 I welcome to the health media of the justice subcommittee in policing in 2015. Can I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices as they interview with broadcasting even when they have been switched to silent? There is no apologies. I welcome Graham Pearson and Roderick Campbell, but I will say to both of you, as I did previously, because this committee has been functions on the basis that we represent other committees, I will take members' questions first before I take visiting MSPs. Number one, decision to take business in private, that is to consider our work programme. Are you agreed? Thank you very much. Straight on to item two, armed policing, which is a continuing evidence session, which began on 5 March and we have the same witnesses before us. Thank you very much for returning. Ian White, Scottish Police Authority board member who chaired its recent inquiry into the public impact of Police Scotland's standing of firearms authority, Deputy Chief Constable Ian Livingstone, Crime and Operational Support, Assistant Chief Constable Bernard Higgins, Operational Support Derek Penman, HM Inspector of Constability in Scotland, who recently reported on standing firearms authority. I will go straight to questions from members. Margaret first followed by Alison Margaret. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Perhaps I could ask Mr White last week when I asked you how communication would be improved between SPA and Police Scotland. You referred to the joint agreement, which was on policy engagement, and you said that that would bring the issue of significant public interest into play. That would be the test in effect of when prior notice would be given of a policy change. How will you gauge significant public interest? I think that the question was to me, convener. Significant public interest is quite a broad term and the reason we do not want to define it in any more detail is similar to that around operational policing. We do not want to exclude things from consideration. Clearly, to begin with, if matters come up within Police Scotland and within Police Scotland's knowledge, there would be an expectation that Police Scotland will make some decisions about what is of significant public interest. I would hope that they will be, as they have given us an indication, conducting various community impact assessments around things and that those community impact assessments would include public interest as one of the items within them and that they would bring those to us. I would also hope that there will be a more informal aspect of that, where if Police Scotland had something that they thought might be of interest, they would have a discussion with our officers in SPA to see whether that is jointly agreed as something of significant interest and brought forward in that way. Similarly, we at SPA may raise things. There are various things that we do raise from time to time with Police Scotland and we have a number of mechanisms that test issues for us. We, for instance, have quarterly meetings with the trade unions. We have quarterly meetings with staff associations and issues come up there. We obviously have links to local authorities and each of us has up to four local authorities that we have a link relationship with and they raise things with us. Indeed, your committee and some of the informal sessions that we have had to discuss have raised things in the past. There are a whole host of ways that issues come to our attention and we would raise those, too. I am afraid that that does not inspire me with too much confidence, given that we are hoping for quite a lot here. Given the background to why we are talking about communication in the first place, in the first instance, there was an argument whether it was an operation or a policy decision at all. Even when it was established as a policy decision, there was no real appreciation of the importance of it until there was significant public concern raised after the event. Is it not the case that the only way to be absolutely sure would be for all policy decisions to be transmitted and referred to to SPA? Policy decisions, convener, will be referred to SPA. That is the nature of how matters are discussed and decided. The joint agreement is very clear that there will be advance engagement on future policy decisions. The chief constable has signed up to that. I understand what Mrs Mitchell says about how things may have been characterised in the summer of last year. I believe that things have moved on considerably since then, and the wording and the joint agreement is clear about that. We have also tasked our chief executive to work with the chief constable to come up with a way of monitoring that that agreement is in place and is delivering. Is that the significant public interest test? Yes. I believe that the firearms issue became one of significant public interest, but it became that much later than the point where the policy was determined. Indeed, a year and a bit or at least a year after the decision had been taken and the officers were acting in a different way throughout Scotland. Some of those things in the past were not dealt with in as open a way as I would have liked. I believe with the joint agreement that we now have in place and the commitments that I have seen in recent weeks from Police Scotland that we can take that forward in a much better way in the future. Ultimately, that is what we are here as an authority to do is to improve the performance of policing in Scotland and make things better for the future, more open for the public, too. I am confused. Why is there a significant public interest test if all policy decisions are going to come to you in the past? Because there may be things that are not a matter of policy as such, but they raise a significant public interest and there would be value in airing those before the authority in an open public meeting. Is this a catch-all deal? It is to allow it to be wider than simply a policy change that Police Scotland might bring forward or to allow it to be wider so that, should we request the discussion with Police Scotland about a particular policy, we can raise that. Are we going into operational matters then? I think that we covered operational matters last time. There are specific policing operations that are a matter for the chief constable. There are issues that arise out of policies that Police Scotland puts in place to deal with operational issues that are policy issues and those in terms of ensuring that there is public oversight and that there is public consent for Police Scotland on what it is doing should be matters that are aired publicly. The obvious place to begin that process is within the SPA and open public meetings. I was going to call you anyway, Mr Pentman, because I realised your comments to make about this agreement, joint agreement. Thank you. It is probably just to try and clarify the situation the best I can. Personally, I think that we are further forward than we were six months ago around accountability. We took the opportunity in our report to discuss operational responsibility, where the chief constable would be accountable to the authority for both operational and non-operational decisions that he has taken. He is accountable effectively for everything that he does. The SPA has taken the opportunity in their firearms report to set out what effectively is a statutory framework of accountability. It takes the legislation within the Police and Fire Reform Act and sets out how they think they would hold the chief constable to account in terms of the legislation. I think that that is helpful, because it sets out quite clearly that the chief constable is accountable to the authority for the policing of Scotland. The policing of Scotland to me is operational and non-operational, so I think that the distinction becomes less important because the authority of the opportunity to challenge and test the chief constable publicly in relation to his policing of Scotland. I think that the potential weakness in that was identified by committee members is that that can sometimes be after the fact. In some respects, it is done before then. What the attempt has been, I think, through the joint agreement on the police