 Gwbod drws i ddesgwm amweithio gyfoeddysgriaeth, y 24 y gyrfaennau 2018. Y gynaf aethau agendaeth, 1, o'r ddisisiwn o gwneud mewn cyflygio gyrfaennau. Gwyddechrau nhw hamdano'r pryd o'r debyg fyddion yn ystafelligiau o'r unies oedd y Uniad ymdra licensedur, a phrygau ei ddweud, dyfodol, rydyn ni'n edrych i'r ddiwylliannau are国ais iawn blaen. As we approach new legislation and decide which witnesses have a full discussion in private that is a reason really for holding this one in private. So, I believe that the first of these instruments have come to the Parliament so we want make sure that we totally understand gyflym yn ei lawr o'r bydiaeth. Rwy'n gwerth iawn Book of Crescent i'w peth sy'n gweinidog. Rwy'n gwerth iawn. Llywodraeth Ysgrif Weinidog yn ddif modulesunol I notification on the post-legislative scrutiny on the police and fire reform Scotland Act 2012. And I welcome Councillor Ross Vetchrestrino. Agor? That's correct. That's what people want to say for Vetchrell. He is an arder because we have money in our house. I'm just really tempted to do that. I got neither. wir, the Conservative Services and Community Safety Committee if I've Cunso, Yvonne Berisford, Policy and Program Manager, West Lodian Council and Chief Superintendent Campbell Thompson, divisional commander, a division police Scotland. Can I thank all the witnesses for providing written evidence, especially those who did so at very short notice? The committee fan ei sefydlu. I reference hon, to paper one, which is made from the Clarke paper two, which is a private paper, and we now move to question starting with John Finnie. Nicola The Watherspector, wir ffraeg i gweithio ar y cyllideg. I want to ask about a word that peppers a lot of our conversations here, and the word is local and the extent to which local policing might means different things for people in its application. I want to get your comment in that, please. I'm happy to make a start on that, if that's all right. I think that the term local policing is absolutely embedded in what we do, and I think that since the Police and the Fire and Reform Act has come in, that is even more so. In the north-east division, which covers the former Grampian area, we have local policing teams. That has been the policing model that we've adopted, and prior to Police Scotland being formed, and that we've continued with. I think that there's a real strength in that. That's the local officers who are in the area dealing with the local issues, be that crime or, in fact, preventative measures or partnership issues, and I think that there's been a real strength in that. I hear much about the term localism, but for me there's absolutely no question that local policing is absolutely rooted in communities, and there's a further strength to that for me, and that's the relationship that we have with partners on a strategic, tactical and operational level, which I think is as strong as it's ever been. Just to clarify before going to that, do you understand that term to perhaps have changed in Mr Thomson from pre Police Scotland days, in any meaningful way? I think that the term local policing has changed simply because when Police Scotland was formed, local policing was the name that was adopted to one of the divisions, the local policing division, as opposed to it being one of the legacy forces, but in actual fact that's just a change of name. The policing model certainly in the north-east, and I would suggest in the Highlands and Islands, still adopt that same local policing embedded near communities. I appreciate there's a different model in some of the other divisions, which is more bespoke to their needs, which can have a local element, definitely a local embedded element, that can have community-based officers and response officers. I would concur with that. I think that for West Lothian Council, certainly a localism will reflect officers that are attending calls and community issues within West Lothian, which would be, for us, known as F division. The J division is the wider division of which our resources are shared, so we still think of our local issues as to ourselves within West Lothian and not encompassing the other local authority areas. To the local community, local policing means that when they pick up the phone, I want to speak to the police, they're able to do so, and they expect an immediate response, which just isn't going to happen. The communities that we serve don't seem to understand the depth of the pressures that are on the police service. They don't seem to understand that, when the police have a call for anti-social behaviour, they might also have another call for a stabbing or a serious injury or a fatal accident, and it's a question of priorities. A complaint that I get frequently as an elected member is no point phone in the police, it doesn't do any good. You try to reassure people that they must always phone the police, and if the police can't respond, let the police decide that, not the community. I don't think that this might be a consequence of simply reducing budgets, but the expectation of the community on the police and the other service, the fire service as well, is increasing all of the time, and we as a society don't have the resources to meet those expectations. I think that we can do more to explain the limitations that are upon our protective services. I wonder if you can ask Mr Thomson, Ms Bairiff, to talk about sharing local policing. Is that a resource that, in common with specialist services, is shared? Into what extent would scrutiny bodies have a say in the degree to which local policing is shared? As you know, as a divisional commander, I prepare a local policing plan. I have three local authority areas, which is very heavily weighed, I would have to say, towards the Community Empowerment Act and sharing the whole partnership approach to problem solving. As far as presenting our performance in relation to that, we do that on a six-monthly basis, but interspersed with that before scrutiny board, we bring to them thematic reports, for example, on roads policing, which is a separate division within Police Scotland. Albeit it is a separate division and a national division that is very much embedded in local communities. In fact, in the communities in the north-east, that is one of the most significant priorities that people always bring up about road safety, so it is absolutely right that they are represented. Albeit it is covered within the local policing plan. They are not local policing officers, they are part of a separate national division, but most definitely they are embedded locally, performing locally and delivering that priority. The actual local policing division, is that our resource that can be shared across divisions? I imagine that it is shared within. For events, for example, we have had many events over the summer. There are many events in the north-east, including football matches and other events, and where there is a requirement to flex resources across for those special events, that takes place. You mentioned that term, Ms Berford. Is sharing not a two-way thing, or are you concerned that the sharing is a removal of officers? Yes. Police Scotland has a number of officers that they will have for the cover West Lothian, but they are based within the J division. Those officers will cover East Midlothian, the borders and West Lothian. We will have a number dedicated to West Lothian area, but those numbers are not shared from Police Scotland. It would be nice if we had clarity on what we could expect for a local policing number to be, but we do not have that as such locally. Is there an explanation why you do not have it? Surely that will impact in your ability as a scrutiny body to determine local priorities for us? It has been requested, but we have not had that information provided. The information from Police Scotland is that they will risk assess, on a daily basis, the need across the larger division, and they will assess and place their resources accordingly, so that each of the communities has resources to meet the highest demand. We do not have further information locally for that. Does that make it difficult to plan for the future, then, on a day-to-day basis, you really do not know what you can rely on in terms of numbers? Yes, it does. For interaction with communities who are asking us about policing numbers and staffing levels, when we have changes in services, as a partnership, we are working together and we work well together in West Lothian. We want to maintain that and make plans and go ahead. We make the plans and we just have to work around the outcomes of the resourcing level. For instance, at a daily tasking meeting, if we are reviewing the previous incidents for antisocial behaviour, which is one of the areas that I cover, we will look to see where we can put partnership in place in order to make sure that we are using best resources. Communities get the quickest response and are targeted from the service that gives the best provision. Early intervention can often be crucial to prevent escalation of further incidents or of further victims. If Police Scotland has met either through a reduced resource level or because the demand for resourcing has outstretched its availability to attend those incidents, we cannot, as a partnership, act to see what is next to happen until the police get to the initial incident and take that initial report. It is very difficult for us. We cannot make that assessment. We cannot say whether it is because there has been other more serious incidents within our local area or whether that demand has been met elsewhere within the bigger division. We are just told whether the drugs have been attended and are still outstanding. As a partnership, we work around that and do the best that we can, monitoring the situation and getting that information to the communities as quickly as we can do it. It does not stop the partnership working, but it means that we are wholly reflective of how quickly Police Scotland can react. If it is stopping preventative measures by not having that knowledge, then clearly that is something that should be looked at. It would be very helpful. Liam McArthur, Daniel Johnson. Thank you. Good morning. I just wanted to follow up with Chief Superintendent Thomson, a point that was made by Councillor Chen, who talked about the tension arising from the resources at the disposal of Police Scotland and the expectation of communities. That tension has always been there, but is there a feeling that it has come into starker relief over recent years, either as a result of the restructuring that has taken place within policing, or as a result of the way in which Police Scotland manages the resources that it has at its disposal? Is that process of prioritisation changed at a local level or indeed at a national level? The police numbers for North East division would be the only division that has amalgamated two divisions since Police Scotland has started. Those numbers have, by and large, of local policing officers remained the same. I think that we need to be very clear that that is the case. I would suggest too, since the Police and Fire Reform Act in 2012, there has been a number of other changes that have come into being, not least the community empowerment act, which I am very much welcome, which has given us an opportunity to be smarter and wiser in relation to how we deploy our resources. Police Scotland is not the only organisation that is always challenged to meet a demand and to prioritise, as the councillor has said, where their resources go to the greatest threat, risk and harm. That has always been the case. However, I do think that there are opportunities now, and I would disagree with Ms Berifford in relation to the availability of resource for preventative measures. We have embedded officers working in partnership with local authorities, for example, through priority families, which are preventative measures tackling that very much early intervention. At one level, we are working absolutely committing resource to partnership. At another level, we are committing resource to some of the more serious threats, for example counterterrorism and cyber. From that, we have a pool of resource that we have to make the best use of, according to the greatest threat, harm and risk that we face in the communities. I have been in the police for 28 years, and we have always faced that dilemma as to where best to put your resource. However, I would suggest that Police Scotland has never been better through the processes that they have embraced in relation to putting that resource at the right place and at the right time, and that the preventative measures are actually working to take away some of the demand. I can only speak again from my own division that looks at some of the statistics in relation to performance, which are but one reflection of keeping communities safe. Crime continues to fall and detection rates continue to rise. It is a challenge. I make absolutely no bones about it. Officers are challenged every single day, as they are special constables and police staff as well. However, I would suggest that they deliver an excellent service. In your experience, is that issue of communities feeling that it is not worth making the call, got better, got worse and remained the same? I think that it has remained the same over the past few years. It is a constant concern that is repeated by the community. That is a worrying thing because we as a society are doing nothing to change that. I would like to touch on partnership working, if I may. In P division, there are roughly 10 or 11 calls every day about missing persons. Those persons are not missing at all, and some of them are repeatedly gone missing. We need to work more closely with social work, for example, because this is not a police issue. This is a social work issue. If a police officer has got to address a missing person who really is not missing at all but has just wandered off again because perhaps suffering from dementia, then this is an unnecessary drain on police time. They are well trained and expert in the things that they do, but they are not particularly well trained in social work or adventure. We need to look at the way we are working with partners so that we are spending the resources that we have being best targeted. I just think of the statistics. There are over 300 calls a day made to P division, and more than half of them are nothing to do with crime at all. We need to try and sort those out and get those calls directed to the resources that can best address them so that the police service is doing what the police service does best. It is certainly an issue that has been raised in the sub-committee, where the police are responders of last resort, and therefore it could be a mental health issue, et cetera. I entirely take your point, Chancellor. All the public services want to do the very best that it can, and it does not want to turn anybody away. I think that the temptation to help should be tempered by the fact that somebody else has a better place to do that. We as a society have to get our resources organised so that those other specialist resources are readily available. Daniel Johnson? In part, my sub-eventory has been partially answered, but I think it would be worth asking anyway. Chancellor Vertrino, you were saying that there has been an increase in demand. I am just wondering if you might be able to characterise what you think the components of that increase are. Is it people placing higher expectations on the police? Is it increased levels of issues from the general public? Or is it a withdrawal of services and then the police having to compensate or something else? How would you describe that increased demand and would the other panellists be interested in your reflections on what Mr Vertrino says? I think that public expectation is increasing all of the time. There is absolutely no doubt about