RSS

Tag Archives: Scottish Police Authority

DEPUTY CASH CONSTABLE: Top Cop who asked for her expenses in cash – fails to impress Holyrood Justice Committee with lack of answers over delays to dealing with Durham Constabulary probe of Police Scotland illegal spying scandal

DCC Rose Fitzpatrick could not explain delays over report. A DEPUTY Chief Constable of Police Scotland – who asked for her relocation expenses to be paid by cash – has failed to explain to MSPs why emails between senior officers took three months to release to a probe on activities surrounding an illegal Police spying operation connected to the unsolved murder of Emma Caldwell.

And, it emerged at a hearing on Thursday at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice sub-Committee on Policing – that Police Scotland witnesses were unable to explain why contact details for retired officers who were of relevance to the probe being carried out by Durham Constabulary – were withheld for at least two months..

Evidence from Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick during Thursday’s session at Holyrood was braded unbelievable and “absolutely staggering” by MSPs on the justice committee.

Margaret Mitchell MSP (Scottish Conservative) who is convener of the full Justice Committee – was unable to secure a reasonable explanation from the witnesses as to why information was not handed over to Durham Constabulary during the investigation.

Frequently during answers to members of the Committee, the Deputy Chief Constable referred to legal advice on what could or could not proceed, yet DCC Fitzpatrick remained vague throughout each response.

At one point Ms Mitchell said she “remains unconvinced at answers given today”.

Ms Mitchell later dismissed an explanation by deputy chief constable Rose Fitzpatrick regarding what the police had learned from their failings.

MSPs also criticised Police Scotland’s “overly secretive approach” to investigations into their illegal spying activities against journalists, sources & Police officers.

Reports subsequently generated by these investigations – the published – yet heavily redacted report by Durham Constabulary, and the so-far unpublished Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) report on misconduct were branded as attempts to conceal information which had already been published in other areas.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick admitted during her evidence that Police Scotland had failed four officers at the centre of the illegal spying probe, but then she went on to defend her colleague’s handling of the independent investigation carried out by Durham Constabulary’s Chief Constable – Michael Barton.

During an appearance at the Justice sub-Committee on Policing in February, Chief Constable Michael Barton told the committee he had originally been asked to carry out an investigation into the Counter Corruption Unit (CCU) following a ruling of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT).

However, it emerged in Mr Barton’s evidence the investigation was later downgraded to an inquiry.

Struggling to give acceptable responses without continually referring to legal advice, DCC Fitzpatrick admitted there had been a “significant difference of professional view” between herself and the Durham Constabulary Chief Constable on how to proceed with the probe – but that a resolution had been found after Police Scotland obtained legal advice.

A full report on the Durham Chief Constable Michael Barton’s evidence to the Justice sub-Committee on Policing can be read here: FAIR COP: Police Scotland officers fabricated intelligence in order to spy on journalists & sources in CCU spying scandal – evidence from Durham Constabulary’s Chief Constable to Holyrood Justice Committee

The 80 minutes of ‘evidence’ from Police Scotland witnesses – which included – Duncan Campbell, Interim Head of Legal Services, and Superintendent Andy McDowall, Professional Standards Department, Police Scotland. was widely criticised in the media and by cross party politicians.

The full evidence session with DCC Rose Fitzpatrick & other witnesses at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice sub-Committee on Policing can be viewed here:

DCC Rose Fitzpatrick evidence to Justice Sub committee on Policing – Holyrood 15 March 2018

Full written transcript of the hearing :

Counter-corruption Unit (Durham Constabulary Reports)

The Convener: Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on Durham Constabulary’s report on Police Scotland’s counter-corruption unit. I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clerk, and paper 2, which is a private briefing. I welcome Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick; Duncan Campbell, interim head of legal services with Police Scotland; and Superintendent Andy McDowall from the professional standards department of Police Scotland. Thank you for the written submissions. We will go straight to questions.

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab): I begin with the central contention, which is the status of the work that was undertaken by Durham Constabulary. The first paragraph of the letter that Police Scotland wrote to Durham Constabulary on 28 July 2016 asks Durham Constabulary to agree to undertake “an independent investigation relative to the non-criminal complaint allegations identified by IOCCO.”

