report of 2015 had commented on that as well and said that it had very effective local engagement with the move to the national service. I hope that that gives a flavour from the fire perspective. Briefly, cabinet secretary, to go back to your community's line, the policy intent on communities. I think that there are reports this morning that the clear-up rate for burglaries is sitting at around 23.9 per cent. If that is right, is the cabinet secretary really comfortable that the community policy intention has been achieved? When it comes to being comfortable, we would all want to see our statistics going in a positive direction, a positive trajectory. The question was about local accountability and local governance. What I would say is that there are various statistics, whether it is our recorded crime stats, whether it is a crime and justice survey, and the longer-term trend. I know that people can pick out one-year trends. I do not dismiss them, but the longer-term trends have seen a positive trend in a positive trajectory when it comes to violent crime, when it comes to robberies, for example, over the last decade. We have seen positives. Am I pleased about that statistic that Liam Kerrnaw? Of course, I am not comfortable with that statistic. We will continue to ensure that all of us collectively push Police Scotland to see what further action can be taken to increase the clear-up race. The point was about local accountability and local scrutiny. One of the key elements of the act is to ensure that whatever Police Scotland produced, the local policing plans have to be in consultation with local authorities. The statutory requirement for local commanders helps to inform some of that. In your evidence session, there are gaps that are identified by local authorities in particular, which you think could help to drive up clear-up rates and to drive down crime. Of course, I have no doubt that Police Scotland, SPA and the Government will look closely at that. I think that I heard what you say, cabinet secretary, in linking the positive trend in reducing crime rates to police reform. It is true to say that reducing crime rates is a feature across the UK where we have not seen reform. I am struggling to understand why you would make a causal link between the restructuring of Police Scotland and the reduction in crime rates. I am not entirely sure. I will go back into my briefing and see whether he is right about there being a reduction in crime rate across the other parts of the UK. I will double check that if I may and come back to him. My point that I was making was clearly in some areas, as you have heard, evidence from rape crisis Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid. There has been a transformative approach to investigation of certain crimes. We know that there has been, for example, more confidence now in, for example, reporting sexual crimes and so on and so forth. All I was doing simply to give the member some comfort was just giving them the actual numbers on the ground, which are that the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey estimates that crime has fallen by 13 per cent since 2012-13. Now there will be a variety of factors around that. However, I make the point that we are doing better than other parts of the UK. I think that reform is certainly a part of that. Just looking at the statistics in England and Wales, we saw an increase by 11 per cent in terms of recorded crime in 2017-18. Now I appreciate the difference of recording and methods of recording, but that is different to what we saw in Scotland. With respect, you have just lectured the committee about long-term trends. I would be interested to get a figure that is comparative, as opposed to plucking a figure out of the area. I would also caution against attributing reductions in crime rates to structural reform of policing. There is a variety of reasons why crime rates will be down in Scotland, and it would be dangerous to attribute police reform or to give too much significance to the restructuring of policing to any figures, whether on an annual basis or in a longer term. I think about two things. First of all, I would never come to the committee to lecture the committee, I should say, ever. That is not the approach that I was taking. I was simply suggesting that it is important—I said in my answer that I would never dismiss one-year figures. I simply make the point that longer-term trends are what we should look at. I will see if I can provide those for Liam McArthur. However, where there is a point of agreement between Liam McArthur and I, and I do not look to seek any disagreement here, I think that the point of agreement is that I am not suggesting that reform is the only reason that there has been a reduction in crime that we have seen over the past five years since reform, but I think that it would be childish to ignore the fact that reform has brought some capability, some additionality to that, and it has been a part of the downward trajectory that we have seen since reform. I accept that we are seeing a downward trajectory also before reform, but I certainly think that that reform has played a part in that. Good morning, panel. It is following on from the line of questioning from Shona and Liam McArthur. Do you think that, cabinet secretary, there is a consistency across the country in terms of protection and improvement of local services? I know that you have given some really good national examples. You have talked about them a few times, but are there any local examples that you can give? I know that the minister referred to a good example from a fire perspective in Dumfries. Of course, what I would say is that, when it comes to national expertise, we know that there has been a concerted effort to get a more effective response on issues such as terrorism, child protection, major investigations and human trafficking as just some examples. Almost every single one of us around the table will have dealt with cases that involve difficult issues around major investigations and child protection issues. The fact that those are national capabilities that have been strengthened, we should not lose sight that the effects of that are noticed locally. It is locally that you will notice the positive effects of that national speciality, national capability. On those issues, I would say that, in terms of meeting local needs, there is an emphasis on this in the 2026 strategy, but also on the three-year implementation plan that the police have from 2017 to 2020. It is worth saying that national regional expertise also includes front-line officers who are deployed in communities across Scotland, so when and as the need arises, they provide additional support to local policing. There are a number of areas where we have seen a strengthening of a national capability, but that is being felt at a local level. I know that we will keep going back to what was said by Rape Crisis Scotland and others, but that will be felt at a local level. That transformative change, as Rape Crisis Scotland referred to it, will very much be felt at a local level. I think that a lot of that area has been well covered by the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister, but just as a follow-up point to that, how do you think that we can improve the local scrutiny bodies? We heard quite a lot of evidence from various local authorities in different areas. The police are talking about different areas and how some issues such as missing people, for example, can be a lots of national issues. It can be more of an issue in some areas as opposed to others, so how do you think that we can improve those local scrutiny bodies to make sure that, as you say there, the issues that may have more significance or are only significant in a certain area can be highlighted in people brought on board to deal with that? I think that the COSLA police scrutiny conveners forum, which brings together the elected members who lead on police scrutiny functions across the 32 local authorities, meets a couple of times a year and includes senior representation from Police Scotland, the SPA, the Scottish Government. I think that that is probably the forum by which to have that conversation, because I do not doubt what local authorities say that certain focus is on national capabilities. There might be a disconnect between that and what they are perceiving on the ground of their particular local authority, and it has to be the forum by which to be able to air that. There are various forums, but there is a very high senior level forum in terms of the COSLA's police scrutiny conveners forum. It is probably the place by which to have some of that conversation, but I have no doubt at all, especially to the stakeholders that I have spoken to. Everybody is looking very closely at the evidence sessions that you have had and the outcomes of that. We are happy to see where we can improve, and I am sure that Police Scotland and the SPA from the evidence I have seen are also happy to see where there can be improvements in some of those governance structures. I think that the police scrutiny conveners forum will be incredibly important, making sure that there is alignment between local and national priorities. SFRS, similarly, is a national service, but it is delivered locally. There is a need to balance that consistency across the country with local autonomy, where it is necessary because that is usually quite beneficial. The legislation allows for that balance to be struck there. There is that leeway there for local priorities to come through. With the LSOs, as I mentioned in my previous answer, to develop tailored local plans in conjunction with all the local partners, with local communities in order to meet the needs of the local communities. As a direct consequence of how the national service is working, I think that most people would agree that local elective members are now having a much more interaction with the service than ever before. I think that that is coming through very much more. It is clear that it is accountable, but there is leeway there for the LSOs to develop more and to respond directly to local priorities. I begin by picking up a comment that you made in your opening remarks. In the opening remarks, you said that there are a number of lessons learned. On a number of occasions, you have also said that we could all benefit from hindsight. I am just wondering if you could just bring to life what the key issues that you think we would have benefited from hindsight and what the consequences might have been in terms of the things that we might have wanted to avoid if we had had that hindsight at the outset? I would say that I am always happier looking forward than I am looking back, but it is important to do so. The purpose of this evidence session and the evidence session that you have taken is to learn some of those lessons. I think that there is no doubt at all that issues around local scrutiny, governance and alignment have been a key theme. Looking back over the years, could some of those structures have been improved for local