that in my mind. There are all sorts of improvements that have taken place, both in the police and the fire service, which have little to do with the police fire and reform act of 2012. Recorded crime, certainly in P division, is falling all of the time, but the number of calls that police are having to address is increasing all of the time. I cannot find the correlation between them. I cannot find any sense there at all. In Fife, we have an increase in domestic fires, but a reduction in the casualties of domestic fires. That is all because of the proactive stance that is taken by the Fife fire and rescue service by making sure that everybody has a smoke alarm in their home. There has been a reduction in deliberate firesetting or unwanted fire alarms, and that is because of a proactive response again by the Fife fire service, where they have appointed a champion to go along and talk to people whose fire alarm has gone off on their premises unnecessarily. That has brought about a reduction in the unwanted fire alarms, which is a huge drain on time. That has got nothing to do with the single fire service. That has got to do with local initiatives, which could have happened whether or not the police and fire reform act had ever taken place. Due to an increased demand, but possibly the nature of the inquiries that come to Police Scotland now. A lot of the calls that come in may relate to persons with mental health issues. They often have members of the public in need of support for different reasons, and they are perhaps known across different service providers. It makes it all the more important that we continue with our partnership working to ensure that a collective provision is provided as a partnership to meet the needs of the communities. To be smarter about the way in which we do it, which helps to meet that demand, so that we are not putting in lots of work on numerous occasions and that families that are in need of a lot of support are getting that tailored support and reducing some of the possible duplication service provision, which is really what we are all looking to do. I think that prevent it has to be the main word that we use in relation to the delivery of our services. For me, the strength in that is parking the demand to one side as the opportunity offered, I would suggest, through the local outcome improvement plans and indeed the locality plans. I think that that has given us a real opportunity to truly demonstrate Christy. Whether we are working along with the health service or the local authority on some of those big issues, it absolutely has an impact on some of the other issues that potentially before were seen through a siloed organisation. Having that coming from the bottom-up as well within localities, allowing to local policing teams as well, is ensuring that it is not just the statutory services that are responding but communities themselves. We have had tremendous work in communities throughout the northeast through the voluntary sector, through faith groups, and so on and so forth. It is about ensuring that we are taking a different tact. I think that when we first police Scotland or the Police and Fire Reform Act in 2012, as I said, it came in, but there is more that has come since then that has enabled us to view policing in a different way, not least policing 2026. If I could return briefly to the local policing element, the majority of the evidence that we have heard previously suggests that local policing plans are working well. I am struck by the contrasts in evidence from yourself, Ms Beresford and Campbell Thomson. With respect, I thought that your submission was extremely negative. Is it a case that West Lothian should learn from good practice from the northeast? You have explained this morning the background to your submission, but what do you see going forward? Do you see that situation improving, the situation that West Lothian is in? I think that you should see all the submissions. We accept what people write in and it is your view of things and for us to understand why that is being said, but we very much appreciate the frankness. I think that partnership working in West Lothian has always been strong and it remains to be strong. It is really just the changes that are coming around due to the reform and subsequent budget changes. As Mr Thomson has said, Police Scotland put a lot of effort and work combined in partnership into particular prevention. That is definitely seen as a case in West Lothian. A lot of work goes into the violence against women, agenda and that prevention is there. There is no dubiety in any of that work. My reflection earlier was really focusing on officers that are available to attend calls to members of the public. Prevention is strong. The local policing plan 2017 for three years reflects quite strongly where we are in West Lothian with regard to priorities and sits well with West Lothian Council. We had no issues with the plan itself. We are working daily with our partners in assisting in its delivery. You do not see yourself progressing to the model that the north-east is using. You say that you do not share practice. You will admit that your submission was extremely negative on the police front. You were more positive about the fire service, but on the policing front you were pretty negative. I am just wondering how that moves on, because if it is negative now will it always be negative or is it going to move on? Absolutely not. Any comment that was made was due to what we have seen and being partied to as a progression through some of the work over the past few years. We are working strongly with Police Scotland and we do continually on a day-to-day basis sharing information and working well in partnership. I do not see that being negative whatsoever. I think that the comments and submission perhaps relate to some of the policies that Police Scotland has undertaken, such as the removal of traffic wardens and how that has impacted on communities. It is about consultation and communication to West Lothian Council during or prior to any consultation that has been taken place in contrast to Scottish Fire Rescue Service. Their communication with West Lothian Council has been better than that, shown by Police Scotland. If you are making comparisons, then you have an area commander coming to your council. I take it to be the liaison, like every other local authority. Yes, we do on occasion. Can you just say that if all the submissions were totally positive and there were no problems within legislation, we wondered exactly what we would be doing, obviously. No organisation is perfect and we learn from all the submissions and appreciate them all as being the perspective witnesses. I would not like you to think that, because something appears negative, we do not appreciate singling out why those views have come forward. Very often, that is how we learn more and can make improvements. Liam Kerr, I think that you wanted to supplementary. Yes, just briefly. If I might go back to something that you said earlier, Campbell Thompson. He talked about numbers remaining the same in the Northeast Division. Some have suggested that, since the act came in, the tasks that officers are required to do have become rebalanced. You have an awful lot of front-line officers having to do, if I might put it this way, back office tasks instead of being out in the local community doing the jobs that councillors require to be done. Is that a fair assertion? If so, can it or will it change? Thank you for the question. I think that, as far as the local officers are concerned, the number 17234 has remained constant throughout Police Scotland, give or take. From the Northeast Division, that is not exactly the same as we have seen in relation to police staff. I must say that it is extremely disappointing that the police staff in terms and conditions still have not been resolved. They are an absolutely key part of my team in delivering to the communities of the Northeast of Scotland. However, as far as officers are backfilling, I think that that is the term that you are using. I would suggest now that, probably over the past couple of years, we have got ourselves to such a place that we are actually starting to make better use of technology. There has been reforms, as you know, through criminal justice in relation to the whole delivery of criminal justice and the time that individuals spend in custody or otherwise. I would suggest that the main proportion or vast proportion of the officers are actually on the street doing the job, but it would be remiss. I could not say that there were not some officers who were performing some back-office functions. There may be good reason for that, I would have to say. There may be an illness or some other form of reason that the officers were performing that. I could not say that every single officer that I have at my disposal is performing a front-facing duty. However, I would have to say that, even in a legacy force, that would have been exactly the same. I would like to just move on, if I may. You mentioned the local policing plan earlier on, and I know that the fire and rescue service do their own local plans. Can we talk generally about how do the local authorities contribute to the local policing plan? There have been several initiatives done in Fife. One of them was an initiative called your view counts. It saw the comments from the community on a whole range of issues, principally to determine the P division's priorities. There were 1,880 responses to that, which, in this day and age, is not a bad response at all. They defined the priorities for the division in general, and there are five of them. There are then seven local policing plans. The top priorities and six of them are all exactly the same—anti-social behaviour. That tells the P division that anti-social behaviour is the number one priority, and it is the right thing to do, as far as the community is concerned. They achieved that by not just your view counts, but consultation with people who have been the victims of crime, talking to local councillors and community groups. I am sure that the other divisions did it as well, but I have no knowledge of them. I think that they are a great job of sounding out local opinion to see what really matters to the community. The one thing that Hovney addresses is the thing that I started off by mentioning is the response times to the community, and that is because they do not have the resources to do that. The changing nature of policing—I might not get the opportunity to mention this later, so I am going to take it now, madam convener, if that is okay. The different things that we are asking of the police is that there is a piece of legislation that should reduce the increased age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12. That must have changed the way that the police can deal with people under 12 now. There are different rules that apply. If there are powers that they do not have any longer, they are going to depend more on the social services that they deal with people who no longer have the age of criminals and are no longer criminally responsible. I do not know if they have all been taken into account when the legislation was cast, and I.T. was mentioned most certainly. We will need to get up to speed on that. Everybody has got out there and making their back office function streamlined by doing it on the job. I do not know if that is possible on the police service or not, but I think that it is something that we need to look at. You have just clarified that the age of criminal responsibility legislation is at stage 1 just now. The act has not been passed yet, but your comments are not to be taken. Do you forgive me? I thought it hard, actually. That is my understanding. Shona, I will bring you in, because Liam, you have inadvertently pinched a question, looking into an area that Shona was going to go and bring you in. I am sorry, I forgive you. Good morning. Following on from the discussion on local policing plans, we had evidence from COSLA last week, which in summary would say that over the last period of time there had been an improvement in the involvement, not least of local authorities, with Police Scotland in the development of those local plans. The evidence was that best practice had been built upon and that the outcome in relation to local authorities was better than it had been. First of all, it would be helpful to hear from the panel their view on that. We have touched on that already. There has also been some commentary around the ability of individuals in local communities, groups, faith groups and others to influence those local plans. The Community Empowerment Act was referenced. I would be interested just to hear whether you think that that has been the catalyst for improvement of local people's influence of those local plans. What more can be done to enable, obviously, within resources that are always there with the pressures that have been described? How those local resources can be deployed and the influence on those, what improvements have been made and what more could be done to have local people in addition to local authorities' influence on those plans? For me, the local outcome improvement or the Community Empowerment Act has been a key that has unlocked a door. I truly believe that, before we talked about Christy, we talked about partnership but we never really did it. We talked about co-location, but, for me, it is integration. I suggest that, looking forward to the next iteration of the policing plan, I would want it to be embedded in the local outcome improvement plan. I would want to see it sitting under the umbrella of community planning, which, as you know, has a top down and a bottom up through the locality planning, which ensures that there is an absolute voice heard right across communities, in particular those who have real challenges in those communities. I think that we are, within the next year and a half, embarking on, certainly in the northeast, with some opportunities to integrate local services. Peterhead is probably an example that was approved by the board, where it will not be the local authority co-located with the police. It will be an integration of service. When the problem comes in, as opposed to working out who best do we put to it, we might look that that may be a social work issue, it may be a housing issue, it may indeed be a police issue or a health issue, so there is a true different way of doing business. If you are going to do that, you cannot sit with a siloed policing plan over to the side. I would suggest that the current plans that we have, and I can only speak for northeast division, point towards the delivery of service in partnership, contests that we deliver in partnership, road safety that we deliver in partnership and so on and so forth. There has to be a new, more efficient and effective way of doing our business, and for me it is about integration. Collocation is not far enough, and I think that through that, and through aligning a policing plan to the local outcome improvements, we truly are making a difference. We talked about demand, and it may actually be that that is the catalyst that says that we are all shrinking as organisations, we are all challenged with budgets, that there is a true way of doing our business in a more innovative way. I think that the time is absolutely right for that, and there are some tests of change in the northeast. Would West Lothian and Fife be looking similarly at that integrated model? For West Lothian, I am not sure if we are going to be looking at the same model or not. I have not really heard much on that. With regard to our communication with communities and the local policing plan, that was shared with the local authority in its development. We have also looked at carrying out different functions in order to try and obtain information from our local community groups, our individuals and those perhaps