We have a more recent letter from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which sets out its query about the nature of that work. The tribunal said that you had not, in accordance with its order, referred the matter to the Durham force for investigation and asks for your response. I understand that you provided a response. However, given the language of your initial letter and the understanding of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, it is understandable that Durham Constabulary is confused, and perhaps upset, about the ambiguity relating to the nature of the investigation and indeed whether it was an investigation. What would you say to that summary and analysis of those understandings and the communications that there have been on the matter?

Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick CBE QPM (Police Scotland): The first thing that I would say is that I am very grateful to Durham Constabulary for its thorough and professional report, which was produced for us under its terms of reference. The letter that you refer to asked Durham Constabulary to undertake an independent investigation “relative to the non-criminal complaint allegations”, and that was set out in the terms of reference. It should not be a surprise that, in something as important and complex as this, at particular times we should all want to ensure that we were operating in accordance with the terms of reference and, particularly importantly, that we were operating effectively under the law in Scotland.

When the chief constable of Police Scotland first asked me to become, in effect, the decision maker in this matter—that was in January 2017, and he formally appointed me to the role in February 2017—I engaged straight away with Mr Barton to discuss the complaints investigation and to establish whether progress was being made and whether there were any issues that I could assist with. When he made it clear that there were some issues for him around the terms of reference and in particular the regulations under which he was conducting his investigation, which are the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014, I of course listened carefully to that.

It is not unusual in complex matters for there to be a difference of professional view about the best way of progressing, but we were clear that he and Durham Constabulary had been asked to undertake an independent investigation only into the non-criminal complaint allegations and that our conduct regulations require other stages to take place should there require to be an investigation into the conduct of individual officers.

As the sub-committee will be aware, we had a number of discussions about that. Mr Barton helpfully came up to discuss that with me in person on 30 January 2017. I listened carefully to what he said and I felt that it was my responsibility to take legal advice. The committee will have seen the senior counsel’s opinion that we received. That made it clear that, because we were operating under the 2014 conduct regulations, we needed to go through the process that is set out in those regulations. In effect, we needed to carry out an assessment in order for me to make a decision on whether there should be a conduct investigation and, if so, who should be appointed to undertake it.

Both of those investigations were conducted independently. Durham Constabulary’s investigation was clearly independent of us and its conclusions were arrived at independently, and then there was the separate conduct investigation, which was undertaken by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and again its conclusions were arrived at independently.

Daniel Johnson: You raised the matter of the regulations, about which we had a considerable degree of discussion when Chief Constable Barton was in front of us. I refer to the Official Report of that meeting and the discussion on the preliminary assessment. I understand the importance of that, given the different way in which complaints are made in Scotland compared to the process in the rest of the United Kingdom, but the evidence about the preliminary assessment was somewhat worrying. Darren Ellis said:

“I was initially told that a preliminary assessment had been completed. I was then told that one had not been completed. Then I was told that one had been completed and lost, and, after that, I was again told that one had not been completed. Over six to eight weeks, I tried to identify the starting point and what Police Scotland considered to be the views of the four complainants and the IPT, because an assessment of that would dictate the play. I do not believe that that work was ever done”.—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 22 February 2018; c 18.]

Further to that, in responding to Chief Constable Barton about whether or not they knew even at that point, Darren Ellis said, “We do not know.” Given the importance of that preliminary assessment, which you acknowledge, is that not a deeply worrying state of affairs and a worrying report, in relation to the lack of clarity and the prospect that such an assessment had not been carried out? What would you say to that?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I would say that a preliminary assessment is a very important part of the process that leads from a complaints investigation and determines whether there will be a conduct investigation thereafter. As you rightly say, Durham Constabulary was asked to do the work in July and August 2016. I believe that Mr Ellis and his team were appointed to progress the work further in November 2016 or certainly late in 2016. When they had completed their report and provided it to us in May 2017, that triggered, under regulation 10 of the conduct regulations, what is known as a preliminary assessment.