policy engagement is for the chief constable and the authority to agree protocol that they will bring policy decisions to them beforehand. That will rely on the chief constable and his professional judgment to some extent to make sure that they are come through. What I would say, I think, though, is that the safeguard exists now. That should not take the place. The authority has the opportunity to hold the chief to account for the decision that he makes, but it is also now to be held to account for why it was not brought forward in terms of that protocol. It has moved us on quite a bit in the past six months. How do you see the significant public interest test working? I think that the intention behind that would be that Police Scotland would do a community impact assessment, effectively looking at what would be the impact on wider communities around the decision that was taken. I think that, in some respects, that will be a professional judgment, but I hope that that would set the scene for a kind of threshold that was there. As I said, there is still a safeguard. I think that if it was deemed that that did not meet that and it then came through and it became public interest, there is a bit around going back to revisit that decision. I think that the joint engagement is quite an important thing. Next week, we will be publishing a report on stop search. We will be making recommendations that are likely to be changes to policy decisions. We have said in our report that our expectation would be that the chief constable and authority would adhere to their agreement in discussing those changes to policy. It is an important document that we have to allow the authority and the police service to use and to have the ability to check if it has been done. I think that it would be helpful for the committee to understand a bit more about the day-to-day deployment. Are they active in all divisions and are there variations on how they are deployed, depending on whether it is a daytime shift or a night time shift? I think that, again, just to clarify exactly what the operating parameters of our armed response vehicles are, and again, we have made it very clear since 1 October in numerous public forums at least here in 5 March. ARV officers will be deployed. They will be sent to firearms incidents and other incidents that fall within a threat to life category. That is the only incidents that ARVs will be deployed to from the area control rooms. However, on a daily basis, they are deployed to patrol in every part of Scotland. Part of that patrol matrix has them covering iconic sites and vulnerable premises in line with the current terrorist threat in the country, so they are out patrolling the streets of Scotland. Although they are not sent to what has been referred to as routine incidents, should something occur in front of them, my expectation—that of Mr Lidingston's and I would imagine every member of the Scottish public—is that they will make a professional assessment of how they deal with the matter that has occurred in front of them. As I reported at the last committee meeting, up to and including 1 April, they have done so on 1,644 occasions. However, I must emphasise that that is not 1,644 incidents that they have attended. That is 1,644 occasions when something has incurred in them in front of them and they have dealt with it. For example, a couple of months ago in Glasgow, an armed response vehicle was stopped by a member of the public to tell him that a road accident had occurred just round the corner. He went, a car had collided with a lamppost, the driver was drunk, he was disqualified and the car he was driving was stolen. Although that is neither a firearms incident nor a threat to life, my expectations are that they would have dealt with that and they did. To answer your question specifically, Mr McInnes, yes, they are deployed right across the country. On a daily basis, they are given a patrol matrix to follow, which will have them in particular areas, as determined by the threat profile, and they have the parameters to use their professional assessment to deal with the things that occur in front of them. They are deployed differently in the night shift, in the night time. I am sorry, in what respect? Do they have the same sort of matrix to follow? Yes, they do. The HMICS review of the Standing Fire Arms Authority said that armed officers have completed more than 11,000 hours of directed patrols in local divisions and over 18,000 hours of default patrols. Do those two categories still exist? Can you explain a little bit more about what those two categories are? Yes, directed patrols were prior to 1 October. That would be when a local division had a particular issue in a particular area. For example, cars on a particular road in Glasgow were speeding. They would ask and request that ARVs, when they were at downtime, go into that area and deal with the speeding vehicles. That is directed patrols. Default patrols are exactly that. When you are not engaged in a firearms or threat to life incident, you revert to the patrol matrix, which I have explained takes the cars into areas of vulnerability for a whole variety of reasons. Okay, that is helpful. Can you tell me if ARV patrols have been present in the vicinity of nightclubs on a regular basis? Potentially they would have. For example, they will routinely patrol past George Square because the city chambers is an iconic building. George Square is in the middle of Glasgow, so it is well within the realms of possibility that to get to George Square they will drive up Queen Street, which has a number of nightclubs on it. Have ARV officers issued fixed penalty notices for minor breaches of the peace or drinking in a public place or urinating in the street? Yes, they have on many occasions. You consider that to be things happening in front of them? Yes, indeed. As I said, we asked the officers to use their professional judgment, and again the professional judgment can range from an informal warning to, as you quite rightly say, formal ticketing. I have to emphasise here that the firearms officers, in my view, receive the most intensive training in terms of their situational awareness and their decision making. That, over the course of the year, is tested intensely. We have real scrutiny around their decision making in terms of their refresher training and, if there is any doubt about that, they are not permitted to carry out the duties of the firearms officers. Therefore, I would contend that those officers demonstrate a far higher level of situational awareness and decision making than any other officer in the force. Are you able to tell me how many fixed penalty notices have been issued by armed officers? Do you wish that from 1 October? That forms part of the figure of 1644. In terms of anti-social behaviour, fixed penalty notices have issued 207. Contextually, Police Scotland, in the same period, have issued 21,044. The armed response vehicles have accounted for roughly 0.9 per cent of all fixed penalty notices. Can I just press you on the patrol matrix that you mentioned? How is that decided in terms of weekend work and things like that? Are you deploying ARVs as an extra resource at busy times around nightclubs? The ARVs have a very specific duty, and that is to mitigate the highest threat against the communities of Scotland. That is people intent in causing harm through using extreme levels of violence, whether that is with a firearm or whether it is because they are deemed to be otherwise so dangerous, because they are armed with a samurai sword. We overlay that against the current threat level, and simply because it is a weekend does not make a particular area less vulnerable to attack. The patrol matrix is based on their duty to protect life and to be available to mitigate the highest levels of threat against the communities of Scotland, but also to contribute to our current response to the UK threat level. It is helpful to understand that detail. Since April 2013, has any part of any firearms officer's equipment been seized by a member of the public or been the subject of an attempt to seizure by a member of the public? Absolutely not. I think that, again, convener, it might be helpful to say that the current modes