harder to reach groups in communities. When reducing re-offending was changing into community justice, we did a consultation document from the fire service, the police service and the council, and that went out to members of the public and to specific groups. It was really important to get their feedback also, so it is about being as proactive as possible and making sure that we are getting that bread of return across communities. I think that, as well as the Empowerment Act, the equality acts really make sure that we are communicating with all members of the public and to get their views on developments across service provision. The impression that I have is that the senior police management in Fife are well aware of the need to work more closely with partner organisations. I mentioned that earlier on. They are already doing that in respect of antisocial behaviour as a classic example, but we need to get more integration so that we have the right resources doing the right thing. I do not know just how much latitude police management have to make changes or whether it has got to be a national directive, but the awareness and the need and the benefits that it would accrue from better working together are certainly manifest in Fife. On that point, on influencing police policy, which was my next question about the link between your local work, the local scrutiny committees, your plans and the SPA board, are you able, at a local level, to contribute to that policing policy at an early enough stage through the interaction with the SPA board? If not through that, in what ways do you think that that could be done? Maybe start with yourself, given you have just mentioned. I do not think that we local authorities have got involved at an early enough stage. I mean, I am new to this job. I have only been convener of police and fire scrutiny for a year now, and like everybody else, I am learning how to do my job. I hope that I am getting better at it. What happened was last year that we were presented with the policing plan, which we approved. As I was sitting there during the meeting, I said, I wonder what the chief superintendent would say if I said to him, no, I do not like that. You need to change that, but he would say, well, excuse me, this is my job. You did not get involved in management of operations. He is absolutely correct. It would be so wrong to get involved in management of operations, but I think that we must flag up earlier the things that we think the police are doing, so that they can say, yes, thank you, we understand, we are doing it or we are not doing it because, so I think that we do need to get involved at an earlier stage, and we have just got a new commander in Fife, and it is something that I am going to address with him in the very, very near future. Okay, it is helpful. West Lline Council would welcome earlier interaction and communication from SPA or Police Scotland on the future changes, and I think that that was part of the submission on the return, is that we have had greater communication from SFRIs than we had from Police Scotland, so that would be well coming on forward. Although it sounds like being proactive at a local level is equally as important, and it is a two-way street, I think, is what you are saying. I think that it is a point that has been raised over a number of years in relation to how local authorities can influence the police authority and the gap that appears. I do think that there has been an awful lot of work to try and bridge that gap, I can only say from a northeast perspective, both the chair of the authority and the chief constable visiting, absolutely supporting the move forward towards a far better integrated model in Aberdeen City and, as I say, out into the northeast. That autonomy that is being given to commanders respecting our partnership approach is there, but it has not always been there and it can still further improve. Daniel Hamilton has your supplementary being answered. The moment has probably passed, so I will leave it at that. Okay. Jenny. Good morning to the panel. I would like to ask a couple of questions around domestic abuse in particular, because we received submissions from Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland, as well, prior to today's session. A note from your submission, chief superintendent, you point to the creation of a national unit to tackle domestic abuse, and you talked to a strong and continuing focus on domestic abuse that has contributed to an improvement in the safety of victims. In terms of what went before, Scottish Women's Aid tells us in its submission that responses to domestic abuse varied not just among the eight regional forces, but within those forces themselves. A postcode lottery was very much the picture for what women and children experiencing domestic abuse experienced. I also note from Rape Crisis Scotland's submission that in our experience, the move to a single police force has transformed the way rape and other sexual crimes are investigated in Scotland. It has allowed far greater consistency of approach, including the training of police officers and the use of specialist officers. I just really appreciate if you could perhaps give us a better understanding of what went before and how that has changed, specifically with regard to the reporting of domestic abuse. Sorry, apologies. Thank you for the question. I think it would be fair to say that talking from a north-east perspective, certainly domestic abuse was treated, I would suggest, in a different way than it was treated in other parts of the countries. On the coming together or the forming of Police Scotland, certainly in the north-east, we learnt an awful lot. It's so important that we do learn. The establishment of the national divisions has been key. I did that at the start of Police Scotland. I was responsible for the major investigation teams, so I absolutely understand the benefit of that strength in having one consistent way in which we do our business. From a north-east perspective, that is also married to another formed group, which I think is new since the act has come out. That is the chief officer groups that have been formed throughout the 32 local authorities, which are health police and the local authority, and certainly in the north-east fire set on a number of those groups. Those groups look at the pan, public protection across the peace, child protection, adult protection and violence against women. In the north-east, there is a tier beyond that, which is an overarching tier of the chief executives, who is a leaders group for public protection, who have commissioned a piece of work to take stock of where we are in relation to the subjects that you raise. It isn't just a policing issue, albeit that the national divisions have very much lifted the standard, but it is absolutely that we interact better with the voluntary sector, who do a tremendous work and with partners, and we can do far more. I am interested in that in particular, because the committee went out recently and we met with the domestic abuse team in Forfer as part of our on-going work. One of the things that came out of that meeting was that the force there certainly felt that they were working in a much more joined-up manner. They were sharing information, they were much better equipped to tackle cases of domestic abuse and to join up the dots from historical cases. However, one of the challenges that they faced was actually around GDPR. I would just be interested to get your thoughts on that, because there was a bit of a challenge in terms of sharing data between third sector organisations and the police and a feeling of reluctance because of the GDPR legislation. I would appreciate your thoughts on that, particularly as lessons to learn going forward for the committee's work. Thank you for the question. It has always been there in some form, but given the new legislation, I wonder in relation to that specific point if I can take a written response back, probably from someone who is far better to speak on it than I am. The assurance, however, that I want to give committee is that when there is an issue that says that someone is at risk, then the information is shared, but there are complexities to it. If I can articulate that as best as I can back to committee, if that would be acceptable. Thank you very much. In reflecting that, it would be worth acknowledging that what we heard was police concerns about the willingness of the third sector to be able to share, but from the third sector a concern that the blockage was the other way. Something that captures that slightly anomalous situation would be very helpful. I want to go back to following up with Shona Robison's line of questioning on the development of local plans. Obviously, in order to develop those properly, a good flow of information in both ways is required. What observations can you make on the way that information flows? We have heard from Ms Beresford earlier on about the local community feeling unsighted in relation to decisions around the withdrawal of traffic warden services. Certainly, that was the case in my own Orkney constituency. The closure of police counters, likewise, the roll-out of taser use, for example. Again, an illustration of something where a national policy appears to have been taken, but the way that the information flows down to the local community so that it can engage in it and influence it is perhaps not what we would expect. I think that I have probably answered where I think that we need to get to. I think that I will take a stage back. I do not think that anyone should underestimate the task of establishing Police Scotland. It was a huge challenge to do so, and in doing so there were a number of things that could have been done better on reflection. However, I would suggest that to deliver safe communities and ensure that, operationally, we were competent, we actually did that. As a result, however, some of those other areas—I have travelled about the north-east, including out into the islands and the islands—were some of the impact of, for example, traffic wardens and public counters were felt very strongly. I think that now we are in a better position as to how we communicate change and we have to be. Policing 2026 makes it very clear that we have to engage. You can engage and say, well, we have engaged in it. It is a bit like partnership working. It needs to be a bit more than that. Moving forward, we are going to get better at actually doing so. We have to learn from the mistakes of the past. I am not going to sit here and defend. We got some things wrong, but I would have to suggest that we got the vast majority of things, which most importantly is keeping people safe and right, but we need to learn moving forward. The Community Empowerment Act is something that has come in since the act that we are discussing today, and I think that that has given us a real tool for proper engagement. Are you already saying—you are right—that we can all have a debate about what has happened in the past and the rights and wrongs of it? Clearly, what is most important now is that lessons are learned from those experiences. Are you seeing evidence that the willingness within your organisation to share information ahead of time, possibly even ahead of formal decisions being taken at a senior level in Police Scotland, with the local communities that will be dealing with the consequences of those changes? Has that changed meaningfully in the last number of years? If I can give you an example of going to a locality meeting in one of the areas in Aberdeen City and sitting with a local area inspector, fire were represented, local authority were represented and community members were actually represented in that group. We were discussing various issues. In fact, the issue that we were actually discussing was domestic abuse. I can never ever believe before that that would have been discussed in such an environment, but it was open and it was actually really refreshing to hear how much the community wished to partake of supporting a preventative agenda in relation to that. We definitely are not there yet, but I think that we are definitely on that journey and I have learned from the mistakes of the past. I will go back to the point that was pointed earlier about consistently across the board in local surveys and anti-social behaviour coming top of the list in terms of a community's concern. If the view of Police Scotland is that the priority for resources needs to be in other areas, whether it is knife crime or cyber crime or trafficking or whatever it may be, how do those discussions take place? Presumably, you are saying, we hear what you are saying, but with due respect we disagree. Is that relationship mature enough and functioning, as it should, where you say that we disagree? That is the reason why we disagree. Therefore, the local plan needs to reflect your expectations, but also our views on where resources need to be deployed. Anti-social behaviour is a very broad descriptor of what lies behind that. An awful lot of the anti-social behaviour that I see lies behind serious organised crime. We tackle serious organised crime at a very strategic level, through national resources and local resources. However, in relation to the problems that emerge from that, there is partnership that looks to support vulnerable people who deal through serious organised crime and take advantage of it. Not only with standing that, we come together at community safety hubs, as Ms Beriford has talked about, where we talk about issues that might be anti-social behaviour in an area and how collectively can we come together in partnership to deal with it. I do not think that I would ever dismiss anti-social behaviour, but I have to prioritise where I put resources at a particular time. Sometimes that comes to a split-second decision by, for example, maybe a sergeant on the ground as to what incident he is going to take. However, I think that we have better strategies in relation to tackling some of the causes and actually supporting some of the victims. I would be interested in Ms Beriford's perspective on how the information flows are functioning at the moment, whether that process has got better. We have talked about early engagement, but presumably early engagement will only work if the information flows are working as they should. It is difficult to know how to bring about this early engagement. There was an initiative some years ago at community engagement meetings. I thought that it was a great idea. I really did, and there were several community engagement locations in the world that I represent, and they all petered out because people did not come. That formula is no right. People were not engaging as it was hoped that they would, and I really do not know what the best way is. I thought that the year-view counts were very good because it relied very much on modern technology and the internet, and they were getting a positive response from people. We need to look at ways to engage meaningfully with the community. In terms of the information that you are getting from police colleagues to take forward a discussion about local priorities and the engagement with the community that you will be doing as a councillor, the police will be doing through their own activities as well. In terms of the scrutiny role that you have, that can only function on the basis that sufficient information is being shared at an early and off stage, I would have thought. No problem getting information from the police. I have to say that it is very good indeed. It is turning that information into actions that meet the community's demands. That is the trick. It is a question of priorities. I am sure that the chief superintendent will agree with me that you have only got so many resources. You say that is important, and that has to take a backseat. Joe Public cannot understand that. You cited a number of examples in