I considered the conclusions of the complaints inquiry and the result of the investigation, which had identified that there were a number of officers whose conduct, if proven, might amount to misconduct, and I agreed with that assessment. I agreed with those conclusions in my preliminary assessment and my decision was that a number of the officers should be the subject of a conduct inquiry to determine whether, on the basis of the evidence that that inquiry would look at, they should subsequently face misconduct proceedings, for example. That was the point at which the regulations provide for the preliminary assessment to be carried out, as the bridge between the complaints allegations and any subsequent misconduct investigation.

Daniel Johnson: Just to recap, we had confusion and perhaps disagreement about the status of the work that Durham Constabulary was carrying out; we had a difference of opinion about the interpretation of the regulations, as we have heard from Mr Barton; and we had, at best, a lack of clarity in Durham Constabulary about whether a preliminary assessment, which we all agree is a very important step in the process, existed. It strikes me that those are three fundamental and important issues on which there was a fundamental difference of understanding between Police Scotland and Durham Constabulary over what we can all agree is a serious and important matter. Does that not speak to a very worrying situation? How would you explain that and what lessons have you taken from that situation?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: It clearly is a really important issue for all of us. We have been clear that our failings in 2015, which were the subject of the report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office and the IPT judgment and order, were severe. We were also clear that our responsibility was to provide Durham Constabulary with all the support that it needed to conduct its independent complaints investigation.

When I took up the responsibility of being the decision maker towards the end of January 2017, I met with Mr Barton. We spoke on many occasions about a number of issues around the progress of his investigation and, as I said, he raised the issue of the terms of reference. We were all very conscious of our responsibilities to ensure that the process was undertaken under the conduct regulations. From my point of view, I had a responsibility to ensure that, if Mr Barton required any issues to be resolved or if he needed any material, we could resolve those along the way. I hope that you will see from the exchange of letters that we were able to do that as we went.

The issues were very complex and important. I did not find it surprising that Mr Barton and Durham Constabulary should want to progress in the way that they thought fit. I was certainly conscious of my responsibility to ensure that we were progressing clearly in line with the conduct regulations. When the moment came to determine the issue about Durham Constabulary being able to move from a complaints investigation straight into a conduct investigation, I felt clearly that I had a responsibility to take proper legal advice about that, and you will see that we took senior counsel’s opinion.

We then agreed to progress on the basis of the original terms of reference and under the 2014 conduct regulations. The letter that we received with Mr Barton’s report on 12 May acknowledges that point. He said:

“My team found your colleagues to be helpful and professional, and for that I thank you—please pass on my thanks to them. My report is not as prompt as I would have liked—there were necessary delays taking legal clarifications on the status of my enquiry. I’m glad to say that was ultimately resolved”.

He went on to say: “I have, I trust helpfully, referred further to this issue in the ‘Lessons learned’ chapter”, which is a chapter in his final investigation report.

I think that we all acknowledged that there was a professional difference of view on the issue. Ultimately, we resolved that and agreed to proceed on the basis of the terms of reference and the interpretation by senior counsel of the conduct regulations as they operate in Scotland.

Daniel Johnson: Frankly, I am struggling to reconcile what you are telling me with what Chief Constable Barton said. From the way that you have just put it, it sounds as if you left things in a very amicable way in which all parties understood one another. However, in his evidence, Chief Constable Barton characterised Police Scotland, and in particular the legal department, as acting in an “overly legalistic” and “risk averse” way. The conclusion that one would draw from that is that procedure was getting in the way of looking after the wronged police officers. If everything was so amicable and nothing was wrong, why did Chief Constable Barton give the evidence that he gave to this committee?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I have reflected the fact that we had a significant difference of professional view, which was resolved by the taking of legal advice and an agreement that we proceed on the basis of the original terms of reference that Durham Constabulary was given and the two sets of legal advice that we had received from senior counsel. Mr Barton’s letter of 12 May reflected that. I have spoken about and read from his letter the point about the lessons learned part of his report.