of courage that we have of several locking mechanisms of it and, as part of the officer's training, they are trained in terms of defensive techniques to prevent that happening. However, in terms of your question, there has been no attempt for any member of the public or other person to try and seize or gain access to any weapon carried by a Police Scotland officer. If that had happened, clearly that would be reported and perhaps also reported to HMIC ads? It would, yes. Yes, I beg your pardon. I just really just add to the point that Ms McInnes is raising about what the firearms officers do when they are not doing threat to life or they are not doing firearms jobs. That is the second point that I talked about at the last session about mode of courage and actual deployment. ACC Higgins is underlined today some of the instances that might arise that ARV officers have responded to because it has happened in front of them. What we are now going to do is consult and look for a criteria because that was one of the recommendations that came from the HMI that Police Scotland should do that. Again, in response to some of the earlier questions of the last session, I said that we will make sure that that is thorough, that there is understanding of that and an extension of the conversation that you and Bernie have had just now is something that we want to do right across the country. People will say to us that we do not think that ARV officers should do that or that they should do more of that because it would be counterintuitive and against the public interest for them not to respond to somebody who was a drunk driver or who was assaulting their partner or whatever the issue was. That element of deployment of ARV officers is not actually tasked but ARV officers who are going to deal with instances in front of them that are not firearms and not threat to life. That is the key element that we are going to consult on and get some criteria around because we have committed to support and accept the recommendations of Mr Penman. We know that ARV officers are required to remove the handguns when attending training and they are not allowed to carry them in court. Other than that, as you have described, it is left to the judgment of the police officer as to whether it is appropriate or not. There has been some suggestion that guidance should be provided for officers on how firearms should be handled when they need to leave the ARV and when not responding to operational incidents. Is any bit guidance being drawn up? Has that been considered at all? The officers as part of their training already have that guidance in terms of the default position is that, when they operate on control with the exception of training in going to court, they carry their sidearm and their taser on their person. If for whatever reason they have to disarm themselves, that is a standard procedure that they learn during their basic ARV training. One of the complaints that I had in my constituency—and admittedly this was before 1 October—was a constituent observing an ARV officer doing a shopping in the supermarket while armed with a Glock 17, which caused a bit of distress. Is that considered to be appropriate that an officer should be going about—presumably he was still on duty and was getting something to eat, but is that considered to be appropriate that somebody would be in a setting like a supermarket whilst carrying a Glock 17? It is certainly since 1 October that I would not expect them to be pushing a trolley around the supermarket. That would be completely inappropriate. However, what we have said is part of your overall awareness. If you have to go and buy a sandwich or a bottle of water, then again use your professional judgment. My expectation is that Saturday afternoon at 3 o'clock in any supermarket is probably not a place where they should be doing it. They should go to the petrol station next to the supermarket and buy their sandwich or their water there. That message has been constantly reinforced in terms of what we do with our officers and, on a daily basis, it is reinforced as part of their briefing and their deployment plan. In terms of the guidance that they receive during training, would police officers who are entitled to ciams be advised, as you have just said, that they should not be going into the supermarket with their weapons on their person? No, I would never constrain my officers with that. What I would say to them is that, as I have said in many occasions, they have to use their situational awareness training. They used to have their professional judgment. If they are going into a 24-hour supermarket at 3 o'clock in the morning, where there are very few members of the public around, and there are more members of the public in the petrol station forcourt, I would not have a huge problem with that at all. It depends on the particular circumstance of the time. As I have said, if it is 3 o'clock in the Saturday afternoon, it is not something that I would expect them to do. If it is 3 o'clock in a Tuesday morning, then perhaps it is more acceptable. How is that communicated to officers now in terms of advice? I am not saying that officers will use a professional judgment, but is there advice given to officers about the prognosis of when they carry their weapons? It is constantly reinforced to them. At the start of every tour of duty, the officers have to take a declaration and a warning in terms of how they operate. It is part of their briefing prior to them going on to the streets. They are reminded about their personal responsibilities, not only in terms of when they can and cannot discharge a firearm, but exactly what we are just talking about just now—the situations that they put themselves in and to make sure that they are not going to be put in a difficult position. As I have said, my firm belief is that the training and the refresher training that the officers receive make them, in my view, the most skilled in that particular area. Margaret Mitchell spoke about the issues of communication earlier on. I wondered what specific steps are being taken to improve communication with the public and with local authorities. Obviously, there was a communication issue between the SPA and Police Scotland, but equally there were problems of communication with local authorities and the communities that they represent. I wondered what steps have now been taken to ensure that there are clear lines of communication particularly over operational matters, which could cause public concern. We accept that we did not do as much communication engagement with the existing links and relationships that were built on many years of trust that we had on reflection. Perhaps inevitably, but nevertheless on reflection, we were introspective and quite transactional in the early days and months when this new organisation was coming together. One of the fundamental bits of learning that has come from the whole debate and discussion around armed policing is to make sure that we do not back away from those relationships and links that have been established over many years. A key factor, a key element, has been the role of the local divisional commander, the role of the local area commanders, the networks into community groups, the networks into local policing, local authority scrutiny panels, the networks into business, community groups, volunteer groups—all the instances that were there—and again, I think that I perhaps said at the last time—were there and remain there, so we need to mobilise them, we need to map them out and we need to be very active and deliberate in our engagement with them. We wholly take that on board and it is a matter of reflection. We are in a different place but we are a matter of days away from two years into Police Scotland and over that period of time we need to make sure that we will engage with that vast array of networks that I outlined. How are you going to monitor that? I might add something to that, because it is important to recognise that, along with the joint agreement about communication between Police Scotland and the SPA, at our last board meeting we also had Police Scotland's communication and engagement strategy presented to us. I see that the DCC has a copy with them