your submission. What is your experience of this? Again, my submission is really related to the response resources when it comes to partnership working. Again, West Lothian Council in partnership with Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service remains strong. Recently, we had a cause for concern for a particular area. The community was suffering from antisocial behaviour. Our partnership analyst was able to pull all the information from all services in order that we had a very clear, descriptive issue in front of us so that we knew exactly what we were dealing with. There was a partnership discussion and a plan drawn up. The plan included using resources from youth justice services, criminal justice, across sections of the voluntary sector, community groups, community council, Police Scotland and West Lothian council and a communication plan. The information was relayed back to the communities. They were informed that collective meetings were going to take place. There were posters put up and information was given to primary school. There were a series of meetings, particularly to address the antisocial behaviour that was being sought in this community. The communication in fact, for some of the issues, was individual letters put out to the small community. That has taken place over the summer period. There were interventions with young people concerned that had been identified. We have had a great success. The issues have not completely gone away. They are being closely monitored by the partnership and they are still being addressed, but the antisocial behaviour has almost stopped. It is still there but only very slight, but the interventions are in place with looking at a longer term view. Some of the young people are now in positive destinations already and their behaviour would appear to have changed. It is really vitally important that when we look at issues affecting the community that we do so collectively as a partnership, we cannot work in as silos. That information has to be shared in order to meet the outcomes that we need and that the communities deserve in order to address those issues. We have to continue to work along in this way. West Lothian has good practice in that respect. We have talked a lot about the resources and the interplay at a local level. I was interested in looking at the other way around. One of the key drivers for creation of Police Scotland was about having flexibility. Anyone who reads Police Scotland reports will be very familiar with the car wheel organisational diagram for any local division. To what degree is that a reality? I ask Campbell Thompson how regularly you have national resources under your command and how does that draw down actually work in practice? On a daily basis, I chair my morning management meeting where we review the 24 hours of crime that has taken place—hopefully little of it—and thereafter look ahead as to what is coming. Seated at that table are representatives from my own division, but also representatives from other divisions, for example the national resources of Rhodes policing, which we interact with on a daily basis. Thereafter, there is tasking taken in relation to the serious crime division and the various areas that it represents on a daily basis in relation to the types of crime that we face and who is best to deal with that. Is it best dealt with with a national resource, which is located in my area, or is it best dealt with with a local policing resource? We have a significant amount of events. I am sure that you can appreciate that up in the north-east of Scotland—probably some that we would not want to discuss here—that demand a resource that comes to support us. We have that resource consistently for football matches, particularly those that are more challenging. We have access to resources. On a weekly basis, we have missing persons, and as a result of that, to cover some of the terrain that we have. The use of the police helicopter is absolutely critical. On a daily basis, on a weekly basis and a monthly basis, we have access to specialist resources as and when we require them. There is always going to be a challenge as to where the priority lies for those resources. However, in some of those day-to-day situations, the high-risk missing person, the Rhodes policing, the football match that is on-going or the event, that is an absolute given that those resources come under my command. I mean, I mean, what sort of numbers are we talking about? I mean, we're just reading from Police Scotland report, which describes there being 3,356 officers available to a division, and that is by comparison that you have 1,164 officers in your division directly. I mean, is that— I'm just wondering if you would ever be able to deploy 3,356 officers in your division, and is that a fair and realistic way to present the resources available to you? I sincerely hope, Mr Johnson, that I don't need to deploy those many officers within my division. However, I think that sometimes the way in which that's done, it perhaps is not helpful, to be honest with you. That's probably, if you take my divisional resource, it's actually slightly less than that, can I say, with some of the changes that there have been, but generally it's about 1,100. However, in relation to those resources, I think that's the national resources that, should we wish to draw on them, they could be taken to division. I think realistically it's not going to be that number. Some of the greatest numbers that we require are for some of the bigger events, to be honest, whether that's public order resources or others. However, I would imagine that those resources may be at most one or 200, not any more than that. It may well be that that's not helpful the context that that's actually provided to you. That is useful. I'd be very interested to hear from Ms Berifford and Cancer Vitrano in terms of their experience of the ability to have national resource deployed locally. I mean, what's the perspective that you might have of those resources? It seems to me it's nothing more than good sense. You've got specialist resources. There's no point in duplicating these specialist resources all over the country. You've got a central resource that the eight divisions that you can call upon at any time. It's just a good sense, no more or not. The important thing is that that was a change, I think, that was envisaged with the single police force, but territorial policing seems to have suffered as a consequence of that. That takes me back to where we came in, about the perception that the public have of the police. It seems to me there's fewer territorial policing, fewer community police officers available, and that's what registers with the community that we serve. So you're saying that you feel that there's been a reduction in those offices in favour of national resources? No, no, no. I'm not saying in favour of the national resources, it might just be a symptom of reducing budgets all of the time, and they might both have suffered equally. What I'm saying is that one of the changes that I perceive, since the single police force came in, is that territorial policing has suffered as a consequence. Okay. There are... Mr Perth, what do you mean? Waisledyn Council welcomes the reassurance that should there be a need for a large number of officers specialised in their own field to be available. We, thankfully, haven't had that need. Locally, how that transpires down to us, if we need... If Police Scotland locally need more officers for a particular event or to help deliver a policy, whether it be for the nighttime economy and the run up to Christmas, that kind of thing, then they can bid in for further officers to come in for a particular night or weekend, and that resource is then brought into our local area, our locality area, to assist with that. Personally, that's as much as I know that we've had. I mean, we will have had other officers in, if perhaps there's been a murder inquiry or something like that. That flexibility about officers, not just from F division but from the wider G division, that's where I think that would come into play. You mentioned something quite important there, something that has been mentioned to me privately in discussions about these matters, about bidding in for resources. Would you say, or is it your experience that, when those bids are made, the resources are delivered when local officers need it? I really can't comment because I don't know how many times Police Scotland locally will put a bid in for additional resources. West London Council's informed when there are additional resources coming so that we can prepare joint work in the area and help to deliver on Police Scotland's strategy for whatever it is that they're delivering on. We're informed when we've got extra officers in our area. I'd also like to ask, if the model is predicated on there being national resources available to deploy according to local need, as and when? Is it therefore important that local thoughts, priorities and experiences feed into shaping those national resources? Is that something that people in the panel this morning feel happens adequately? Is there a reflection of local views in national planning in Police Scotland, which is a bit of the reverse of Liam McArthur's point earlier about information flows? I think... Sorry, could you just ask me that directly again? Forgive me, apologies. Are there views about the shape of national police resources and plans? Are they flowed upwards adequately so that, if the point is that national resources are available for local demand, it's quite important that those views are reflected up the way in the planning of those resources? Is that happening is the question? I think to an extent it is, but on a number of those issues that I talk about, it's more extreme cases that we're talking about when those resources are actually deployed. I'm not sure that is there an opportunity for the public to say, I mean, for example, we have horses that come to the football in Aberdeen when we have high profile football matches and some people say, well, before Police Scotland, we never had horses. Why on earth have we got horses? Horses are extremely beneficial for police officers who are in the ground, who are trying to separate a small minority who may not be so intent in watching football. I'm not quite sure, or for example, the example that I provided in relation to the helicopter. We never, per se, had access to a helicopter from Grampian Police. We might have had certain rescue, but that's changed as well. Those are welcome for those high-level, for those high-risk sets of circumstances that we actually have to deploy those resources. So I'm not quite sure how we engage with the public in relation to their deployment. I'm not sure how we do that. I'm not sure if I've answered your question right, but I'm just not sure how we actually do that in relation to those specialist resources. I would just like to put a similar point to Mr Eifford and Councillor Vitrano. Do you feel that you have adequate opportunities to feed in to national planning and national policies when it comes to Police Scotland, so that those local priorities and experiences are reflected in national policing plans? I'm not aware of any particular consultation that would reflect that. Again, if perhaps there was a need locally, whether it be a yearly event or something that did require something on a bigger scale, then I think that the communities would want to have a say, but, locally, generally, if we were having any national resources, it would be due to an urgent matter, and Police Scotland would deploy that appropriately due to risk, threat and demand. Ad hoc rather than its strategic level? Absolutely. I don't know whether I've got the opportunity to feed in to national strategy or not. If I felt that there was something that needed to be said or done, I would have to go through my local divisional commander. Whether he passed it on or not, I've got no idea. There is no formal line chain of communication for me to input there, but, really, you're talking about national strategy. It's a way above my pay grade. Given account of what the community's reaction is to changes in the police, police action, police involvement, I'm not well placed to say what we should be doing in practical terms to meet them. I think that, as the chair of the local police scrutiny panel and as a local representative, I think that you're very well placed to provide a perspective, but that's my personal view. John Finch-Everett. A question for yourself, Mr Thomson. With respect, you have an age bracket, where you'll recall that the idea of bidding in for a national resource isn't necessarily a new thing going back a long time, the Scottish crime squad, subsequently the Scottish drug enforcement area, which was comprised of officers from all the forces, but I wonder if there's a tension, and this is an actual example given to this committee when we were out and about from your area and predates your time in the area. That is that, for instance, an issue regarding a proliferation of drugs in some Murray seaside towns, for instance, would be seen as an important issue in the division, but in the scheme of things when dealing with organised crime gangs and the drugs, it's not. There's inevitably going to be a tension about access to this. Does that mean that areas potentially lose out because of that, having contributed to that national resource in the first instance of you? Thank you for your question. Ultimately, if you think of the threat, for example, from serious organised crime, or from cyber, or from counter-terrorism, I don't think that any of those threats, albeit that they may be more evident in some of the more urban areas. I think that Scotland as a whole faces those threats, so I think that it's right that we have a nationally brigaded resource, and I'd have to say probably one of the best in any country in Europe that we do have that actually tackle those threats. They're national resources, they're absolutely accessible to myself as divisional commander and operate within local communities as such right across Scotland. There is a bidding process in relation to it, as your respect, that there always has been. In relation to the public influencing that, I think that there's a difference round about the public influencing particular tactics that Mr Johnson is referring to, and the public having an opportunity to influence national policy, which I think is absolutely key. If I may very briefly, for instance, the public might influence priorities on the basis of understandable concern about a number of drug deaths, for instance. That's not necessarily them involving themselves in police operations, but that would be quite legitimate for that to be an influence factor that you, in turn, presumably feed into the tactical tasking. Absolutely. Could I return to the communication issue about national priorities and how resources are allocated? I noticed in particular, Mr Fairford, you mentioned there's no transparency, no transparent exercise and how police Scotland resources are allocated across Scotland. There may be the bidding, but how is the decision made? Clearly, there will be certain priorities, but I'm getting the feeling that if there was more transparency and an explanation, it would help communication, it would help improve relationships. I think that it's a feeling across Westlothan Council that it would be beneficial to have more transparency in the number of resources available. That's within our locality area, which is Westlothian, and to understand the demands and the numbers and the flexibility that Police Scotland has within the J division itself. I think that we understand that that flexibility is there. If we require a certain resource, often they're there in order for the police to carry out what they need to do in Westlothian. There was something last week and that was