governance and scrutiny? Where the act will have a statutory requirement, how does that give an effect? For me, the local issue in hindsight is for sure. When I look at other issues on national capability, I think that there are lessons to be learned. From politicians, Government, SPA and Police Scotland, if no doubt it has taken a bit of time to be comfortable with each of the roles and responsibilities that those institutions and organisations have. I do not doubt that we are in a much better place now that if we look back and say that some of the difficulties and challenges that we face could have been avoided potentially, I have got no doubt in that as well. For me, the particular lessons that I am hearing loud and clear are in and around the local priorities, local governance, local scrutiny and ensuring that the national police service that we have is aligned to some of that. Following on from colleagues' lines of questioning, in terms of local division numbers, we have seen a reduction of more than 300 officers from local divisions. Likewise, we had very clear evidence from both Callum Steele and Iver Marshall about the pressures that officers in local divisions feel. Both of them expressed a need for a demand-led review to look at the requirements placed on local divisions and to look at what the resourcing levels might be. Their point being that, in a sense, the numbers are very much inherited from the legacy forces and that the reason and rhyme of why those levels are what they are has well and truly been lost probably well before reform ever took place. Do you reflect that requirement? Do you think that there is a need to have a demand-led review and would you back their calls? This is always a difficult position to be in, as Cabinet Secretary for Justice, in the sense that you, not you personally, but I imagine the Parliament would be the first to accuse me of being interfering if I was to dictate to the chief constable how many should be at national, regional or local level, how many officers should be at those levels. At the same time, I absolutely cannot ignore what local authorities and what other stakeholders that Daniel Johnson has mentioned may well say. I go back to my point, if I may, to Fulton MacGregor. Although officers and a rebalancing of officers may be more officers than we have seen in previous years in the national capability, that does have a local impact. It does have an impact in creating keeping local communities safe and tackling specific issues. I mentioned some of them, child protection, human trafficking, major investigations at very much a local level. It is not a case of officers sitting in some kind of national library tower, not doing work at a local level. That is not at all to dismiss his points and other stakeholders' points. In fact, in a Labour's manifesto discussed having a Police Scotland, if I remember the quote correctly, it was a balanced workforce. For the chief constable to be given that leverage to create that quote-unquote balanced workforce is going to be incredibly important. I won't say this often, but I agree with that in your manifesto that we have to give the chief constable absolutely the space from an operational perspective to do what he thinks is right to get the positive outcomes that is possible. I am not in a position, and I won't certainly be demanding that the chief constable deploys officers in a certain way. That is very much for him to do. I am just following up some of the previous points. I do not want to tread on other's toes, but just one specific suggestion that has come up frequently in our evidence sessions is the possibility of giving local scrutiny panels powers over budget and the ability to appoint divisional commanders. Do you think that those sorts of financial powers of appointment is something that could be put into place to beef up the role and strength that local scrutiny panels have? I will go back to what I said in one of my opening answers to a question. I am just paraphrasing one of the exact quotes, but I am paraphrasing the chief constable who said from his appointment, which has been very warmly welcomed across the board, that he is very keen to see how he can further devolve policing to local communities. I will leave it at that. That shows that there is a willingness and a scope to look at sensible measures that are brought forward that allow communities a greater say in how they are policed. Cabinet Secretary, you said that you did not want to be accused of interfering, except that you do. The good news for you is that you do it with the blessing of all the other opposition parties. That comes with this fixation with the figure 17234. Do you acknowledge that? We have moved away from that figure in the sense that it was not in our manifesto for 2016. That has been understood, in fact. That was the true of almost all the manifestos. I do not know about the green one, in particular, I have to say. Whether that was in your manifesto or not, the idea that the chief constable should be given the space to create a balanced workforce is absolutely right. That is very much predicated on my responsibilities to keep Scotland safer, which is operational capability. Any reduction in police officer numbers will do oversight in ensuring that there is enhanced operational capability. There is no detriment to the service due to those numbers, but we are in a position now and in a place where we have to allow the chief constable to create that balanced workforce. That is very good. You are right to say that this is retrospective examination. With regard to that figure, it is often not picked up on fact that it was 10 rather than eight organisations that had to be rationalised and that police officers could not be redundant. Chief officers—I welcome the deduction—did not have their contracts renewed, but it was not an inevitability that there would be an effect on the front line. We have heard various views about the resilience on the front line, brought about by the insistence on that figure. Just expand slightly on what you are saying. If you cannot make officers redundant and I would not seek to make officers redundant, if you cannot make officers redundant and the only part of your staff that you can make redundant is police support staff, then this led to the inevitable situation of the backfilling of posts. Indeed, officers who might otherwise have been deployed on what would be referred to as front line duties were sitting in offices doing tasks and acknowledged not as well as the police staff who had been there before them. Some of the reduction of police staff is inevitable when you take out the duplication of a number of forces coming together, so there is no doubt that that was going to be a consequence of that. The same vein, I do not take away from what John Thinney says. I always value what John Thinney says because of the experience in the police, but I do not take away from what he says. We have seen in terms of the recent numbers, we have seen in terms of the latest publication of numbers, and we have seen a more balanced workforce that will deploy officers back on the front line where they should be now. There will be some element where some officers will not be able to be in the front line for maybe pregnant, injured or sick. That is understandable, but I certainly see from the latest statistics that I have had and I have seen that we are seeing more officers being taken out of those backfilling posts and certainly on the front line. Cabinet Secretary, do you able to say the lessons that the Scottish Government learnt as regard strengthening the connection between service and communities from the way that the deployment of armed officers were dealt with and the issue of stopping search? Both issues are always important to learn from. I will go back to the answers that I have given to previous questions. The greater alignment that we can have between not just local needs but also the desires and wishes of local communities around the two subjects that he mentioned, but also other equally subjects that invoke emotion rightly and understandably. The more alignment that we can have between the national service and the local needs, desires and priorities, the better. I think that we have some structures in place to do some of that, but where that can be improved, we should absolutely look at that. Yes, learning lessons from previous issues absolutely, but we have to say that we look at issues around stopping search around having an armed capability. That will invoke different emotions and reactions from different people. Those are always going to be contentious issues, I do not doubt, but having an alignment with local desires is incredibly important. Do you think that community impact assessments are an important role and that they have been sufficiently used by Police Scotland? I would have to look back at those issues specifically. I am afraid that I would not be able to say from the top of my head whether or not the sufficient community impact assessments had taken place when those issues were being discussed. I am happy to look into that and provide perhaps more detail to John Finnie. That is retrospective, as I am intending to do in my new role. There is a new chief constable there, a new chair of the SPA, a new chief executive of the SPA. We are all committed to absolutely ensuring that there is as much consultation and engagement at a local level when it comes to defining our policing strategies moving forward. I think that I might be able to save you that work. It is perhaps being done. If I give you the example of the armed officers, I do not think that any reasonable person would assume a line in a paraphrase here. We will standardise police deployment operations for AFO and authorised firearms. Across Scotland, we would see a situation where previously armed police officers within vehicles would be patrolling Inverness High Street. It would be good if lessons would be learned from the approach. Good morning again. It is not ideal for the Scottish Government to have too great a role in Police Scotland. The committee has looked at the appointment process for the chair and members of the SPA. Could the appointment process, being as it is made by the Scottish ministers, lead to at least a perception that the organisation is not as independent as it should and could be? Again, we will reflect on any sensible suggestions that are made in relation to how we can strengthen some of those processes. My understanding is—Donah will keep me right here—for the appointment of officers and deacons as the chair, then the convener of the Justice Sub-Committee Mary Fee, at the time, had a role to play in that appointment process. That gave the Parliament a role in that. That was the right thing to do, and it seems to have been a successful appointment process. Again, people have been largely welcoming of Susan Deacon's appointment and recognised the work that she has done in her first 11 months in the role. Where there is a sensible space to have a conversation around how we strengthen those