here on the table. We will be looking to monitor that and make sure that its aspects are implemented. We have tasked our chief executive to go away and— I am trying to get something. Is this about the report that is to come out? No, this is about how we monitor communications and engagement going forward. We will be looking to have our chief executive draw up a proposal as to how we monitor performance against that communications and engagement strategy. We also, as part of the firearms review that we undertook in the report commissioned, some expert academic input. That was particularly about strategic police engagement. That information from the University of Cardiff has been provided to Police Scotland to advise and inform Police Scotland's approach to communication and engagement going forward. We would hope that they would find on that in the work that they do in terms of both their communication strategy and the work in engaging with the authority. Indeed, we can hold them to account around that type of work. One final thing, convener, is that we are carrying forward our programme of work with local authorities. Indeed, tomorrow we have a partners and scooting event with COSLA, at which 21 of Scotland's local authorities will be represented. I was going to bring you in at any event because it is about your views on overt carriage and your report from the inspectorate. You said that it is the best and safest method of carriage and, more broadly, we consider that the overt carriage of ARV duties promotes openness and transparency with the public, following which Police Scotland was considering the position with regard to that. As I understand, perhaps it was covert. What I was looking at is that I believe that DCC Livingston will present something to the SPA's senior leadership on 18 March. In other words, yesterday, putting it to both of you, I would like to know how matters have progressed because you indicated first, Mr Penn, when you yourself then DCC Higgins, if you can give us an idea of where that has come, because there seems to be a conflict or a potential conflict here between your views. I could just cover off the localism issue before I answer that, if I can. In addition to the work from the authority and also Police Scotland, we have a divisional inspection programme, where we go round each of the divisions and each local authority. We are also very keen to make sure that the engagement between Police Scotland and the authorities is taken account of. We are also very keen to promote localism and effectively encourage local authorities to feel less passive and to start to be more demanding of Police Scotland in the future. That is a theme that we will be looking at as the weeks and months go on. In relation to the point from the convener, where we were coming from is—we covered it slightly in the last session—we felt that overt courage is the safest because there are operational issues around where it is drawn from in the body and the safest way to do that, which I am sure that ACC Higgins will cover off. Our view about transparency was that now the public are very much aware of armed policing and I think that overt courage is something that people understand. We would have some concerns if it moved to covert courage. If that happened, Police Scotland would have to make absolutely sure that people understood what that was about, because I think that it could be misinterpreted if you like, or could damage public confidence if people felt that many Police officers had guns, but they just could not see them. I think that Mr Higgins' position from the last time was around that it was one of a number of options that he would consider in order to have an informed way forward. I will respond, if I can, because just to be clear in terms of our own internal chronology, it was a Police Scotland-only leadership board that we met yesterday and discussed. The two elements were the mode of courage and also the default activity when not a threat to life issue that I had discussed with Mr McInnes earlier. The next stage for us, because this was, by definition, an options appraisal on both these points and there is lots of detail in regard to both. In terms of the mode of courage, we note the HMI's position and we note some of the comments that members have made in that regard, but it would only be right and proper, given the comments and observations on governance, given the comments and observations on the need for the SPA to be rigorous, that we next take those two reports to the SPA and we are going to do that on the 31st of this month. As I recall, we did outline that quite clearly at the last session and I apologise if there was ambiguity around that, but we were quite clear that there was an internal gold group that I chair, an internal Police Scotland leadership group, and this is our own internal governance, and then we take that to the authority. I do not think that it would be appropriate until we go to the authority. I am sorry, but my papers tell me that it was to go to the SPA's senior leadership board on 18 March, so I will have some of our parking team just check whether that is wrong from the evidence previously or whether, in fact, something has changed. I am not being accusatory, but that is what I have before me, that is why I was asking. I can absolutely categorically assure you that the process and the timeframe was always my gold group into the leadership board of the force executive, the force cabinet, if you like, and then the authority at the end of the month. It may be too many dates, but it was always clear, and I think that it is right and proper that we do that with the authority, recognising some of the observations that we have had around the mode of courage. I beg your pardon, so I am trying to move on. If it is helpful, convener, that is exactly what I am understanding too. That is your understanding, where we will clarify what it is. I have got John, and then Kevin, then I will take you Graham and Roderick, and then I will take Alison back, and if you are content with that order, Alison. Thank you, convener. Good afternoon, panel. Mr White, I want to return to this year's report, and firstly I thank you for the comprehensive update that you provided in the letter of 16 March, which I am always learning new terms. I learnt a new one from your letter and that is dynamic drafting process. We understand from previous discussions that there was some discussion about the original report, and again I have a quote from your letter to you talking about factual and policy engagement with Police Scotland. Can you just give a brief outline of what was involved in that, please? We sent the report to Police Scotland for factual accuracy checking. There were items in it about some of the kind of issues that Ms McInnes has been into today around carriage and so on, where we wanted to check things. Those would be policy issues within Police Scotland, and perhaps not policies, but maybe the wrong word, operating procedures are probably more accurate around those. You are keen to be open and transparent about this entire process. Yes. That being the case, would you make available to the committee the changes that did take place, the track changes, if you like? I am sure that there will be a process to show what the original report comprised of and the subsequent changes that took place, and who requested those changes. I know that you say that the report ultimately has the full endorsement, but that would be helpful to understand the changes that did take place. We all write reports and there can be errors in reports, but that would be helpful if you could make that available to the committee. There can be errors in reflections, convener, and I think that the board sub-group that took this on did have all those types of discussions. If the sub-committee wishes to make that request, then I clearly will carefully consider that, and I think that that is a matter for you, convener, and I am happy to take that away to consider further with the chair of the SPA and our chief executive, and we can then respond on that. You certainly wouldn't have seen some of the track changes in our reports, but we're a battle over a conjunction. The difficulty, convener, is