there, and the police resource was there that isn't normally there, so we do know that they are able to do that, and that's most welcome, but I think that it would be beneficial to have those numbers. We can then put some plans in place with realistic expectations, so we're not expecting things that we know may not be achievable or delivered when we're working out future work together in partnership. I notice in particular that the view is that much of the current allocation to divisions appears to be based on historic practice, with little evidence that's based on need. Transparency therefore seems to me and this communication absolutely vital in order to tease that out. That's even looking at our partnership working, where some officers are feeling that they would have liked additional resources, so I think that their own work demand sometimes is showing that in the work that they're doing with partnerships. That, to a degree, will always happen, but until the transparency in the figures is there, we don't know where the demand is because of conflicting demand elsewhere or conflicting demand within our community, our local community. To understand the demand in our local community is really important to get that. It gives a better picture, and clarity would be good. I take it that others would welcome that transparency. The more transparency there is in everything, the better, but I wonder how much meaning it would have for somebody in my position. The local police commanders know what they need, and they will understand what they're asking for. I have no idea why they were asking for that particular resource or that number of personnel. I suppose that if you analyse why resources have been deployed in a certain way, then when you may come to want these resources, it strengthens your ability to argue in a certain way. That would be my own reasoning. More information, more data, without unnecessarily burdening the police, but transparency is an issue that I notice has come up in governance generally. Would that not be me getting involved in management and operational matters, ma'am convener? It would be you expressing a view on what you thought was needed and noting how things were deployed—not interfering with it, but noting how things were deployed and perhaps proffering an argument that would resonate with the decisions around that deployment. Liam, you had a supplementary, which I didn't take you for. Yes, thanks, convener. Just very briefly, councillor Vetrano talked about the public perception earlier on, which I think is a fair comment. I have an awful lot of people contact with me, and I'm sure my colleagues will, about challenges and rural areas, challenges of policing in rural areas. Campbell Thompson talked earlier about front-line resources and some of the challenges about keeping people out there. I put this to you, Campbell Thompson. Are the challenges that I'm certainly hearing about in rural areas a reality or a perception? If they are a reality, do you have scope within the act, within the changes that have been made, to address those challenges? To go to be brief, because we've overrun, but it's been a good session. Thank you for the question. I personally don't see a difference between policing, and I know that there is a difference between policing a rural community or policing an urban community. If I take the north-east of Scotland, it is made up of various different communities, and they all absolutely deserve the best policing service that we can deliver to them. We've talked much about local outcome improvement plans and locality planning. In the north-east of Scotland, we have a rural crime strategy, which embraces a number of partners in relation to us all understanding that there is a different dynamic within the rural community and how, collectively, we can all work together. However, I have a division, which has, where Mr Kerr, doubled the ratio of probationers anywhere in Scotland. Managing that is easier in an urban environment than it is in a rural environment, because it's a huge geographic area that we cover, and the demand there can be challenging. However, as we do in an urban environment, it's important that we work with partners, that the communities themselves are the best eyes and ears in that preventative agenda. I think that there's a real strength in that, and we need to build on that. However, I don't see a difference per se. Absolutely everyone is entitled to the very best policing service that they can give. Shona, I have a supplementary question. I will go back to the deployment of resources, just to clarify whether I am understanding that correctly, because I think that we are talking about two things. The first is that, when there would be a serious crime, murder or sexual assault, there would be a reactive deployment of resources on the basis of need. However, what we were then also talking about was the on-going day-to-day work. If, for example, there was a rise in drug crime because serious organised crime was beginning to operate in an area that had not previously operated, then presumably that is when a case would be made for those additional resources. Can we just clarify what we are talking about those two different things? You are absolutely right, and that is indeed what happens. Should we require specialist resource, then, as Mr Finlay has said, that there is a tasking process that we bid for that resource. However, sometimes you do not actually even have to do that because they are covering the nation. It may well be that, in some of the work that they are doing in one part, it is actually covering your part as well. At present, local authorities are asked to confirm the appointment of a local police commander. Does the panel think that that is the right approach? I am happy to apply. I think that it would be a great opportunity to invite local authority chief executives to inform such panels. It has not happened in the past, but I know that they are very much involved in selecting senior police officers, and I think that that would be a step forward. Do you think that there will be a role to play? I would agree. I think that it would be perhaps a good step forward. I thank the panel for that honesty and also for quick answers there. I know that there has been a lot of discussion from my colleagues today about the local and the national incentives, so I do not think that there is any need to go over that in great depth again, but I wanted to come from the angle of some of the things that have been talked about today already. The missing persons situation has been talked about earlier in the debate in the chamber not too long ago, and mental health. I wonder if there could be some comment on if, as a commander, you have the power, if you like, to implement national strategies at a local level, not just yourself but also in conjunction with local authorities. I say specific examples, because if you take the missing persons framework, for example, which has been widely applauded by Civic Scotland, as well as the mental health strategies, suicide prevention strategies, et cetera, there is an incumbency on everybody to be involved in that, and there will be different needs in different areas. How do you see that working and what more can be done to make sure that it works effectively in terms of those specific strategies? I think that there again, and I already alluded to it, there is a national strategy or a national policy, which I most definitely have influenced in relation to how we have come there, and thereafter that allows us the tools to work along with partners, because if that just becomes a Police Scotland strategy, it is of little or no relevance. It means that we are doing things consistently within a siloed organisation, but where we have taken that to a different place, I would suggest, or use that as an enabler within the north-east, is to absolutely work with partners in particular around about care homes in Aberdeen city, where we have seen a significant reduction in relation to missing children. It is still work that we need to do in relation to mental health, we are not there yet and we can continue to improve, but the national strategy is fine in itself, and yes, it deserves the plaudits that it has received, but it is not until that is actually delivered within the place and we have seen some real benefits in relation to that. In council, we have really had to look at the way in which the missing person data is being used, because for some of the young people, for those premises in which they are absconding, they may be known where they are and they are not actually missing. We know where they are, but they are not where the authorities would like them to be. They are not back and they are not safe within the dwelling, but they are elsewhere and it is finding ways of which to record this. Data for Police Scotland may show that missing persons for a particular area are on the rise, but in fact we know where the young people are, there are just issues around making sure that they are safe and getting them back to a safe accommodation. We are really running short voting, is it something really pressing? No, it was more a continuation of that line. Right, because we are vastly late. Okay, I will just finish on the final question, which is not a continuation of that line, which is about the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I appreciate that most of the discussion today has been on police matters and that is because of the panel that we have got in front of us, but I know that the Fire and Rescue Service is to a point a local senior officer for each local authority area. I wonder if it is possible for the other two panel members, Ross, and Yvonne could comment on how that role is working just now. For West Lothian Council, it is working well. Our commander for the Fire and Rescue Service covers both Falkirk and West Lothian. The time was shared relatively equally and communication is working good. There is change of staff within the ranks below him, but as ever, the communication about when and who is taking over the new roles is communicated across the partnership. Yeah, I think that it is working well too. The transformation, the consultation document that was issued recently is the easiest to read consultation document that I have ever seen in 35 years' experience. I think that we as a society should be excited about some of the proposals for the fire service that are going to be really meaningful and improve the service and the long overdue. You have a different perspective. On that happy note, I thank all the witnesses for attending. That has been a very helpful evidence session. I suspend for five minutes and come for a break to allow the second panel to take their seats. We now continue with our second panel. It is my pleasure to welcome Caroline Gardner, Auditor General for Scotland, Audit Scotland and Jill Emory, chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland and HM inspector of constabulary in Scotland. Can I congratulate you in particular on your position and we look forward to working with you in the committee? We move straight to questions as there are no opening statements beginning with Shona. Can the panel turn their attention to the relationship between Police Scotland and the SBA and how that has developed since 2012? I think that we are aware of the particular challenges in the early days that have been rehearsed and talked about a lot. I guess what I am interested in is whether those issues have been resolved satisfactorily or are in the process of being resolved, not least the improvements that have been made since last year with the new chair. It would be useful to get your summary view of whether you feel that things are now improving and what more needs to be done, particularly when I am referencing the clarity and understanding of roles and responsibilities. It is very encouraging to see the words of the new chair coming up for a year now that Susan Deacon has been in post, but the words at the start about turning the authority more outward facing and equipping the authority with the experience and expertise that it needs to hold the chief constable to account coming to fruition. Over this shy of a year, HMICS has been encouraged to see that the effort has been very much put into that outward engagement more widely to the bolstering of the authority in its officer team and the plans that have been approved by the board in public to augment that team with other posts and also to augment the board membership with other board members who are bringing a very wide eclectic mix of experience to that scrutiny of what Police Scotland is doing. All of those things give HMICS a lot of optimism that things are moving in a much better direction. I agree that we are seeing signs of progress as well. Parliament decided for reasons that we all understand to have this structure where the SPA is there to hold Police Scotland to account. My view and the work of Audit Scotland has shown that it has taken a while for them to be in a position to be able to do that. We had the disagreements and the uncertainty about what the roles of the different players were to start with. That has moved on a long way. We have seen the changes that the chief inspector has described around new appointments and strong leadership for both the SPA and Police Scotland to move that forward. We are seeing improvements in just day-to-day working simple things like the appointment of a single chief financial officer with a reporting line to the new chief executive of the SPA as well as to the deputy chief officer within Police Scotland. All of those are signs of progress. The one caveat that I would have at this stage is that we are still not seeing the degree of real performance information about policing available to the SPA that would enable it to hold to account Police Scotland in the way that the legislation envisages for delivering the strategy for policing for Scotland and ministerial priorities for that. That is still a work in progress. Would you both agree that the improvements that have been made and still need to be made, including the one that you have just referred to, can be done within the existing parameters of the 2012 act? I do. I think that the act itself is fit for purpose, but the implementation clearly has had challenges over the piece. I have said and I believe that there are grounds for optimism. Clearly, we have been here before, as far as the new chair of the authority, new chief constable, new cabinet secretary, that it feels in the past that the planets might have aligned to achieve the improvements that we all in Scotland would want there to be. This time, we really have to be cautious that all those signs are positive, but it still needs to be backed up with the learning from the experience of others in the past in order to make sure that those challenges are minimised going forward. I agree as well. I think that the legislation is clear. There is now a much better working understanding of the roles and responsibilities of Scottish ministers, the SPA and Police Scotland. I think that it took a while for those roles and relationships to settle down. That took time that could have been spent transforming policing, but we are starting to see that coming through now. I think that the real challenge will be seeing that fundamental change in the way that policing is delivered at a local level, as well as nationally, that the committee was exploring earlier this morning. Just on that point, if I may, it seems to me that a lot of what is coming out in the evidence is that the act was brought in and then there was a different interpretation of the roles and responsibilities, and personalities played quite a big part in both that interpretation and the implementation. Given that the act has not changed, you have said that things are resolving now, things are looking much better, but that would suggest