processes, then absolutely. At the same time, I make the point that the Scottish Government is a sponsor, so SPA is accountable to us. It is usually important, and we cannot dismiss that. It is not an insignificant fact. However, where we can look to strengthen processes, I will do my best to keep it on open mind. I have to say on the appointment process that the convener of the Sub-Committee is involved in part of that. That is a positive development. I just clarify, cabinet secretary. That was a one-off arrangement. Are you saying that that is something that you would look to change and build in? I am open minded to that suggestion. I think that it worked well the last time. Whether that arrangement was informal or we wanted to formalise it, it would be open minded to that discussion. You will be aware that at that time there was some criticism, maybe not from all the members, but I certainly had some concerns that to then involve the police sub-committee chair who would then be in the appointment and then be performing the role of assessing and scrutinising that role is potentially causing a bit of a conflict. If there are other suggestions of ways to improve that, but also give the Parliament some sort of role, I would look at that. I think that where my concerns would be in others, I have mentioned that perhaps allowing Parliament, for example, a role in the sense that all political parties being involved in the process. I would be in danger of politicising in any appointment. I think that we would have to just be careful about that particular difficulty and challenge. However, if there are other suggestions on how to strengthen the appointment process, I would say that I will take an open minded approach to that. I thought that the last one worked well, but I do not take away from what the community members have said, but there might be another way of perhaps strengthening that. Perhaps a question for the minister. It has been suggested that some of the early challenges within Police Scotland were down to personalities and certain clashes and responsibilities between those in charge. It would appear that the SFRS has not had the same issues. Do you draw a conclusion that the early challenges in the police and perhaps those challenges not being faced in the SFRS were simply down to personalities? If so, does that not beg the possibility that it could happen again? I think that the 2012 act obviously had two very different organisations that it brought into effect there. Obviously, the fire and rescue service is quite considerably smaller than the police service as well, so I think that possibly it has had some effect on complexity and so on. However, two very different organisations and very different legacy issues as well, so I think that we have to take that into account also. The other difference between police and fire was that fire has a much more straightforward organisational model, and I think that that has worked well for them, so that is what I would say on that. It has been suggested to us that the 2012 act was not sufficiently clear about the respective roles and responsibilities of both the SPA and Police Scotland. Does the Scottish Government take a view on whether it would be useful to amend the 2012 act to provide greater clarity about the roles and responsibilities of Police Scotland and the SPA, or, as we heard in evidence from the SPA, do you take the view that the act is the act and there are better ways to achieve that? I think that I am more in alignment with the SPA on that one. It feels to be, again, being relatively new in to role, but it feels to me that with the new chair, again, relatively new chair, new chief constable, hopefully with the new chief executive that has come to the wealth of experience, obviously a new cab, second place, that we are in a place where we have some fresh faces undoubtedly there, but also we are seeing, I think, certainly more stability in the chief constable and the chair have a lot to do with that. I have to say, and I think that anybody would recognise, even if you are critical, I think that anybody would recognise that the chair of the SPA has really been working her socks off and working really hard to try to improve structures. Now, when it comes to key learnings, I noticed that the SPA improvement plan at 18.19 sets out key improvements of how it works, responding in recommendations to 14 different reviews, inspections and audits, so we have a plan to move forward. I think that going back to your question to the minister, if I may just come in on that and on the personalities, I think that it is around approach that is used as important. Again, if people recognise that Susan Deacon's approach and Ian Livingstone's chief constable's approach has been very open, has been to engage, has been to welcome transparency and accountability, and I think that that is really, really important, and that is equally, of course, the approach that the Government has had, and we will continue to have. It is not the time to be necessarily taking up time-consuming amendments to legislation. I think that the structures are there, the processes are there, the improvement plans are in place to improve things for the future. If I could press you on that in particular Cabinet Secretary, then certainly they have seemed to work more collaboratively. That brings you down to personalities and the governance structures that the new SPA chair has certainly been looking at to try to make improvements within Police Scotland. Is there a potential conflict of interest with the SPA's dual role, which is to work in that collaborative way, to look at improvements within Police Scotland and also to provide that independent scrutiny of how the police is working? For it seems to me that it is that dual role that has perhaps caused the problems in the past. I am entirely convinced. I will listen to the evidence session and what you and others have to say in particular on this. Anybody who has encountered Susan knows that she will not be afraid to challenge, and I can see that she does that robustly when it is required. I know from speaking to the chief constable that maybe it is somewhat counterintuitively, but he welcomes that robust challenge. I do not think that the issues within the roles and responsibilities. I think that the way SPA is working now provides the ability to robustly challenge at the same time, making sure that priorities are aligned. I do not see it as a conflict. I will look through the evidence sessions that you have taken in depth, but it does not seem to me that that was a key issue or theme that was coming out of the evidence sessions that you took. I think that the chief constable mentioned that perception was important, as it is, with the succumbent of Government officials in the interim to try and improve Governance relations. It is, again, the independent scrutiny aspect that I would welcome the cabinet secretary's thoughts on and the fact that he is prepared to look back on that and see if there could be an issue there. Rona Cymru. If I could ask the minister please, the Fire Brigade Union had some concerns that the SFRS board did not have enough operational expertise in the board, and they asked that maybe the composition could be looked at. I wonder if I could have your reaction to that. There is no evidence that there are any significant challenges or concerns regarding the make-up of the board, and legislation supports that the right skills and expertise are available in the chair. I can decide on what expertise and skills she needs on the board and recruit them appropriately. Six new members have been appointed to the board quite recently covering extra skills such as digital and accountancy. I do not think that there is any need for amendments in the legislation to change that in any way. There is also a significant amount of operational experience, because the chief officer, the deputy chief officers and the assistant chief officers can attend. Obviously, there is a vast amount of operational experience between all of them. If any more is needed, there is the inspector as well, so that can be called on. Additional seconded expertise can be brought in for specific challenges as and when they are required. I think that there are significant operational expertise already available to the board. I return to the governance aspect. You will be aware that Unison Police Staff Scotland has raised questions around the governance that needs greater openness and clarity in their view concerning ministerial decision making. It has been difficult to see where boundaries are and where ministerial advice and guidance starts and instruction, direction and intervention end. Can you comment on that aspect? To some extent, some of that will be subjective and has been a point of political debate recently. Where we think guidance and where we think the act can be strengthened to demonstrate that. I will keep an open mind. I do not think that the act has to be amended, I have to say, for this particular issue. I go back to convener the point that you made that perception is incredibly important. I have a responsibility to ensure that communities are kept as safe as possible. The relationship that I have managed to strike up with Susan Deacon and the chief constable is a very positive and collaborative one now. It is one where we will often challenge, and we talked about, for example, challenging robustly the kind of ICT case that has been put before me, so we will challenge where appropriate. But equally, we are aligned with the priorities and the overarching priorities that we wish to see. As much transparency in those conversations, as much transparency, excuse me, in those interactions, the better. I welcome that, as opposed to shy away from it. I could ask more specifically how you see yourself using your car's administrative direction. Will there be any pavers, always by you, in writing papers and writing, or to the SPA? I note in particular that, in the unison submission that they call for shaping our national police service, there needs to be greater clarity and more openness about ministerial decision making. How decisions are arrived at and applied and accounted for by way of records, minutes, all very important for transparency and openness, especially when you are talking about this collaborative working. I think that there needs to be, on the other side, a trail of what is being discussed on those minutes and records. I do not disagree. I understand the need for transparency, the need for appropriate notes to be taken. Equally, even our harshest critics will recognise that there is an importance to have a space to be able to talk very frankly with colleagues. It does not matter what ministerial portfolio you have to talk to stakeholders, but that can never be at the expense of making sure that we have appropriate recorded notes, minutes and so on, which I do not shy away from at all. I will look carefully at what unison others have said about the transparency question. If, indeed, the committee comes with recommendations on that, I will