that there's not inconsiderable policy implications for us about releasing all of the details. You can't make a commitment. You've got to take it back, yes. I'm grateful if you'd give that consideration, Mr White. The spirit in which the engagement continues henceforth, as has been alluded to, is very important. If I could turn to a question for Mr Penman, please. You have said that Mr Penman was further on, and I think that you do talk about wishing that the police authorities to be more demanding. I'm very keen that we move this issue on, but I think that we can only move it on if we understand the process that took us here. Would you, in turn, provide to the committee your understanding of when the various changes took place, who requested them, who was consulted on them, and any feedback about that? That may have been something indeed that you'll have pulled together in relation to your report that you did last year, but if you could make that available, that would be very helpful. Yes, so to just understand the scope of that, what we were clear about in our scope was that we gave a description in the report about what the situation was prior to Police Scotland in terms of each of the legacy forces who had ERVs, whether it was Overt and Covert, so that information was contained within that. In terms of the Police Scotland's decision-making and authority's decision-making, I think that we captured that within the timeline in our report, so I just want to clarify with you, if any, what additional information you might be looking for. Well, remind me, because unfortunately I don't have it in front of me here, Mr Penman, but for instance, there's been issues about who was told, when they were told, and who made the decision. And we touched on that last time when there were different versions. I mean, being told that it's Mr Graham that made the decision in respect of Northern, being told that it's Mr House that made the decision, told different times about that, so some timeline, from memory that wasn't in your report, but some timeline of when the change actually took place, who made that decision and who was consulted on that decision, that would be very helpful. Is that specifically in terms of Legacy Northern? No, Tayside as well, I think would be helpful as well. Because what we said in the scope, it's evidence that we haven't looked at in detail, because we didn't take it within the scope of our review. Our review was very much based on who made the decisions within Police Scotland and how that was communicated and that's where the timeline exists. So we actually excluded from the review looking at legacy arrangements and who was said and who was notified and who weren't. We gave a position of what, a factual position of what armed response vehicles existed within the area that's in the report. We gave a timeline with the Police, Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland, but we didn't go back and nor do we have that information currently around all of the legacy police boards. I think that the point is that we are here to scrutinise Police Scotland, you know, and not legacy forces. If I may convener, this issue has its genesis in advance of that. What we've heard is that there was a difficulty about the level of scrutiny. Indeed, that's reflected in the Police Authority's report. I'm keen that we meet forward, but to know the problems that created the difficulty that we're in are being addressed by the new arrangements, we need to know what those previous issues were. I mean, with respect, I think that that's covered off in our report. What our report shows is, I think, is the genesis of the decision within Police Scotland, the timings of that, the decision by the chief constable and I think there's a recognition in our report and certainly criticism in our report to the extent to which that was communicated locally and to the authority. What we didn't go into, because there's no remit for us to do, was what were all the different legacy decisions within each of the legacy forces. Northern, clearly, as you're aware of, was done very close to that. Some stuff was done months before that. I'm understanding again, I think. The month before, I think it was the 1st of March, so it would have been a month before, I think, that the ARV situation changed within Northern, but we didn't specifically go into the scope of legacy force arrangements because we felt what was relevant in this was more the decision in relation to Police Scotland and authority and how that was communicated moving forward. Just to assist Mr Finlayon and be absolutely clear, up until midnight on the 1st of April 2013, the operational responsibility for all the legacy force areas rested and remained in practice and law in reality with the legacy chief constable that was in place at the time. Mr House, Sir Stephen, as he is now, was absolutely clear on that. We, as a group, this was the transition. There were a number of issues that were going to be a change of structure of format regarding major crime, a response to rape and ARVs, but the changes that Sir Stephen, as chief constable, instructed were only those that took place after the 1st of April 2013 because, in law, they were the only ones that he could. Some of the legacy chiefs quite rightly guarded their responsibilities very dearly up until the change over because they knew that they retained that vicarious responsibility and they retained that responsibility to their communities. Sir Stephen, the chief constable, was only in charge and only took decisions after Police Scotland went live. It was Mr Graham that took the decision? As I recall, the circumstances, because I was living and breathing through at the time, was Mr Cowie who was acting chief of Northern Ireland at that time. It was ex-officio, it was the chief constables of the legacy forces who were in charge of their resources prior to Police Scotland starting. Is it Mr Cowie to cover on 1 March, the policy that took effect on 1 March, where all the planning and preparation and decisions before that would have been taken at a time when Mr Graham was the chief constable in that area? I think that it may be helpful for me to understand what you are looking for perhaps with the committee. I could see if we can find information for you. To come through me on behalf of the committee, so if you want to clarify it even further. I am grateful for Clarkson and colleagues. Of course, part of the process that we are here is that everyone who may have an interest in this is not sitting with a copy of your report, so it is important that we get some of the information on the record, as you will understand, which is why I am asking questions, the answers to which may be self-evident, but that is nonetheless an attister-understand process. My final question on that is would you have anticipated that the convener of the Northern Joint Police Board would have been aware of that change? From my perspective that would have been a decision for the chief constable at that time to put forward in terms of that going forward. I am not sure how that was communicated or if it was communicated. I want to just clarify something because I was challenging you on timescales and I think there was a bit ambiguous here. I asked what is the timescale for the report that you will circulate internally and then to the SPA to which it was ACC Higgins that said that it will go internally to Mr Limson's go-group on 11 March, subject to discussions at the go-group, and it will then be presented to the senior leadership board on 18 March. Thereafter, again, subject to the board's discussions, I believe that it will notionally be provided the meeting of the police authority at the end of March, so you are quite right. I just want to make it clear that there had been some ambiguity, so that is absolutely the case. Carriage of a May? Yes. Okay, and then Kevin. I do not know how much time for Roderick and Graham at that. Mr Higgins, on the question of safe carriage, that is the number one priority, as I understand from yourself. Yes, absolutely. That is transparency with the public, indeed. There is a view that, given the circumstances that you have outlined there, a view could be taken that nothing has