to me that that is because the personalities have changed. If the personalities can change for the better, then logically, the personalities could change for the worse in the future. You could be back in a situation where some strong chief constable could be in conflict perhaps with a strong SPA. Is that a fair conclusion and if it is, do we need to revisit the act and look at clearing up some of those ambiguities that have crept in? I completely recognise the concern that you are raising there, Mr Kerr. I think what I would say is that some of the problems around relationships did reflect roles and responsibilities, but about some quite nitty-gritty things, so things like where the responsibility for the finance function should sit. For a long part of the first five years of the SPA, we were sitting with both a finance director within Police Scotland and a chief financial officer, director of financial accountability within the SPA, and you could almost characterise it as turf wars between the two around who was managing the finances of the organisation. I think that it took a long time for the SPA and Police Scotland to work that out. Government intervened eventually in helping them to clarify that, but that is not to do with what the legislation sets out. It might be that the legislation is quite clear about the role of Scottish ministers in setting the priorities for policing, the SPA and setting the strategy for delivering those priorities and holding Police Scotland to account and Police Scotland for doing it. There is always a risk of personalities throwing up the sorts of tensions that you are referring to, but we are now in a much more stable position around the roles of the SPA and Police Scotland that they would not have the same impact on the structure and, therefore, the policy aims of the legislation that they did in those very early stages. For me, it is a lesson about the importance of good implementation rather than a problem with the legislation itself. You just touched on quite an important point there about the respective roles of ministers, the SPA and the police, and you have talked about how you feel that the SPA is addressing some of the points around technical competence, especially around finance. However, how about that bigger point? The SPA is important not just because it provides financial governance, but it provides a buffer preventing direct governmental direction of the police, which is fundamentally important. Do you feel that it is improving its role with that function as well as the more technical financial ones? I think that it is building its capacity, as the chief inspector has said, to be able to do it. My caveat would be that I think that the information that they get as part of the performance framework and the more detailed performance management information that they will need to let them do that is still developing. That is partly a result of the slow progress in modernising the IT system, so a lot of the IT is still coming not just from the systems run by the eight legacy forces, but beneath that systems that were not well integrated in each of the forces. However, I think that without progress in having that really clear information about how well the priorities for policing and the strategy for policing is being delivered, that will always be an area where the SPA finds it harder to carry out its role. Gill will have a clear view on that as well, I think. Yes, thank you. I agree that there are still challenges there, particularly in respect of that performance point. Equipping the authority with the means of properly holding the chief constable to account the actual focus now, the new performance framework that came forward just in April this year, has its focus on outcomes and the impact of policing activity on communities, as opposed to the previous target-driven model. However, Police Scotland is still evolving and is still not arrived at specific measures that demonstrate the delivery of those outcomes and what the impact has been as experienced by people. That inhibits the authority's ability to then, as I say, hold the chief constable to account for that delivery. That is still very much work in progress. It is something that HMICS is very interested in and very involved in scrutinising, as is the delivery of serving a changing Scotland, that longer-term 10-year strategy. We are very much interested in looking at the implementation. Most recently, over the summer, we have been doing fieldwork into how Police Scotland identifies its priorities. The subject area that you have been exploring with the previous panel and how those identification of priorities then leads to informed decision-making about allocation of specialist resource and support. We will be reporting on that later this year. Thank you very much. I want to turn to issues of finance, but briefly on the topic that you have been covering. I recognise what you have described as the teething problems in terms of implementation, but what you have described in terms of strong leadership and learning of the lessons could have equally applied—in fact, I think that almost certainly was applied—at the appointment of Michael Matheson, Phil Gormley and Andrew Flanagan. I suppose that the concern that some of us have is that, although the personalities have changed, the rhetoric might have changed in acknowledgement of where mistakes were made has certainly been offered. We are still reliant on roles and responsibilities that apply to a very limited number of individuals whose personalities will come to bear as well. Is that not something that we need to be looking at quite closely in terms of the way in which the legislation is working now and is likely to work in future? I very much recognise the point that you are making and, indeed, the point that Mr Kerr made earlier. However, one of the main things that HMICS said last year when looking at openness and transparency of the police authority was the fundamental importance of having public board and public committee meetings. That has absolutely happened. The visibility of those personalities and behaviours in that much wider context is now there and something that I think will help to minimise the risk of repeating some of the mistakes of the past. Is that in relation to the SPA board, or the increased visibility in relation to the SPA board and the way it interacts with Police Scotland? I would suggest that there is perhaps less visibility in terms of the relationship between the justice secretary and the SPA board and, indeed, I suppose the relationship with the chief constable as well. Of course, the cabinet secretary has that responsibility to Parliament for justice and all justice matters, but the day-to-day operational independence of the chief constable and the duty of the chair of the police authority to call the chief constable to account is very deliberately set out in the act. That distinction, that buffer, the layer between Government actually directing operational business of policing is very important and needs to be protected. Yes, around this time last year, where concerns were raised about the engagement that the justice secretary had in discussions around the potential return to work of the former chief constable, which I think flagged up some anxieties about how that interrelationship worked, are there any lessons that can learn from that in terms of the way in which the legislation is at a point going forward? Of course, the legislation does allow for the cabinet secretary to intervene in particular circumstances that would require coming to Parliament in order to indicate that intention. The situation last summer certainly was very challenging for a number of the parties and I think that that is a matter now of public record and certainly even HMICS's own report. That openness and transparency report would show the levels of dysfunction that existed at that time and I would characterise the intervention that you referred to as a symptom of that dysfunction because all was not working as it should have been had the cabinet secretary not intervened in that particular set of circumstances. I am sure that there would have been equally if not more criticism of that lack of action, which some might argue is actually the cabinet secretary discharging his duty to Parliament. Just in terms of dysfunction, Ms Gardiner, there have been well-publicised concerns from yourself among others about the financial management within the SPA in Police Scotland. You have touched on it a little in your answer to earlier questions from Shona Robison. What do you see was the root of those problems and can we have confidence that they have now been resolved? You are right, I have reported a number of times on the SPA Police Scotland since it was established in April 2013. I think that the rate of my reporting is unprecedented for a public body. I think that it was a combination of things. One, that quite local level lack of clarity or disagreement about who would take responsibility for key functions like financial management and financial governance with dual roles leaving overlaps and gaps between them and not focusing on the longer-term issues of financial sustainability and good financial management that will enable policing to respond to the challenges in the 21st century. Secondly, as I reported elsewhere, straightforwardly, weaknesses in leadership and governance were in the SPA itself, which led to decisions being taken without a clear audit trail, without a good options appraisal, without it being clear to us as auditors what information had been taken into account or who was involved in taking particular decisions. That would not be good practice in any public body, certainly not for one spending £1 billion a year and having direct effects on people's lives right across Scotland every day. We are now seeing real progress in that. It has taken five years to get there, but I welcome the fact that we are seeing some of the cornerstones of good governance, good financial management being put in place. I am planning to report to Parliament again before the end of this year on the progress that we have seen as part of our audit of the financial year 2017-18. There is a long way to go, but I am happy to be able to give that assurance that we are seeing signs of progress. I do not want you to break any embargoes, but in terms of where the focus going forward needs to be concentrated, are you able to suggest where that improvement needs to be built on? We all accept that there have been challenges in the past, but there are arguably more significant challenges going forward in terms of what Police Scotland needs to do. I would like to see what we are seeing, to an extent, moving away from the challenges of day-to-day financial management towards the question of a longer-term financial strategy that is not just about balancing the books in terms of the amount of money that is likely to be available with the Government's protection and what it will cost to deliver spending, but how you use that resource to really transform policing, deliver policing 2026, and particularly the sorts of detailed strategies that will be required for investing in ICT, for looking at the police estate, for looking at the ways in which police work with other public bodies as you have been exploring this morning, putting the detail on the vision that is in the 2026 strategy and the plans that will turn it into reality seems to me the priority now. That is your confident that there is a structure now in place that almost irrespective of who performs the individual roles within that structure, that it is robust and resilient and can give us confidence that we should see a far more or far less hap management of finances going forward. I think that we have got the two fundamental building blocks in place. One is clear agreement, clear respect between the SPA and Police Scotland for who does what and who is responsible for it, and secondly, the systems, the processes in place that will let them use that to make much more robust decisions and much more accountable decisions for the way public money is used in the future. Thank you. Dan, you had a supplementary effect. Yes. You have touched on quite deep criticisms of the way that financial management has done and the fact that very basic things around accountability and audit trials simply weren't taking place. You have also touched briefly on ICT and future finance. Now, I understand that Police Scotland has just submitted a request for just under 300 million pans worth of investment in ICT, which, again, I believe will make that one of the largest ICT projects, not just in Scotland but in the UK. Given that those measures, as you described them, are work in progress rather than complete, does that raise some concerns about a very large ICT project that even a very capable organisation might struggle to manage? I think that we don't need to think very long and hard to come up with some examples where that's not gone right. What would your thoughts be about Police Scotland embarking on a 300 million panned ICT project? We have always recognised, as have Police Scotland themselves, that investing in ICT is a fundamental way of modernising policing and transforming it for the 21st century. I reported on the failure of the I6 programme probably two years ago now, which was intended to deliver some of that, but it didn't, and there's no doubt in my mind that that set policing back in those terms for a number of years. I probably wouldn't characterise the proposals that are forward at the moment as being an ICT project but instead a programme, and I think that's an important distinction. My sense is that the SPA and Police Scotland have learnt some important lessons about how you break down a project of this scale into manageable chunks while still keeping the big picture visible and working towards the overall aim, and it's something that we'll be looking at closely through our audit work. As you say, we know that there are big risks in these, not just in Police Scotland, but in public bodies across the country that I've reported on before, we'll be looking at closely at the governance and the approach to being a skilled client that Police Scotland are bringing to that. Indeed, there is a big difference between a programme and a project, but I would also argue that a programme brings with it more risks, because unless you make sure that each of the individual programmes are sufficiently well-defined, managed and delivered within the broadest strategic context, those are precisely the areas where large programmes come into trouble. What measures would you be arguing that the SPA and Police Scotland need to put into place so that they can frame and deliver a programme of this scale effectively and ensure that the taxpayer gets good value for money? I don't think that anyone would argue about the need for this IT integration, it's just about confidence in its delivery. On the back of the various reports that I've produced on IT problems and IT failures across Scotland over the past six years, we've produced a fairly short publication that sets out the principles for managing digital programmes. They're things that are quite straightforward in principle to talk about, like having a clear vision of what you're intended to achieve, making sure that you have at the beginning the skills and expertise that you need to be able to act as an intelligent client, making sure that you are monitoring against clear timescales and milestones for what's being delivered. It's easy to say that those things are much harder to do them in practice. That's why my digital team will be looking closely at the way in which this is being taken forward in Police Scotland and aiming to test and challenge what they're doing, and also looking at the challenge that the SPA itself is providing, which we would expect to be an important part of managing the risks