keep an open mind to that. My conversations that I have had with the chair and with the chief constable have been very positive. They have been very collaborative. There is nothing sinister in those conversations, so I am more than happy that we continue to be meticulous in our note keeping and transparency. Just finally, given the controversy around the last chief constable returning and the ministerial involvement, will it be clear and minuteed when you are directing the SPA? I do not see why it would not be the case. I do not wish to get into what ended up being a very political hot topic around the previous chief constable. I deny the accusation of what my predecessor made around interfering. He was absolutely right to ask the questions that he did. In fact, if he had not asked those questions, others would have pulled them up for that, but I do not wish to get into the detail of that, which is probably unhelpful. The general point that you and others make about having as much transparency, having minutes and notes—yes, absolutely, but if there are specific recommendations made, we will look at that. As you say, it is about moving forward. I think that we all welcome that commitment that you would look at directly, making it a minute of any direction to the SPA. Right, Daniel. I accept what you are saying about not wanting to go over the detail. However, the key issue was whether or not the chair of the police authority had an option or not and what status that had. In that light, in thinking about moving forward, do you think that it would be constructive to have a set of protocols so that it was clear as to whether or not something constituted merely a suggestion rather than an instruction? Likewise, I note with interest that the deputy mayor of London has a page on the mayor's website with all the minutes of the meetings that they have held in successive office holders with the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, so that you can see on whatever date they met what they discussed. Not at length, but a sentence or two on each topic. Do you think that the two proposals, protocols and published minutes when you meet the chief constable or other senior police officers, would be a sensible, non-legislative improvement that could be made in the way that we govern our police? Again, if there are recommendations being made by this committee, I will give them an open mind. I have not seen the website that he refers to in terms of the deputy mayor of London. I will look at that after the committee. If there are recommendations to improve transparency and accountability, I have no problem with them. As I say, I think that everybody around this table will understand that there has to be a space for any ministers and cabinet secretaries to be able to be very frank. He made reference to a note or a sentence or to some of the notes. I think that there is an understanding that there has to be a space for Government ministers to be able to have that frank conversation with stakeholders, but not withstanding that. The more transparency that we have, the better. I do not shy away from that. Again, I am not wishing to go back, but there has to be a distinction between challenging and asking questions of our stakeholders versus giving direction. Others might view that as interfering. Sometimes, because of the political atmosphere, the roles that we each have and the Government in opposition, that will often be a subjective consideration. Whatever protocols we have in place, that does not necessarily mean what we will avoid that conversation. I go back to my central point. If there are recommendations made by the committee and others on how to improve transparency, I will look at them with an open mind. I cannot commit to doing the XYZ right now, but I will certainly look at them with an open mind. That is very welcome, cabinet secretary. Again, going back to the unison submission, the committee looked at the greater transparency, the legislative framework, and suggested that analogous bodies in Scotland could perform that function, such as Audit Scotland. Perhaps that is again going back to the dual role of the SPA, where it is working collaboratively, trying to improve the police force and putting in very welcome suggestions for how it could be approved, but yet having to carry out that independent scrutiny. Is that something that you would consider? Again, I just keep reiterating that, where there are recommendations made by the committee and others, I will keep an open mind to that. It is worth saying that I do believe that we have robust processes in place, such as civil service and guidelines on managing and note-taking, which I know my officers and my private officers are very, very alert to whenever we have conversations with stakeholders. There are good processes and guidance in place, where there are lessons to learn from other bodies. Again, I go back to my earlier answer, that I certainly would be open minded without firmly committing to one particular action or the other. I would be open minded to seeing what the committee and others have in terms of recommendations on that front. Thank you, John. Cabinet Secretary, you will be aware that we have had a number of representations made to us about a variety of things. One of them was from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which has made a number of recommendations. It believed that human rights should be explicitly articulated in the 2012 act. You made a call that, indeed, you had an amendment to that act, which included a new oath that officers would give an undertaking to uphold the citizens' human rights, but that had no retrospective application. If I quickly take you through, there are five issues. A code of ethics for policing is in place. They believe that it should be placed in a statutory footing. I wonder what your view in that is. In relation to the SPA, section 2 says that they should try to carry out its functions in a way that is proportionate, accountable and transparent. They believe that the word try should be deleted. In relation to the SPA, again, they believe that they should have independence and power to set its own strategic priorities. I think that that would align with some of the comments that we have heard earlier. Two very particular ones relate to legislation, the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, independent custody visiting, and that would be to put HMICSs on a statutory fleeting and make clear what the purpose is. Finally, they have understandable concerns that section 94 subparga 4 gives authority for the refusal of a visit to a constable who is directly responsible. Will you undertake to look at all of those issues? There are quite a few. I do not mean instantly, cabinet secretary, but I am sure that there is a body that is put in place to make recommendations to the Government, I have a huge amount of time for the Scottish Human Rights Commission to interact with them in many a year. In my current role, it would probably be a good idea to interact with them and meet them, so I commit to do that. I have mentioned a few issues, five issues in total. Some of those I can see where I would like to have a further conversation with the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and some of them might well come out in the recommendations from the committee. I have recently had a conversation with an opcat. Previously, as a minister, I was also engaged with an opcat in a different ministerial role. Let us look at the recommendations being made in relation to visiting custody suites and so on and so forth. Because of the nature of custody suites, I know that John Finlay will understand that. There may well be times when a visit would not be appropriate—perhaps a disorder or whatever—in a custody suite. However, there has to be to that power and to that refusal power, there has to be checks and balances. If the Scottish Human Rights Commission is coming back and saying that the checks and balances are not good enough, I would have to look at that. I would welcome a conversation with Police Scotland and others around that. You can have an absolute assurance from me that throughout my life, the role of human rights in our justice system and other parts of society has been at the forefront of my mind very often. I will make an undertaking to meet the Scottish Human Rights Commission and address the five issues that we can have a conversation with, but also some wider issues around the justice system. As you say, cabinet secretary, that is a really important issue on a very wide-ranging one. I think that the committee would be very grateful if you could provide us with some feedback on those five points after you have held that meeting. The meeting did not be minutes, so I will make sure that there is some feedback. That is very encouraging, thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We now move on to Police Complaints Rona. If I could ask you about the Complaints and Investigations Procedure with regard to transparency and equity, can you ask if you think that the Complaints processes are too complex and what could be done to ensure greater transparency and clarity? I am referring to the fact that senior police officers have a different duty to be prioritised. Does the junior officer have a different process to go through? Should there be one Complaints Handling system for all? I think that that is all good questions to ask. I also think that there is an important space for us to give to Elisha Angelini's review on Complaints Handling and procedures. I have met Dame Elisha Angelini and I think that everybody holds on to a very high pedigree, so it would be wrong for me to try to prejudge some of what will come out of that. Very helpfully, if I remember correctly, Elisha Angelini will produce some interim findings in spring next year. That will allow some of that work that needs to be done sooner rather than later to be done. I think that without putting words at all into Dame Elisha Angelini's mouth, she said to me that if things can be fixed quickly, then they should be. However, I think that we have to be able to give her space to do the review, the important review that she is doing and where there are specific quick measures where there is unanimity around that they can be fixed. If that is the view of stakeholders, then there is no reason why we should not look to that. Cabinet Secretary, do you have a time frame for the Angelini's report? I will look to my officials, but I think that the interim review findings are spring of next year and then nine to 12 months after that would be the full review after that. Daniel Dyn, Liam Kerr. Just following on from that, I am bearing in mind that I accept your point about the Angelini review. If I was being unfair to you, I would ask how many different routes you think that complaints can be taken both by police and by the public. Rather than doing that, because I am not sure that I could with any confidence, if you would agree with me that I think that there are four for police if you include senior