really changed at all. Police officers are always police officers. If they happen to have a firearm strapped on, it does not stop them being a police officer. No, I think that we have made it quite clear what their operating parameters are. Again, so there is absolutely no ambiguity, Mr Finlay. They will deal with firearms incidents, they will deal with threat to life incidents, and they will use their professional judgment over other things that occur in front of them. On occasion, they will simply issue a warning, they will simply take no action, but on other occasions they will formally interject in a situation as they see fit. Yes, they are police officers first and foremost, and yes, they carry a firearm. It is a very difficult job that they do. That is why we give them the intense training that we do, and that is why we test their understanding, knowledge and ability to carry out that job as frequently and as intrusively as we do. If, for instance, there were to be a breach of the peace in Inverness high street, similar to the incident that prompted the press photograph that has been made, could we anticipate three armed officers attending that? If you want to be specific about that incident, that is related to a well-known violent hotspot where my understanding is that routinely there are fights outside that particular premise. When does a breach of the peace suddenly become a serious assault? When does a serious assault suddenly become an attempt murder? And when, sadly, does a fight in the street end up in the tragic death of somebody? If you are asking me, do I want my firearms officers to prevent somebody escalating through that street fight to potentially a murder inquiry then? Absolutely. One of their duties is to protect life, and if that means that they have to break up a fight in the street where somebody is clearly getting a bit of a beating, that is absolutely their job. On that point again, just to reiterate exactly what we are going to consult upon in terms of my previous conversation that I had with McInnes, that criteria about spontaneous deployment, so that communities, representatives, police officers themselves, communities, citizens, our families, your families, everybody can contribute to that, and we have a criteria that is agreed upon, and we undertook to do that, and we will do that. That is something that has been raised in our armed policing report, paragraph 66. We recognise that Police Scotland works quite clear around the criteria around firearms instance, threat to life and things that we come across from that. I mean, my view in that, as well as an example of a breach of the peace, if officers are passing that and they see it, I think that there is a real issue in public confidence if a marked police vehicle drives by that, which is why we recognise that. I think that there is a communications issue to make sure that people understand it. Officers who are armed may then be involved in that, and I think that that is part of the briefing and part of our recommendation, but I would have a view that it was quite clear in terms of the criteria that was set that these things would happen. Again, I have a real concern that if they weren't doing that, you would have officers driving by things and the public really wouldn't understand what that was about, and it could be contrary to public confidence. Mr White, Mr White wants to come in on this. I would also say that that is exactly the way that it was described to us, both in writing and verbally by the chief constable at our October meeting, and that that fits with that. I would also go slightly further in that, in our report, when we asked the public, we found that over 70 per cent suggested that were they to call the police and the nearest and quickest way of getting them a police officer was for a firearms officer to attend, then they would be content with that. That goes further than the deployment method that Police Scotland is using. For the avoidance of doubt, I would expect every police officer to do their duty. If officers are dealing with a minor breach of peace, which they want to stop becoming a major breach of peace, if your two-year-armed response vehicle officers are dealing with that and a call comes in about someone with a samurai sword elsewhere, who is going to go to that incident, Mr Higgins? That is hope since choice, Mr Finnie. That is again when the professional judgment comes down. One of the things that the officers will do immediately when they deploy to break up that breach of the peace is to shout in and ask for assistance from local officers to come and assist them. Again, it goes back down to where is the greatest threat to life, the greatest threat to life. It is clearly the individual with the samurai sword. As you may be aware, Mr Higgins, I was a dog handler for 10 years and I supported colleagues. By supporting colleagues, it did not mean that I took an incident and a domestic incident, if it was a violent incident. I would assist colleagues. It did not always mean that I took my dog out of the vehicle. No. You are challenging and you are absolutely entitled to do that, the rationale and the reason behind the standing authority. The chief constable has taken a view based on all the threat and risk that exist, based on the requirement to provide a level of support for the very high threats and risks that are real and exist, that we need that standing authority. That has been validated on a professional basis by the work that the HMI has carried out, and that standing authority, with the provision of that 24-7 ARV coverage, remains in place. What we are clearly now looking to consult upon and engage with colleagues and communities on is the mode of courage that we have discussed and what profile of incident that ARV officers may deal with that are not threat to life and are not specific firearms incidents. Those are spontaneous ones, but what is clear, and it must remain so, is that the standing authority is based on the assessment of threat and risk that the chief constable must take. He must carry out that assessment. We will consult thereafter on the deployment and the process for that has been validated by the work that both the police authority and the HMI have carried out. Is the risk assessment Scotland only, or is it very specific? It seems to me that the risk in Loch Inver might be different from the risk in Leith. Part of the strategic threat assessment, Mr Finnie, looks at Scotland as a whole, but then it breaks it down into particular areas. We look at things like the serious organised crime groups that have access to firearms. We look at the number of legally held firearms where they are across the country. We look at the vulnerable sites that are plotted across the country that might need that firearms support in terms of a severe terrorist threat. What we have concluded categorically is that the firearms threat domestically from serious organised crime and terrorism exists in all parts of Scotland. As such, the standing firearms authority is appropriate for all parts of Scotland. Again, that was independently validated by the work that Mr Penman and his team undertook when they did their audit of the standing firearms authority. We offered an assurance role and examined the extra, the strategic assessment and the other intelligence products that were there for that. Obviously, it was not just ourselves. We also had DTC Simon Chesterman, who was the act poll lead, who examined that documentation as well and came to the same conclusion as ourselves. The other thing, for us, has probably been an interest in transparency, because obviously that is a document that is not shared publicly. We recommended that a member of the police authority should attend these meetings and be able to witness for themselves what that threat was and understand that the chair of the police authority has already attended one of those meetings since our recommendations were made. Do you ever envisage a situation in which there will be a return in the Highlands Islands to officers who have been deployed in an armed response vehicle where the weapons are retained in the boot, meaning that they can attend all of those incidents, including subsequently firearms