around this. No guarantees, we know they're big and complex, we're looking at it closely for that reason. In recent weeks, one of the concerns has been in terms of some of the bills that have been incurred from external consultants. Do you feel that Police Scotland, as it currently stands, has sufficient IT and programme management and, indeed, strategic capacity and capability in its own people? I'm not in a position to give you that assurance yet, or indeed to say that they don't have it. It's one of the things that we'll be looking at closely. We'll also be looking at the way in which they've made the decision to procure the external skills that they have, looking at the way they've tried to balance the need for expertise, which is quite scarce and expensive in the market, with making sure that they can demonstrate good use of public money in doing that. All I can give you at this stage is my assurance that we're looking closely at it. I would just add to that. I was pleased to hear you say that nobody would question the need for that ICT integration, and, certainly, HMICS has mentioned that inhibitor in a number of police inspection reports of local policing or some of the specialist functions, the service absolutely does need an integrated cohesive approach to information communication technology. As far as the use of consultants and that marriage of expertise with the policing experience, that's something that we have also commented on in the past. There's no doubt that Police Scotland does need the rigor around just that distinction you make between programme management and projects. There is evidence that they have achieved that. They have business change experience coming into the organisation in quite senior support roles and then marrying that up with the operational experience of police officers in order to arrive at the best use of public money and the best impact operationally. Again, that is an area in which HMICS is very interested. Before we leave the line of questioning that Liam McArthur started, I wonder if I could ask this gardener. In your submission, you said that the structure served to ensure that the chief constable was not directly accountable to Scottish ministers. This is the SPA structure. There's been recent public and political debate regarding the former chief constable over the extent of Scottish ministers' involvement in the Scottish Police Authority's operation. On the back of that, can I ask if your content of section 5.2, which says that the cabinet secretary may not give directions in relation to specific policing operations, any ministerial direction must be published and laid before Parliament. Is that fit for purpose? Does that need to be looked at again, given that there was a very large huge debate around this whole issue? I think that it is fit for purpose. I agree with the way that Jill described the events of last year. I think that it's clear that the overall way in which the chief constable's leave of absent was handled left confusions about what the position was. I think that the justice secretary's involvement in that was appropriate and was in line with the legislation. Conversely, I have previously reported that I think that the Scottish Government was slow to get involved in the early years of the SPA in clarifying what the roles of the SPA and Police Scotland ought to be around things like financial management. Both of those, I think, fit well with the section of the legislation that you've just pointed the committee's attention to. I think that we're now in a much better position for them to work in practice in the way that it was intended, but I don't think that we've seen anything that breaches that provision in the five years that the SPA and Police Scotland have been in operation. So the debate therefore didn't raise any issues that you had any concern with? The overall situation was clearly a difficult one for everyone involved and it was difficult to untangle, but I don't think that that was as a result of the legislation. I think it was as a result of actions that were taken within the SPA and Police Scotland at that stage around the leave of absence that was granted to the chief constable. We haven't moved to this yet, but I think that it's clear that there are questions about the provisions in the legislation for complaints handling, which I think is related to that. I know that the review that Dame Eilish Angelini is carrying out in that will be an important source of evidence, but if you're asking me about the legislation, that's the only area that seems to me important to have another look at in quite that way. With regard to financial management, it would appear that the Scottish Foreign Rescue Service didn't encounter the same initial problems. I was going to ask you if Police Scotland and the SPA could have learned from that, but from what you've said, we've gone beyond that and it seems to be on the right track. In May this year, you did your audit of the SFRS. You complement the board on working well and talk about the strengths and quality of discussion and scrutiny and challenge of management, but you also want to say that you recommended that it needed to increase its pace of reform and implement its plans for transforming into a more flexible, modern service. I wonder if you could expand on that and what led you to that conclusion? You're right that the two section 23 reports that I produced on the Foreign Rescue Service have recognised that they made faster progress both in terms of their overall governance and their financial management. We've seen some of the benefits of that in terms of, for example, the long-term financial strategy that they've got and their clarity about the investment that's needed to transform the service for the longer term. The area where I think the question that you've referred to just there about the pace of change, we recognise in the report was a deliberate decision by the board of the Foreign Rescue Service and its senior management to take people with them, both people in councils and communities across Scotland and also firefighters and fire officers. They're working with the particular challenge that the Fire Brigade Union organises on a UK-wide basis and that Scotland, the Scottish Foreign Rescue Service, needs to play into that while having its own quite different vision for the way in which the service will be provided and will deliver in future. I recognise the thought that they put into that decision. I think that they have had some benefits from it in terms of now harmonising firefighters' terms and conditions across Scotland, and I also think that it's now important for them to pick up the pace of reform, building on that achievement, but looking at the ways in which they can genuinely modernise the Fire and Rescue Service for the longer term and put it on a financially sustainable footing, given the amount of investment that's needed, particularly in equipment and the firefighting estate across Scotland. I take it from that. Are you confident that the SFRS will achieve the transformation that's been planned? I think that they've laid some very strong foundations both in building that sense of confidence and trust with their own workforce and with councils across Scotland and the clarity about the investment that's needed. I think that they don't underestimate the challenges of doing that more widely when we are potentially talking about quite significant differences to the way in which the service is organised and the things that firefighters spend their time doing every day. It is a big challenge, but I think that they've laid some strong foundations for it. You would be aware that, in the first panel, there was a line of questioning about resources and the transparency in the allocation of those resources and the reasons behind that. I wonder if, given HMICS has stated that there's a need for the SPA to strengthen its governance to increase transparency, focus scrutiny and improve relationship with local authorities and stakeholders. Does that apply to Police Scotland when we cascade down to looking at the resources allocated at a national level and how that impacts on local needs? We've commented a number of times on the link that should exist between the 32 scrutiny committees at that local authority level and the national decision making. I was privy to part of that discussion this morning about both ways. The local influencing the national but also the national communicating at a local level. There are a number of areas that HMICS is encouraged to see the national conveners forum, so the conveners of each of those scrutiny committees have a forum and also the joint officer, joint chief officer group, where we see COSLA, SOLIS, Police Scotland and the SPA being represented. It certainly is something that is evolving, is developing and is moving in a better direction. Key to some of this discussion is another topic that was touched on earlier, and that's an accurate analysis of demand across the country. That absolutely is part of an on-going programme within Police Scotland to look at demand, productivity and performance However, we have expressed some concern about the pace of that work because it is pivotal to a lot of these discussions about understanding before we talk about any officer numbers, whether we're starting with the right number and whether those posts are actually distributed where and when they need to be across Scotland. Ms Carter, do you think that there doesn't need to be a more tangible exercise carried out in terms of transparency and the reasons why certain resources have been allocated in a certain way? My starting point is that where we're talking about public service and public money, openness and transparency should be the norm. There are clearly some specific decisions, some specific services where that's not possible for good reason, but I think people should be very clear why and when they can't share information of that sort. We're seeing some real progress being made in the way the SPA carries out its business from a default, which I think was moving very much in the wrong direction, away from being transparent and making it easier for Parliament and the media local communities to see what was happening. That's shifted at the SPA level. I think there's probably room for the same shift to take place, at least in some parts of Scotland, so that people understand what resources are available, how decisions are being made and have the chance to have their voices heard. We know from examples elsewhere in health and social care that that often has real benefits for the people responsible for public services in this Parliament, in government and at a local level. People don't expect there to be a magic wand that can answer every preference, every wish that they express, but they do, I think, these days expect to be involved in the discussions about them. I think there's room for more of that at a local level in policing. So that's more from Police Scotland giving information about the resources nationally in the way that SPA has now opened up considerably more and is much more accountable and transparent. I think that, as the chief inspector has described, we've got the mechanism for doing that through the local scrutiny committees. It's now about making a reality, of making that information available and genuinely entering into a discussion about it. Dan, you're very briefly. I would just wonder if Caland Gardner and Gilliman would reflect whether or not actually the point is more fundamental than just good governance or transparency that if we believe in policing by consent, these things are not just kind of good to have but vital if we're going to have policing policies genuinely consented to by the public. Absolutely. Policing by consent is pivotal to everything and Police Scotland has done quite a bit of work about public confidence, so they have a public confidence steering group. So trying to learn from the findings of the Scottish Crime and Justice surveys, as well as its own user satisfaction survey and differentiating between satisfaction and confidence. Part of that confidence comes from having good scrutiny and having checks and balances in the system on which society can rely. Certainly it's really important that we can all show that that scrutiny is independent as well from Government and evidence-based. I agree. I think that policing is only different by degree. Policing by consent is so important because the police have got the power to deprive people of their liberties to use force, but I think that for any public service they are provided by and on behalf of people for people. We know that there are difficult decisions to be made about a number of areas of public services, given the financial pressures, the way society is changing. I think that much more involvement along the principle set out in the community empowerment bill and the open Government partnership that the Government has entered into will help us to make those decisions better and with more public support in future. Do you think that there are any structural changes that you can make such as local scrutiny panels having nominees on the SPA board itself or other ways of comprising the SPA board differently to reflect the public view? Previously, there was an allocation between the board members for certain scrutiny committees across Scotland, and HMICS makes that point in our written response. That was something that we felt was valuable to provide the formal link between the business being discussed at local scrutiny levels and the national considerations. Part of that needed to be the visibility of resource allocation and benchmarking between areas. That is something that I know that members of local scrutiny committees would find useful if that were more overt and more easily accessible. We have gone on to John Finnie's questions. Could I ask members when they come in? I am very generous with supplementaries, but please pay attention to what you are asking to ensure that we are not going on to a longer questioning that is just about to be covered. John Finnie. Maybe just to build on that, I think that there is a knowledge that there still remains some tensions between the central scrutiny role and the local bodies. I note what the inspectors say about the national conveners forum and the joint office group, and I think that that is a positive step. I have long been of the view that we should try and devolve as much resource as possible. Of course, there are limitations to do that. Do you see an opportunity for a more enhanced role and therefore being seen by some local authorities as a more meaningful role? If people like something meaty to scrutinise, and the meaty thing that they can scrutinise is resource, invariably money, do you see a greater role in having a more gelling effect on the relationship between national scrutiny and local scrutiny? If I may go first, I understand that that point absolutely, however, the inherent risk there will replace eight territorial police forces with 32. The extent of autonomy, although you might think that that would be a good thing, is another discussion altogether. I suppose that what the current structure intends is that there is autonomy on the part of local police commanders times 13, each of whom do personally attend 32 local authority scrutiny panels, scrutiny committees, and that the limitations of that autonomy are in order to provide a national framework in which that is delivered, in order to achieve the main aims of reform, so that there are many more voices at a local level, but it is within a framework of a national structure. Forgive me if I say, if we had an acceptance that one of the benefits was the shared national resource and that this national police force would do the very strategic things of counter-terrorism, cross-border crime, organised crime, human trafficking and the likes. If there is that acceptance, then