officers and whistleblowing and three for the public. Likewise, for both of those, there are three organisations that can have locusts, both the police themselves, the SPA and the park. Even just in terms of that enumeration, I wonder if the cabinet secretary would agree with me that it seems like a cluttered landscape and that a streamlined process is perhaps needed. Daniel Johnson always articulates his points with great thought. You have done that and demonstrated that with that question. I hope that people will understand when I say that I am extremely cautious of prejudging the review of Dame Alicia Angelini. However, notwithstanding that, I can absolutely see from the question that he has asked and from the knowledge that I have that there could be a perception of a cluttered landscape, a perception that things could be made simpler. Again, those are exactly the type of issues that Alicia Angelini will give her scrutiny and consideration to. I imagine that we will pour over her review, both her interim findings, no doubt, in her full report. I know for a fact that those are some of the issues that she is very much looking at. I ask whether her report will look at whistleblowing, because some concern has been expressed about the independence of the regime that has been put in place by the police, in particular the fact that the independence that the police have sought is limited to the fact that a charity based in England will be the body that whistleblowers will initially approach. Once that report of whistleblowing has been taken, that then gets reported to the line and dealt with by police officers themselves. I think that the concern about whether or not that process is independent is well made. Is that going to be part of the review? If not, I was also wondering what the cabinet secretary's thoughts on that point about independence and whistleblowing would be. I look at the terms of reference for Dean Alicia Angelini's review. They are very wide in the sense that she has the power to look at the issue of whistleblowing, whether she specifically is or is not. Forgive me, I will take that back. It would be a question for Dean Angelini to answer, but there is nothing stopping her from looking at the issue of whistleblowing. I could not tell you definitively whether she is or is not, so forgive me that I do not have that answer to the top of my head. On whistleblowing generally, I think that those matters are incredibly important across our public services, whether it is police or health or any other, frankly, as well. I know that two years ago Police Scotland introduced their portal called Integrity Matters that allows staff and officers to raise any particular issues or indeed make any allegations, but it is a system that is—importantly, it is not just robust and effective but, importantly, it is confidential, which is what whistleblowers undoubtedly will look for that confidence and it being confidential. However, I note here that all matters reported via the system are assessed by a national gateway assessment unit that can be dealt with away from local areas to protect confidentiality and give assurances of confidence in the process. I am not seeing any evidence for a completely different or indeed a completely independent need for a whistleblowing system, but, again, if that is something that Dame Hallish Angelini is looking at, and that is some of the recommendations that come forth from her review, then, of course, we would give that consideration. However, having looked through the evidence sessions that you have had, I have not seen that there is necessarily a particular need for that, but, again, as always, I will keep my mind open on the question. One of the critical issues within the realm of whistleblowing touch is on a wider issue, which is about the way complaints get handled by the line. Kate Frayne's evidence that she gave to us last week highlighted a number of areas of concern, particularly around the classification of complaints and the fact that very serious issues then subsequently got handled at a front line level rather than being escalated as a matter of the way that they were recorded. I am just wondering whether the cabinet secretary would agree with me that recording unlawful detention as quality of service or questioning a complaint about the way our rape investigation was being carried out as classifying that as incivility and, likewise, allegations of assault being recorded as excessive force is worrying, because each and every one of those things should require escalation to be treated with the utmost seriousness. The fact that the park only looked at those issues because the individuals knew to complain to her in and of itself highlights the issues with the process. If that had not been done, we would not know about those issues. I have asked you to meet with the commissioner later today. I have no doubt that questions that have arisen since our evidence will be part of the conversation that we undoubtedly have. I also note that the committee has a representation from Police Scotland in relation to challenging some of that. You have recently had further evidence from the park as well in relation to that. I do not intend to step into the specifics of those issues other than I know, for example, that the robust challenge from Police Scotland around rape in any criminal investigation would be investigated as a criminal matter. On that point, cabinet secretary, it is important to be clear on that. The complaint was not about the rape itself, but about the way in which a rape investigation was being carried out. Indeed, the rebuttal from the police is against the misconception of what Ms Frayme said, not what she actually said. More important, Ms Frayme describes that as an attempt to prevent the course of justice. I think that we should take any statement such as that made by the park extremely seriously. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the park describes something happening in the police as an attempt to prevent the course of justice, that that is an extremely serious matter? I agree. The charge and the accusation that we made is an extremely serious one. As I said, I am due to meet the commissioner later today. I do not doubt that some of what she raised during her evidence session will be part of that conversation. There is no disagreement between Diana Johnson and I that an accusation that she made is an extremely serious one. I will listen carefully to what the commissioner has to say on some of that. Just finally, and I recognise that this will be part of the Angelini review, but I think that one of the key points that Ms Frayme is pointing out is that that is very circumstantial as to whether or not those things come to the attention of the park at all. I am just wondering whether the cabinet secretary would agree with me that some examination of the ability of the park to look at any particular complaint, either retrospectively or by way of triage, is a consideration that certainly needs to be examined as part of the Angelini review? I have confidence that it will be as well. Again, I cannot speak for the email list of Angelini, but certainly from the conversations that I have had, I have got no doubt that those are exactly the type of issues that she will look at. I absolutely give a commitment from my perspective to listen carefully to what the commissioner has to say. Of course, when it comes to the Angelini review, I have no doubt that Daniel Johnson, but collectively as a committee, will also make his review known to what I expect to be a very thorough review. We have Leanne Kerr, Leanne McArthur and then John Finnie. Thank you, convener. Sticking with the complaint system but coming out of the specifics that Daniel Johnson has alluded to, given the suggestions that the committee has heard by the park in evidence to the committee, does the cabinet secretary take a view on whether it is appropriate that Police Scotland can effectively choose which complaints about themselves are investigated? Does the cabinet secretary think that the law might need to be reviewed or amended to stipulate specifically the types of complaints that the police should investigate and the types that they have passed to either the park or the crown? In any organisation, there are internal complaints procedures, and the police obviously have that, but the public does have recourse if they believe that that complaint has not been handled appropriately by Police Scotland or the SPA does have recourse to the park to look at how those complaints were handled. That is really exceptionally important, notwithstanding all of that. There is the Alicia Angelini reviewer. I am sorry that I keep going back to it, but it is so important that, in my role, I do not prejudge any of that, but there is recourse for the public to go to the park to ask questions about how a specific complaint has been handled. That matter is important. We have also heard in this committee some evidence that it is unsatisfactory that non-criminal complaints are halted upon the point of an officer's resignation or retirement. It has been suggested that it is unsatisfactory for both parties, the complainer and the one who is complained about. I put the question to the chief constable who said that it is a matter for Parliament. I put the question to the cabinet secretary. Do you take a view on whether the regulations around that need to be amended? If so, should that be done immediately, or again, do we wait the outcome of the Angelini review? Again, I would be quite keen to look at the review, even if it is the interim findings that we will get in spring next year. When it comes to the complainer in particular, but also the one that is being complained about, it is certainly the complainer. If they remain within the organisation, the situation that you described with the one who is being complained about resigns or retires, the complainer might still be in the organisation. There is a duty of care, which is exceptionally important for that organisation. In this case, Police Scotland, I know how important it is. The chief constable and the chair of the SPA take that duty of care for the welfare of their officers and staff, and I think that that is usually important. Again, I take the view that, on this wider issue, there is a review being taken place by somebody who has the incredible amount of pedigree, respect, credibility and integrity on the issue, but, of course, across the board. It would be sensible for us to put our views to the day that Alicia Angelini, particularly the Opposition, the Justice Committee would be sensible to wait for the outcome, at least on the interim, of some of those review findings. What is your view, cabinet secretary? Again, I am not willing to prejudge that. I will be open-minded. If the committee comes forward with recommendations on the very thorough evidence sessions that you have had, I will, at this stage, promise you an open mind to some of those recommendations being made, but I would be wary when there is a review taking place that it is going to