incidents, without any of the concerns? The chief constable said to one of the committees on 30 October what the hell are those cops doing in relation to not participating? I have to tell you that most folks say to me when they come across cops at filling stations at things like that, what the hell are those cops doing having a firearm on in the Highlands of Scotland? As the threat and risk that exists at the moment, I do not envisage that change being made. You know, as well as anybody, Mr Funny, that we constantly keep the matter under review and we will continue to do so, but we do so because it is our duty to protect the public. We do not do so because we want our officers to have guns. We do so because our judgment is that that is the best way to keep people safe right across the whole of Scotland. I appreciate your on-going assessment. I am sorry, as usual, but I am trying to get everyone in. Kevin MacDonald, next, please. Thank you, convener. First of all, I ask Mr White, Mr Penman and DCC Livingston how many complaints their organisations have had from members of the public regarding armed officers? I am not sure that we have directly had any. I would imagine that complaints would go directly to Police Scotland and, indeed, if it were a complaint about something like that, we would direct it to Police Scotland. Thank you. People take different routes to complain, Mr White. As you well know, Mr Penman, please. We have no statutory role in terms of complaints, so in my personal knowledge, I am not aware of any. That is not to say that correspondence may have come in about that, so I will check and feed that back in just to make sure. Thank you. DCC Livingston, please. Figures and ACC Higgins have them right on their fingertips, I think. Yes, I have received 27 complaints specifically about the Standing Firearms Authority and a disagreement with that particular policy since May last year. Contextually, Police Scotland, in the same period, has received roughly about 5,000 complaints for all matters ranging from incivility to excessive force. Out of that figure of just around about 5,027 of them referred to specific complaints about the Standing Firearms Authority. Were those specific complaints where those folks were involved in something where they seen an officer, or was it general complaints about the policy? It was a mixture of both, Mr Stewart. Some of them were exactly as you have described. A member of the public that has seen a person at a filling station and did not disagree, or more commonly what it was that somebody that had read in the media what the policy was, and it was simply writing into complain that they disagreed with that particular policy. Thank you. We have heard a lot about professional judgment. ACC Higgins, you have stated that armed response officers have more situational awareness training than other police officers. What does that involve, Mr Higgins? Can you give us an idea of how long that training is and what they go through in terms of that training? Yes, certainly, Mr Stewart. An initial armed response officer, ARV officer, will take nine weeks to complete their training. Clearly, part of that training is about weapon handling and actually being physically capable of shooting the weapon, but actually to drill right down to it, they get five and a half days in a classroom of theory around situational awareness, about assessment, about decision making, and then they get 22 days of actual practical application where again they are given exercises and their decision making is tested. Once they have qualified as an armed response vehicle, they have to refresh over the course of the year and as well as having to undertake three qualifying shoots to maintain their standard of shooting, they undertake nine days of additional developmental training where again their situational awareness, their decision making, their professional assessment is tested. Just to satisfy, I'm not cutting you short, Kevin. I was just indicating you'll be time for a short supplementary dozen and I'll try to get both of you in as well by extending it a little longer. It would be fair to say, without casting aspersions on other police officers, that these are some of the best trained police officers within the force. Unquestionably, if I can give you an example, some months ago two of my officers were attacked in the Mound in Edinburgh by a man with a knife. They were firearms officers, they'd been stopped by a member of the public who said there's a gentleman there who appears to be distressed. As they got out of the vehicle, the man ran at them and started to try and stab them. One of my officers was stabbed four times. Now, despite being stabbed four times, despite suffering a frenzied attack, both officers still used their professional assessment and their judgment and, in my view, they could have been justified in using their conventional weapon against that individual but they didn't and they brought him under control and subdued him by other means. When I then spoke to them and asked them why, both of them independently of each other said, the reason was not so much what was in front of us, we could see what the guy was doing and we wouldn't have missed him because it was too close but behind him was lots of members of the public and had we shot that individual potentially one of the members of the public would have been struck by the bullet that we've gone through him. Even under the most intense frenzied attack, the training that those officers received allowed them to make an assessment and they realised that they could not go to their conventional weapon. That was a terrible, terrible incident but if nothing else it absolutely assured me of firstly the courage of the officers but actually their utmost professionalism even in the most intense of circumstance. I think you know everyone would agree that those actions are to be applauded and that level of situational awareness in situations such as that is pretty immense. In terms of officers coming across things in front of them and dealing with them, if they weren't to do so it has been said that that would be seen by the public as a neglect of duty and that the force itself would likely lose trust if officers were seen nearby and not responding to particular incidents. What have you got to say about those folks of which there are a few who've said that no armed officers should ever deal with anything other than a situation where there are lives at risk? I would disagree with them firstly, Mr Stewart. I mean, I think that there are two elements of that. They have a professional duty but actually the firearms officers are very passionate about what they do but they're also very humane about what they do. Recently in Dumfries some months ago during the bad weather they came across an elderly lady that slipped in the ice and broke in her hip. They got out and covered her in blankets. They gave her emergency first aid and they waited until the paramedics came to take her to hospital. That's not a police matter in general terms but who would want the police officers to drive by that? It's certainly not me. In terms of the threat assessment that's undertaken, we've heard from Mr Finlay that that might be different from Leith compared to Loch Inver. From experiences that have happened over the years, St Andrew's featured the other week and of course one of the worst incidents that we've ever seen involving firearms in this country was in Dumblane. Do you think that it is right that we look at threat right across the country and that nobody could ever say that the threat differential from rural to urban, there's a wide gulf there? The threat is real and it's genuine. If you look at Scotland as a whole, there's not a single area that you could, in all consciousness, in terms of discharging your duty exclude from that. You just need to look internationally about the level of threat, the threat from international terrorism, the capability and the profile, the very diverse nature of that threat is real. The threat from organised crime, I think that I talked about a crime group from Merseyside that specifically targeted the Highlands operation Cambridge, which was the name of that operation, was well publicised in the