what comes below that surely there is an opportunity for greater local involvement and more meaningful local involvement? Well, what you seem to be describing sounds very similar to the previous Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and the Eight Forces, which HMICS, as you will recall, has previously criticised. Indeed, one of the drivers for reform was the lack of connection between a national functional delivery and that local ownership of issues that affect communities living in a local area. The difficulty for me is that there is not that local ownership, it is now seen as being something done from outwith. Now, if, like me, you like local empowerment, then there is this opportunity accepting this very strategic level of work that is going to be done and scrutinised at national level, not least because there weren't people under the previous regime who had the sufficient level of clearance to be doing some of the scrutiny that was required in relation to Francis Counter-terrorism. So surely that can be something that is built on and be really a meaningful part of partnership working at local level? And it's not undermining anything, quite the reverse. It's seeking fullest possible engagement, giving these committees something meaningful to scrutinise. I agree that the key to the success of reform lies very much at a local level. None of the issues, the national challenges, as you've described them, happen anywhere other than local communities. Local commanders absolutely do have the opportunity and indeed do take that chance to have people from some of those national functions come and speak to local members of scrutiny committees in order to have that engagement on activity that is happening within communities at that local level. I'm not convinced that— For the violence of doubt, I wasn't suggesting no engagement on that. That's where some of the difficulties come around, central direction around, for instance, the armed issue. Revisit or stop and search. But there is still a potential, I would say, for a greater role for local scrutiny committees. I don't know if— I'll start with a disclaimer that I know much less about the mechanics of local policing than Gill does because of our different roles. We work closely together but we have different roles. I think that the attention of the SPA has been to a great extent on the national operation of Police Scotland. We know that some of the benefits of that are now being delivered with more consistency, more access to specialist services. I think that some of the well-documented difficulties around policing in Scotland since 2013 have got in the way of people being able to really think about what local scrutiny and beyond that local involvement might look like. My sense is that we have the mechanism through the local scrutiny committees. I think that we know that they are very variable in practice. It seems to me that that would be a very important area for the SPA now to be engaging, to be looking at how they are working right across the 32 local authority areas and, within that, getting much more of a sense of how, along the principle set out in the community empowerment act, that there really is that dialogue going on with local communities and their representatives and how far there is scope to flex local policing while maintaining and protecting, investing in the national capacity where that is required. I think that that is the unanswered question really about reform so far from my perspective. You mentioned the summary about 13 local commanders having to service 32 local scrutiny bodies. That is not prescribed in the legislation, so could the legislation be improved in some way to look at, if this is maybe a cumbersome, if this is maybe a practice that is not working as well as it should be? Is that an area that the committee should be looking at to see if we could pin down what may work a little bit better? I think that the system, as it stands, does work, but it does mean that there are anomalies where one divisional commander might actually have to attend for separate scrutiny committees. For example, West Lothian, who were giving evidence in your previous session, is one of four local authority areas in one policing division. That is linked to another of the discussions about the integrated IT systems, because all of the 13 divisions' boundaries are really in part dictated by the legacy IT systems of the previous eight forces. The other councillor from five P division in Police Scotland was previously Fife Constabulary, so Lothian and Borders. Clearly, there was E division Edinburgh, which has, due to its size, a divisional commander single council, but J division is the rest of Lothian and Borders, so West Lothian, Mid and East Lothian and the Scottish Borders. You can see that right across Scotland. It is possible for commanders to service more than one committee. It is slightly anomalous. I heard West Lothian representative talk about the fire structure. It is obvious that that is slightly different. You could argue that there is more synergy between West Lothian and Falkirk Council than there is between West Lothian and the Scottish Borders, for example. However, it is an indication of the speed with which reform took place and the challenge that existed in trying to ensure that operational policing and delivery continued on day one. There was an element of, as is, moving into reform. The developments that we are talking about today—in particular, the ICT enabler—would, along with the demand analysis that I mentioned earlier, invite a revisiting of the decisions of the boundaries of division and how those could be more sensitive to the boundaries of communities at local authority level. Do you have any comment on that, Ms Gardner? Really just to echo exactly what Gillis has said. I think that we have always known that the real benefits of reform would come when we are able to transform both the police service and the fire and rescue service. So far, for different reasons, people have been focused on a smooth transition within the existing services. Until we can start to rethink that, with all of the underpinning enablers for things like ICT, harmonising terms and conditions, we will not get the full benefits. The potential is definitely there. Finally, you touched on the compliance process and the problems and the really shortfalls in terms of the previous chief constable. I noticed in the HMICS written submission that they previously contacted on the impact of public commentary on complaints against senior officers and the potential to undermine public confidence in policing. The recent experience in Scotland raises questions about the procedures in place to deal professionally with complaints, ensuring that the duty of care towards complainers and those subject to the complaints is fulfilled. Could you both comment on that fully crucial aspect? HMICS welcomes the review that the cabinet secretary invited that Dame Eilish Angelini is now undertaking. I know that she has started to have meetings with key people as part of that review. It certainly was a very difficult time that we have talked about towards the end of last year when there was a very public surfacing of allegations that were made against very senior people in Police Scotland. It is a balance between absolutely having confidence that any complaint or issue will be thoroughly investigated and having a means of some kind assessment of the veracity of those complaints allegations before it becomes in the public domain. There is a balance to be struck between absolutely ensuring that there are thorough investigations and that there is a body in order to carry that out independent from Police Scotland in the form of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. There is also a consideration of the impact of the public display on the confidence that the public can have in their policing service, as well as the impact on people who might be considering making a complaint and disclosing something that is sensitive or difficult and would be inhibited from doing so because of that very public reaction. I think that there is no doubt that the nature of policing means that it is more important than anywhere else to have that very fair and balanced approach where everybody is clear about how complaints will be taken forward and that balances the needs of the person being complained about and the complainant or complainants. My perspective is that the events last year around the chief constable, the way they were handled, did not help to generate confidence in policing in Scotland among people close to that but also much more widely. I noted in a number of the submissions that the committee has received in response to this inquiry that some of the same concerns are being raised and particularly by the perk submission to you. Concerns are about that. I noted the same in the chief inspector's submission. It seems to me that there is enough evidence there to suggest that it is part of the legislation that can usefully be reviewed. Like Gill, I welcome the review that the cabinet secretary has commissioned. Can I ask if there is a case for the complainant involved at the very top of the police force, the chief constable, that should be fast tracked and there is justification for doing that because, as long as there is that paralysis, it is deeply damaging to the whole force. Absolutely. The more quickly such an issue could be addressed and concluded one way or another, the better. Indeed, that is one of the concerns that exists in some of the submissions about to whom the commissioner, the police investigations and review commissioner are accountable and to what extent can any relevant party intervene and establish the priority of investigations. Liam Kerr, on that point, do you have any comment about if that were the situation that the convener describes an officer facing allegations? My understanding is that if that officer were to resign or to leave the force, then at the moment the investigation also stops, so there is no resolution either for the accused or for those who have made the accusation. Do you have any comment on that situation? That is an accurate description of the situation as it stands, and my comment would be that I agree that it is unsatisfactory both for the person making the complaint and for the individual who has publicly been accused of the behaviours. I know that that is something that the commissioner has raised in her submission to you. That concludes our line of questioning. I thank you both very much for attending and also for submitting the written evidence that you did to the committee, which has been extremely helpful as always. We now move on to agenda item 3, which is supporting legislation. We have six negative M instruments. I intend to take them on block and ask members if they have any comments on any of these six negative instruments. Can I take it that the committee does not have any comments and that it does not want to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments? Agree. Agenda item 4 is public petitions and consideration of two public petitions. I refer members to paper 4, which is not by the Clark and paper 5, which is a private paper. The committee has asked to consider and agree what action, if any, it wishes to take in relation to each of these petitions. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 in paper 4. I remind members that, if they wish to keep a petition open, they should indicate how they would like the committee to take it forward. If they wish to close the petition, they should give reasons. Considering each one as they appear in the paper, starting with PE1458, register of judicial interests. This is the committee's first time considering this petition. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a register of pecuniary interests of judges' bill or amend present legislation to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and hospitality received to a public available register of interests. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5, paper 3, and do members have any comments or questions? John Finnie. I seem to have mislead the paper, but from memory there was a number of recommendations about acquiring further information. I would be supportive of that, and I think that future generations will be surprised that we are not in the position of having the register already. I think that we need to be best informed, so I would suggest that we get that additional information and consider it again. Are there any other comments? Rona Cymru and then Daniel Cymru. Yes, I would agree with John Finnie. The Petitions Committee believed that this register is not unworkable, and they recommended it. John Finnie says that we need to explore further and get as much information as we can so that we can take it forward. Obviously, we all need to be mindful that we have a legal duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary, but I think that transparency enhances independence, and I very much support the comments that colleagues have made. I think that this is something that we should take forward, and I think that exploratory work makes an awful lot of sense. Is it the committee's wish therefore that we keep this open and seek further information? We now move to petition 1.6.3 private criminal prosecutions in Scotland. Members have a submission from the petitioner, and could I invite any comments or questions on the petition? Can I register an interest in the petition, as the petitioner is a constituent of mine? Can I make a couple of points from his submission, please? It's a fairly complex issue, but I've just put some bullet points down to try and simplify it. The petitioner believes that there's a clear gap in the law here, particularly in relation to the health and safety executive, because a report must be produced by them before the Crown Office can act on any private criminal prosecutions. The health and safety executive has admitted in an FOI that sportsmen and women are treated differently from other employees, and that the whole basis of the prosecution relies on a pretty random process. He believes that people should be able to make a report directly to the Crown Office after an incident and people themselves, rather than one of the various bodies who are entitled to do that, and he's listed it in his submission. I've been in favour of keeping this open, getting more information from the Lord Advocate and perhaps inviting the petitioner to attend to give oral evidence. Are there any other comments? Health and safety is a very important matter for the trade union movement, and I don't know if the Petitions Committee received a comment from them, but I'd certainly welcome their views and whether they feel there's a gap in this particular case. I had an interest in how the rest of the UK dealt with this. It's referred to by the petitioner. We seem to see it as a problem here, but the rest of the UK don't, so perhaps there's more information on that. At the same time, could we reflect on the wording in the community, removing the requirement that the Lord Advocate must first give permission before a private criminal prosecution can be commenced? I think that some suggest that a private prosecution can go ahead without the concurrence of the Lord Advocate, although a high test of exceptional circumstances would need to be met. I think that these are all issues that I would like to tease out and bring it back to the committee. Are we agreed to do that for the reasons that I've just stated? That's very helpful. That concludes our consideration of petitions, and we now move into private session. Our next meeting will be on 2 October, when we will continue with our post-legislative scrutiny of the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act 2012, and we will also hear evidence as part of our pre-budget scrutiny. We move into private session.