be thorough, and forensic on the issues that we give Alicia Angelini the appropriate space to do that work. Can I press you on that just a little bit, cabinet secretary? Is it your position, then, that there are no issues that should be prioritised now and, in effect, we can wait up to what could potentially be 18 months before we address some of the very concerning and serious information that we have received from the clerk? No, I do not think that. I said in my previous answers that where there are, first of all, recommendations from the Justice Committee of areas to give further examination of that, the Government will do that. I personally, as cabinet secretary, will keep an open mind to that, so where there are recommendations, where there is, potentially, and this will be difficult, of course, given the nature of the conversation that we are having, but where there is unanimity around particular issues that can be changed and should be changed for the better and for the purposes of improving procedures, we should look at that. I say simply that there is a very thorough review that is taking place. We should be wary of prejudging that, but where we can add value to that, I do not have any issues whatsoever. I am not suggesting that we cannot do anything until there are full review findings that would be wrong. There are interim findings due to be published in spring next year. If there are issues that the committee thinks that should be looked at even before those interim findings, I will keep an open mind to what the committee has to say. You mentioned adding value to that and go further. If the Parliament can amend the permanent legislation, would you look at that as a possibility to address what may transpire to be a fundamental issue that will affect the credibility of Police Scotland and the public's perception? Legislative effects are never necessarily very quick. Obviously, they will always take a considerable amount of time—a relative amount of time, I think. Therefore, if there was a particular legislative fix or legislative amendment that the committee thought should be made, I would have thought that it would be sensible to wait to see what the Anzolwch Angelina review has to say in relation to that particular issue. However, if there is a legislative amendment that the convener and the committee collectively think should and needs to be explored and looked at, I will give that immediate attention if that is a recommendation of the committee. We are talking earlier about some of the problems that were created in the early stages for Police Scotland due to either a lack of clarity or a disagreement between Police Scotland and the SPA about their respective roles. I think that, layered on to that, there were some personality conflicts that, at that time, supercharged those problems. What we have just described in Daniel Johnson, I think, set it out very fairly, is what appears to be a lack of clarity or a disagreement about what should be the respective roles of Police Scotland and the Perk in handling certain types of complaints or whistleblowing. Do you not see the potential risks if there is not early clarification or an agreement between the parties about how best to proceed? I certainly would not dispute that certain types of whistleblowing are entirely appropriate and should be handled within Police Scotland. That is where the resolution will rest and is a way of bringing the parties together more amicably. I suspect going forward, but, in other instances, we can think of circumstances in which that would be less likely to happen and independence is needed. However, at the moment, there seems to be a bit of a risk that we have a growing disagreement between Perk and Police Scotland about their respective roles or what their respective roles should be. As Cabinet Secretary, it is for you to help to bring those parties together and find the clarity that is needed. As I said, I am meeting with the commissioner later on today, and I am keen to hear what Kate Fram's view is on some of what Dean MacArthur has said. If there are specific recommendations that the committee has in relation to that question, I can do more than reiterate my stance of being open-minded to looking at those, if there are particular actions that I can take. I will examine and explore what I can do to ensure that roles and responsibilities are understood, but we also have a procedure in place that has absolute public confidence. However, I keep going back to the Tim Elisha Angelina review. I think that it is important to give her the space. She will forensically look at those issues that MacArthur has spoken about. However, I see it as part of my role and my responsibility to see where we can get organisations working collaboratively, understanding each other's roles and responsibilities and where there are tensions between any organisations to see whether they can be smoothed out. It would also be possible with Tim Elisha Angelina to clarify whether she will look at issues around the welfare of whistleblowers. We have had evidence from a number of individuals who have experience of going through the whistleblowing process. In each instance, there is at least a concern expressed about the efforts that have gone into protecting the welfare of individuals. We are going through an incredibly stressful process. Is there undertaking that you can give the committee that, as far as you are concerned, that would be an area that you would hope or expect Dame Elisha Angelina to look into? Can I suggest a slightly alternative approach, although the committee can, of course, make its own wind-up? It might be for the committee to approach Dame Elisha Angelina to ask directly whether or not those are issues that she would be reviewing and examining. I share Dame Elisha Angelina's expectations that those are the kind of issues that would be discussed, but I am very weary having just had a conversation about interfering versus not of giving Dame Elisha Angelina absolutely the independence that she needs to look at those issues. Particularly on the nature of the review that she is looking at, there is no need for me to act as a middleman. The committee and yourself are, of course, an MSP. You can make that direct approach, but, in terms of sharing your expectations, I think that those are the kind of issues that Dame Elisha Angelina will be looking at. As part of that review, would you expect her to look at the role played by the Justice Secretary in those various relationships, such as Police Scotland, SPA, Perk and others, or is this solely for the purposes of Police Scotland and those other bodies? I do not expect nor would I like the Scottish Government to be exempt from the scrutiny of the review at all. I fully expect that, again, without putting words into Dame Elisha Angelina's mouth at all, the Government will also be a part of that scrutiny, as well as the various stakeholders and body issues mentioned. I will be happy to write to Dame Eish and just confirm that Whistleblownie is part of our review. ACC Spears suggested that only 5 per cent of persons who made a complaint about the request that Perk conducted a complaint handling review meant that, consequently, the 95 per cent are sufficiently satisfied with the manner in which the complaint was handled. The Perk had different views from that. The 5 per cent and the 50 per cent were upheld as not being handled properly. Their concern was that, unless someone had the tenacity, the wit and the perseverance to then take it a bit further and ask for that complaint handling review, they had absolutely no way of knowing if they had been handled properly and if an independent scrutiny and assessment should have been made. Indeed, many of the issues that are raised in the Perk's final submission have come from that 5 per cent, which has to be said to be very concerning issues. The first thing is that we absolutely value the role that the Perk plays and the job that it does. That is why, as a Government, we increased its budget when we did. That was important for us to do. I will go back to Liam McArthur's point that he made about getting a front-line resolution to the issues that are possible—not possible and not appropriate in every case at all, that is understandable. However, when appropriate, that is to be encouraged when it is appropriate. In terms of the wider question and the Perk's view of that, I am excusing the meeting with Kate Frame later today. It will absolutely be part of the conversation that we have. I would be keen to hear from her directly in the one-to-one that we have around where we can improve and where there are perhaps deficiencies within the system. However, I go back to the Dame Elish Angiolini review as well. I think that there is exactly the type of issues that will be explored by Elish Angiolini, and I have full confidence in her doing so. I think that there is a huge area of complaints on how those are handled. It is the difference between people thinking that the police service is working well and that we have got a result on our work concerns that we are looking at and getting into a position where the good work that is being carried out and the excellent work that our front-line officers do can be caught up in the criticism. I see that as an absolute key area, especially given the comments from Perk about the delay even when they get to look at this independent scrutiny from CT coverage footage, from the records in the hospital of what was recorded and what kind of incident it was. I would suggest that that is something that is fairly urgent, Cabinet Secretary. I want to do a few to-do. I will look at that, if you do not mind, after the committee. I will have a conversation today, as I said with the commissioner on that very issue. I go back to my previous answer to the convener. There may be some things that are viewed as more urgent than not being able to wait for Elish Angiolini's interim findings or indeed her full findings. I can promise you an open mind that I will not commit to certain actions one way or the other, but I will keep an open mind. Will the cabinet inform the committee of the outcome of your meeting with Perk? I think that that would be very helpful for our— I fully expect that, as all those meetings that I have with stakeholders, it would be minited and so on and so forth. However, if you wish to have a further conversation or further information about the particularities of that meeting, of course, I would be happy to provide that. That would be extremely helpful. Minister, we have one last question for you. In looking at the retained fighter service and the recruiting of the challenges that were brought up, that is quite a major issue. Is that a priority? Is that a number one priority? Where does it sit? Obviously, operational matters and that includes recruitment, RDS etc. is a matter for the SFRS, but I take on board the evidence that the committee has taken on RDS. There are problems in RDS, and I think that the SFRS would accept that absolutely. Obviously, the way that we are living our modern lives now means that people are much less likely to work in the village that they live in. For instance, I am more likely to travel away from home during the day, which obviously does reduce the pool of people who might be interested in potentially being a retained firefighter. We know that it is in need of reform. We are certainly looking at opportunities for reforming. It is a priority. The Government is particularly supportive of the fact that SFRS is recruiting at the moment. It is recruiting for whole-time managers in remote and rural areas as part of the attempt to meet the challenge that we are seeing with RDS, but it is absolutely a priority. We are looking at innovative solutions in order to resolve that. Thank you very much. That includes our questioning. I thank both the cabinet secretary and the minister for opinion before us today. We will look forward to the additional information that you promised to provide the committee. I now suspend for a comfort break. Agenda item 3 is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum for the counter-terrorism and border security bill. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement on why he is seeking the Parliament's consent. I will then invite any questions from members. Thank you, convener. The counter-terrorism and border security bill was introduced on 6 June by the Home Office. As the title suggests, the majority of the bill relates to reserved areas of national security with provisions that apply right across the UK. However, there are three areas that we consider to have implications regarding devolved competence. Following the incidents in London and Manchester last year, the Home Office undertook a review of counter-terrorism, legislation and policy. The outcome, including this bill, has been broadly welcomed as a considered approach to those terrible incidents. Since then, we have obviously seen despicable acts in Salisbury and further consequences in Amesbury. In response to those, the bill also contains further powers to stop, question, search and detain individuals at the United Kingdom border to determine whether they have been involved in hostile state activity. In terms of the areas that require consent, we consider there to be three areas. First, the clause 15 of the bill amends the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to enable traffic authorities, including the Scottish ministers, to impose cost recovery charges for making anti-terrorism traffic regulation orders. Secondly, the Scottish Government requested that the bill make amendments to legal aid legislation. That will ensure that persons detained at the border under the terrorism legislation have the right to non-means-tested advice and assistance. Those changes are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, but were requested as there was no legislative vehicle on an appropriate timescale that would maintain consistency across the United Kingdom. Finally, clause 18 and 21 and their associated schedules will enable certain biometric material to be kept longer and potentially used for devolved purposes. As the Scottish Parliament could enact similar provisions, extending the retention period of biometric data for devolved purposes is considered that those clauses also require legislative consent. The safety and security of the people of Scotland is, of course, a paramount concern. For this Government, the bill rightly faces scrutiny in the UK Parliament on whether its impact is appropriate and, importantly, proportionate. It will continue to engage with the UK Government on those matters as the bill progresses. However, the clauses that we are seeking your support for today enable national security legislation to be applied consistently across the UK. I am happy to take questions. Cabinet Secretary, I am grateful for you mentioning the terrible events in Salisbury, because I think that the background to certainly part two of the bill is important to understand the background. However, I have to say that I have a number of concerns regarding this. I wonder if you can tell me—and this is a question that I have asked on a number of occasions to including to your predecessors—that the investigation of crime in Scotland is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate. Will he be in charge of investigations under this legislation? I have not had any feedback from Lord Advocate that would suggest that any of the measures would give him specific concerns in relation to extending over his jurisdiction and his remit. I agree that there are certainly some concerns that have been raised around the bill. I have no doubt that organisations will continue to be robust, as will MPs to be robust on some of the considerations around the bill. When I was speaking to my counterpart, the minister south of the border, he alluded to the fact that the Government was in listening mode to some of those and would potentially bring forward some changes to the bill. However, I certainly have not had any direct representation, I should say. I will look to my officials to see if they have had representation from Lord Advocate or the Crown's office on some of the provisions within the bill. We have not had any direct involvement with the Lord Advocate or the Crown's office on any of the issues that might relate to the investigation of crime. It would maintain the same position that the Lord Advocate would be in charge of any investigation of crimes under this legislation in Scotland, as he would be the Crown's office. I have generally welcomed the provisions of the bill that relate to some of their competence in terms of the earlier intervention in some of the offences that might have been made in the earlier clauses of the bill when we have talked to them about whether they felt that they were necessary and proportionate to addressing the terrorist threat that we are currently experiencing. The cabinet secretary, are you able to see whether the extension of the notification requirements to persons convicted of terrorism-related offences in the north of Ireland does that have retrospective application? I will look to my officials, but I do not suspect so. There is nothing in the bill that will be retrospective, including that. In relation to the retention of biometric material, the paper that we have here talks about striking a better balance between enabling the police to use fingerprints and DNA to support terrorism investigations, which we would all support, and continuing to provide proportionate safeguards for civil liberties. Is there anywhere where you could outline where the appropriate safeguards for civil liberties are, please? There is obviously the biometrics commissioner for attention and use of biometrics material. My understanding is that the commissioner welcomes broadly the provisions within the bill. We also are committed to bringing forward a biometrics bill as well, which should be introduced, of course, debated in this Parliament, as any piece of legislation would, and it is important for us to ensure that those checks and balances also exist for where we have devolved competencies. However, there are checks and balances there. The commissioner, of course, is one of the examples of those checks and balances. My understanding is that I look to officials that the commissioner generally welcomes the provisions within the bill. We understand our conversation with the Home Office. The biometrics commissioner has been consulted and welcomes the provisions. Indeed, three of the recommendations that the commissioner made in his most recent report in 2017 are being enacted or in this bill at the moment, as he stands. Some of those relate to an extension of the period of time that national security determination biometrics can be held. That was the consideration of the biometrics commissioner. At the moment, there can be extended every two years. That was creating some bureaucracy and he felt that there could not be. There was no reason not to extend the absolute maximum time limit to five years. That does not mean that people will not necessarily seek shorter extensions to that. However, he felt that coming back three or four times in that period, when he could just go for one extension, was appropriate. Similarly, he felt that the ability of chief officers in England and Wales to be able to have a single national security determination meeting multiple different pieces of material was appropriate, given the fact that the reasons for the retention were not changing. However, the chief officers were having to come on a number of occasions to the commissioner to seek those retention periods. Except, cabinet secretary, the reasons for retention are changing. In the briefing, we have here the materials available for general policing purposes and you used the specific phrase devolved purposes. Those are serious extensions and serious intrusions. If the evidence we are hearing is that this is because it is administratively more convenient than I am certainly not persuaded by that, not least because that information will be shared and put on the national database, is that correct? The current thing stands. When a person's biometric data would otherwise be destroyed, it might be retained, as you know, if the chief constable determines that it is necessary. That is for national security determination. Currently, any extension of the retention periods not related to national security determination must be approved by the share of court. That is important, but it comes to checks and balances. I agree with John Finnie on issues of biometrics, data and so on. We have to give as much confidence as we possibly can on those issues. I think that the act on where it is subject to parliamentary debate and some amendments that undoubtedly will come forward to that, that those checks and balances are in the right space and proportionate. I recognise also that there are organisations out there that will want the UK Government to go further on that. On the police national database, where that information will be restored, is it not the case that there are errors on that database, indeed on human rights violations that are stand-uncorrected? Sorry, can you say the latter part? I said, cabinet secretary, that there are errors on that database. There are human rights violations that understand may relate to photographic evidence, and they have not been corrected. Our obligation is to scrutinise and understand the purpose. Everyone would want an end to violence, and its proportionate means to address issues such as that. However, that has significantly moved on from when you and I sat on a justice committee in the last session when we were looking at much less modest proposals than that regarding significant intrusion. I do not doubt that the perspective that John Finnie comes from has no need to caveat it. I absolutely accept that he shares his desire that all of us do around keeping Scotland safe. I think that there are questions that are rightly being asked around proportionality of the bill balancing liberty and security. I have to say that, looking at