press and journal a few weeks ago. We know that the requirement for armed officers, a small minority of armed officers to mitigate that threat, to support the unarmed service, the men and women that work in our communities, live in our communities is absolutely critical. There is scope at times for differences undoubtedly across the whole of Scotland. I accept that, we accept that. I don't think that the armed response vehicles, the specialist nature of that is one area that we would want to make that differential. Thank you. My final question is for Mr White, convener, and obviously in terms of the reporting from Police Scotland to the SPA regarding matters of significant public interest, and you called it the significant public interest test, if I remember rightly. Do you think that you maybe require a significant political interest test as well? Sometimes this political bubble drives things to a greater extent than public interest actually does. Well, convener, Mr Stewart may have a point there. But I don't think that's for me to say directly. It's absolutely clear that matters that are taken up by politicians become matters of public interest. The two are intertwined and the media has a role within that, too. I think that all three of them combine to become a test of public interest. Thank you, convener. I'll bear with me. I've tried a little on, but I've promised Alison Macintosh. Thank you. Let me first of all say I commend the courage of those officers that you described in the Adam Branson, and absolutely, of course. You have repeatedly stressed the situational judgment of those officers, and I don't doubt that it's something that they are trained in. However, I have here two critical and quite disturbing police investigations and review commissioner reports from last year, one of Firearm's incident near Daviette and one of Firearm's incident in Kinghorn in Fife. The one in Daviette, a 19-year-old man, was driving his car on the northbound carriageway of the A9 near Inverness. He was stopped by armed officers of Police Scotland. Four police officers pointed their guns at the man and detained him. The recommendations in that report say that Police Scotland should review the actions of some of the officers involved in this incident and examine the wider issues that were raised. In the other report—I'm sorry, it's just that you were about this—that's a serious case. Your comments in that first, please. Thank you, convener. I think that I'm familiar with that one. What the PIRC review said is that, at the time, based on the information that the Firearm's officers had at that time, their actions were absolutely appropriate. As soon as there was criticism of Police Scotland in terms of the intelligence that was held, the information that was held and how quickly or otherwise that was passed to the Firearm's officers, the other point of that particular incident is that, yes, they pointed their weapons at the man. As soon as he exited the vehicle, they used their assessment, their judgment and they immediately lowered their weapons when they saw him as a 91-year-old gentleman. Did you examine the wider issues that were raised and did it provide additional training to the officers that were undertaking the role of initial tactical firearms officer commander? Did that happen? Yes, it did. I chaired a gold group in respect of that incident. As I said, there were issues around the communication exchange between control rooms and sterling and in the Aberdeen area. However, if we are talking about the pure firearms operation, the pure firearms operation complied with the College of Police and Guidelines, the manner in which they stopped the vehicle, the manner in which they challenged the gentlemen were absolutely appropriate. As I said, as soon as they saw what was in front of them and assessed the threat that they were being presented with, they immediately lowered their weapons. The key thing on that is that that was a Firearm's incident that they were sent to. The learning for us was about the communication between the intelligents and the initial tactical firearms commander. I have two people who sat here through the entire meeting, and I would in fairness, because you have done this before, and you have both asked questions and have answered them on the record if you will forgive me. Graeme, if you will ask your question. I do not want to exclude you. You have been patient. You have been here before. No, it has been worth attending. It has been a worthwhile exercise, I think. Some supplementary questions, if you would allow me, I would supply to you writing. One question that I will try with just now, and it is for Mr White, you will not be surprised that I am back to speak to him again. One of the key factors in support of the creation of the single police force was the need for an improvement in governance and accountability, which is deemed to be a weakness in the eight previous force arrangements. We have heard from police evidence today about the need for quite clear ways forward, clarity and no ambiguity. I have got to say that the answer to my question from the last session told me a lot about lessons learned, about engagement, about consultation, significant public interest, shared accountability and agreement. It did not tell me who had the authority to make the decision in 1 April two years ago about changing policy in relation to firearms. You talked about a shared accountability agreement. If something is shared, in my experience, no-one ends up with responsibility. Does the authority now accept the responsibility for not only holding the chief constable to account but for ensuring that, when the chief constable makes significant policy changes, the authority is consulted thoroughly and that you will endorse that change before it happens? The short answer is yes, convener. On the firearms issue, there are some specifics, which I think are laid out in Mr Penman's report, where there are specific legal implications and decisions given to the chief constable about the standing firearms authority. In general terms and policy, it is very important that we, as an authority, have oversight of policy. If nothing else, then to give the public assurance that what the chief constable is doing is the right thing to do. In often cases, it is to give backing to Police Scotland about what is going on. I just want to say one sentence. For the record, I accept that, in matters of crisis and emergency, a chief constable needs operational independence, so I accept the indication given. I understand that from your experience, Roderick. I just wanted to ask Mr Penman not to answer now, but perhaps he could supply an answer in due course whether he is content in terms of recommendation 7 from his report as to the speed at which deployment criteria are being understood and accepted by local communities in relation to attendance at appropriate non-firearms-related incidents. The second point that I wanted to make just following on from my colleague John Finnie's comments in the history of legacy forces is to refer to page 23 of Mr Penman's or HMISCS's report of October, where it indicates 30 November 2012 that he, the chief constable, made a policy decision that, at the commencement of Police Scotland, there would be a single standing authority to overtly arm or ARV officers with a side-arm self-loading pistol and conducted energy device taser. The footnote on the same page, which says that the footnote 27 Northern Constabulary granted a standing authority on 1 March 2013 as part of the transition to Police Scotland. Prior to that, it operated a dual-rule ARV without standing authority and weapons in vehicle safe. That would be the fourth different thing, wouldn't it? I think that there is evidence. Gentlemen, you are not having a wee discussion with each other. You can tell that he was an advocate in that. He has read every little page of it, which is a good thing. I am going to stop the evidence session here. If you have any other additional questions, you should just put them through me as convener and share them with the committee. I am sorry if I had to do it. Thank you very much. That ends the session. Thank you for coming. I am moving into private session, which will be—