previous UK Government legislation in the anti-terror space, John Finnie seems to be much more proportionate than the previous ones that I have seen. Again, if he has specific issues and concerns around the checks and balances, those issues will be debated in Westminster. I know from talking to the UK Government that he can seek his own reassurances that they are open minded to see where they can make potential amendments to give confidence on those issues. However, from a Scottish perspective, as I said, there is a reason why LCM is needed on three particular issues to provide some level of consistency to what I think is by and large proportionate. However, there are rightly questions being asked and I do not take that away from John Finnie. I do not take any issue with the traffic regulation aspect. I warmly welcome the legal aid aspect, and I would like to see it rolled out beyond simply those accused of those offences. Finally—excuse me, cabinet secretary—would you support an independent review of the prevent strategy? Again, it is not something that has been raised with me specifically as cabinet secretary for justice in Scotland. I have somebody who has interacted with preventing the strategy and how it has been rolled out in Scotland since I was a boy. I might not be quite a boy, but certainly when I was younger. I always thought that, in Scotland, we did prevent different when I spoke to my friends who lived south of the border, for example. I think that it is recognised that we had an actor preventing strategy in a way that is more community-focused in Scotland. I have not seen those requests for an independent review from a Scottish context, if he means for my use now. I am making one just now. Of course, anything that John Finnie says that I give very careful consideration to, so if you allow me, I will give that consideration, but it is not something that I am persuaded by at the moment. Daniel Follack followed by Liam McArthur. John Finnie has asked many of the questions that I had. In particular, I think that a glance at what is being proposed here obviously raises human rights considerations. While I understand some of the measures such as expressions of opinions of belief regarding prescribed organisations, I can understand the reasons for that. It certainly raises human rights considerations. I recognise that that is part of the reserved elements, but as John Finnie rightly pointed out, the biometrics that is devolved again raises human rights issues. Is the cabinet secretary aware of whether the UK Government has carried out a human rights assessment on the bill in its entirety? Has the Scottish Government carried out a human rights assessment on the biometrics element? If it is not, will it commit to undertaking one? I cannot answer for the UK Government and I am not aware of what process it would have gone above and beyond what it would normally do for pieces of legislation. Perhaps my officials will come in. From my perspective, I am more than happy to speak to human rights organisations, but I will engage them around the fact that they have particular reservations on the devolved competencies of the bill in particular. I commit to absolutely doing that. Again, that being said, I have not had many correspondence or many approaches on the bill from organisations, but I am happy to ask the question. As far as we were aware, the Home Office did undertake a human rights impact assessment, but it was pretty much—there is a standard bill for human rights impact assessment. I understand that the UK Parliament has taken a number of pieces of evidence from human rights agencies, but we have not had anything directly related to any of the issues that we are considering from any Scottish-based agencies. Given that the UK Government, you understand, has undertaken a human rights assessment, do you not think that it would be better for the Scottish Government to proactively look at the elements that will be devolved and do a human rights assessment on those elements if the UK Government has done one for the bill in its entirety? Surely leaving it up to waiting for approaches from human rights organisations is not sufficient? We only have to look at the issues regarding the roll-out of the cyber kiosks by the police to understand the deficiencies in terms of having a full assessment of human rights impact in the criminal justice sphere. Whenever an issue comes towards me, my officials, question it robustly. We have conversations around where we might have concerns or not. I am looking at the three areas that we are asking for an LCM, and I have to say that they did not give me huge amounts of concern. I know about those issues in my previous transport roll. I think that there is a proportionate response in relation to asking to recoup some of the charge on the biometrics. Again, the work that is being done in terms of checks and balances south of the border about what we are planning to do in relation to introducing legislation on this front. On legal aid, there are very sensible provisions on legal aid. From our perspective, the reason for the LCM is to make sure that there is some level of equity there. They do not give me human rights concerns and raise huge human rights concerns on those devolved competencies. That is where I am responsible. I am happy to have a further conversation with organisations to see whether there are concerns, but I do not want to have those concerns. Forgive me, cabinet secretary, but I really need to press this point. I think that this needs to go beyond simply having conversations. I think that the point of human rights assessments is that you do them consistently and you do them every time to ensure that you have got it right. Simply relying on the fact that previous work has been done, either positions created or other elements, is simply not good enough. You have to look at when those questions are raised and the biometrics element certainly raises them and does a full human rights assessment to ensure that there are not unintended consequences or things that have not been fully considered. It is certainly not good enough to rely on external organisations to approach or to rely on your previous work. A specific assessment has to be carried out. We will take that away and reflect on that. The provisions in the LCM for me are eminently sensible. I am content with the checks and balances that remain in place, but I also think that they allow us to bring equity to the system, particularly when I look at legal aid provisions of the LCM. I do not take away from what Daniel Johnson is saying. It would also be interesting to know the specific concerns on a human rights perspective that he may have on the issues that are being debated today in the LCM. For me, I am content that they are proportionate. John Finnie and Daniel Johnson have laid out very well the concerns that I had reading through the papers for this committee. We are always conscious, whether it is with statutory instruments, whether it is LCMs, that the scope for getting into the detail of the provisions is more limited. At one level, I reassured that I know colleagues at Westminster will be kicking the tyres, and we will have been kicking the tyres of this since it was introduced in June. With regard to the devolved aspects, I very much take Daniel Johnson's point that rather than simply awaiting potential concerns being raised, I think that the fact that they appear to be more proportionate is of reassurance, but should not preclude the need to undertake proactively those sorts of assessments. A human rights impact assessment is no less fallible than an environmental impact or a business impact assessment. What it will do is to minimise the risk of unintended consequences. Therefore, it would be good practice, given the potential for reaching nature of those sorts of provisions. As you said, I do not dispute the fact that it does not appear to be custom or proportionate in terms of what we have seen previously, but I do not think that, necessarily, we should deviate from an approach that gives us as much reassurance as we can in terms of the devolved. There is not much to add. I reflect on that in terms of best practice. However, if there are specifics about the devolved competencies that we are asking for a legislative consent on, I feel that they are proportionate for me. That does not take away from what Liam McArthur says in relation to perhaps best practice. What other comments or questions do members agree that we give our consent? One, John Finnie. Do you wish to record your dissent? I understand that the committee will do a short report on that. If my dissent were noted, I would be satisfied with that. I record your dissent. Is the committee happy to delegate the publication of a short factual report to me and to work with the clerks to publish and to give you the assurance, John Finnie, that your comments will be noted in the report? I think that John Finnie is clearly wishing to voice a dissent. As long as the report captures the substantive points that Daniel Finnie was making, I would certainly echo that would be helpful. One way of handling it is to link to the official report. Would that be satisfactory? The full discussion is there rather than any summary. If we are all agreed, that concludes the item. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending. Agenda item number four is consideration of a proposal by the Scottish Government consent to the UK Government legislating using the powers under the European Union Withdrawal Act in relation to three UK statutory instruments listed on the agenda. I refer members to paper four, which is not by a clerk, and invite any comments or questions from members. Do we have any, Daniel Finnie? I have one point that I was wondering whether the committee might want to ask the Scottish Government what impact it feels it has. The fact that there are a number of member states who are not signatories of the Hague conventions, and in particular I note that Belgium and Ireland are not. Given the volumes of trade that the UK has as a whole, both with Ireland and the low countries, and given that the scope of that is around small claims and evidence for civil actions, I wondered whether or not that has a specific impact. So you would like us to ask the question further of the cabinet. Seek further information? Just further information indeed. Are we content to do that? Thank you all for that. Is the committee content then to recommend that the Scottish Parliament gives its consent to the UK Parliament to pass these three statutory instruments? Thank you. We will seek the further information that Daniel Johnson seeks. Are you content that the clerks will produce a short report and for me to be delegated authority to publish this report? That concludes our public part of today's meeting. Our next meeting will be on 20 November when we will begin consideration of the Vulnerable Witnesses Criminal Evidence Scotland Bill. We are also set to take further evidence on the management of offenders Scotland Bill. We now move into private session.