The committee will be aware that we have been keen to ensure that all of the lessons are learned from each of the individual independent reports that we have had, from the IOCCO report and the IPT judgment and order through to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland’s 39 recommendations in its assurance review of the CCU, right through to the Northumbria Police, Durham Constabulary and PSNI reports. There has been learning for us in all of those that sits alongside the actual findings of the investigations.

A huge amount of work has already gone on, certainly on the 39 recommendations from the HMICS review. We are clear that, where there are things to be learned about the processes, such as those with Durham Constabulary, we will take those on. I do not for a moment suggest that, in our many conversations and exchanges of letters, Mr Barton did not raise points with me where he felt that we could provide something to him or perhaps provide a little more support to his team. As soon as I became aware of those issues, we resolved them as we went along. As I say, it was a complex matter that went on for a long time, so I am not surprised that, given that all of us were determined to proceed in the right way, there were differences of opinion. As I believe you can see from Mr Barton’s final letter to us, ultimately, they were resolved by the way that we agreed to proceed.

The Convener: Deputy chief constable, you are the disciplinary authority for Police Scotland. On receipt of the IOCCO report, could you have decided that there would be no conduct proceedings?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I suppose that, technically, that would have been the case. I was not the disciplinary authority then. In fact, I was asked by the chief constable to be the disciplinary authority in this particular case only in early 2017. I know that the IOCCO determination, which was received in November 2015, was followed by complaints from four complainers in, I believe, March 2016. Those complaints were referred to the Crown Office. At that point, therefore, we had complaints that we were bound to ensure were investigated. My understanding is that, when the complaints were received, they were referred to the Crown Office to establish whether there was any criminality in the allegations. It was determined that there was no criminality, but at that point I understand that it was agreed with the complainers that the complaints would be pended until the IPT hearing, which took place in July, followed by the IPT judgment and order in August. It was at that point that the complaints were referred to Durham Constabulary, which was asked to conduct its independent complaints investigation.

The Convener: What was the status of the individuals who were interviewed in the investigation or inquiry that you asked Durham Constabulary to do? Were they witnesses, suspects or accused?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Under a complaints investigation, there would have been complainers—there were four complainers in this case—and witnesses, in relation to establishing the substance of the complaints and the recommendations relating to the complaints. There are issues around conduct investigations. Such investigations are clearly defined in the conduct regulations, which put in place particular processes and procedures and, in some cases, safeguards in relation to officers who may become what we call subject officers—in other words, officers who are subject to a conduct investigation.

The Convener: The legal opinion talks about that and the position of challenge, were that to happen. Conversely, given the direction that you had given Durham Constabulary, was there the potential for anyone who was interviewed to have been compromised if they were subsequently to become a subject officer or an accused?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: That was never raised with us by Durham Constabulary. There will always be cases in which, before a determination is made, people may be spoken to, but it then becomes clear subsequently that perhaps they need to become a subject officer—that is, their conduct needs to be investigated because it is considered that there may be a possibility of misconduct or gross misconduct. It is the preliminary assessment that makes that decision. In this case, as a result of its investigation, Durham Constabulary identified a number of officers in relation to whom, in its view, a decision needed to be taken as to whether their conduct needed to be investigated. That was the preliminary assessment point that led to the conduct investigation.

The Convener: Just for completeness, did Durham Constabulary interview the people whom it subsequently said could be subject to disciplinary proceedings?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I do not believe that it did.

The Convener: What, if anything, should this committee read into the fact that ex-DCC Richardson did not co-operate with the Durham Constabulary inquiry?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I really cannot say, I am afraid. The inquiry was independent and I had no role; the organisation would have provided details of retired officers to Durham Constabulary.

The Convener: Nonetheless, in this instance you are the disciplinary authority and Mr Richardson had been the disciplinary authority. Would you not have anticipated full co-operation from your predecessor?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Durham Constabulary was conducting two parallel non-criminal complaints investigations, one on our behalf and the other on behalf of the Scottish Police Authority. Any issues concerning senior officers would have been part of the senior officer complaints investigation, which came under the auspices of the SPA.

The Convener: Nonetheless, Mr Richardson could have been a witness or, if he was a serving officer, subject to investigation. Do you have no view on his unwillingness to co-operate?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I am simply saying that, if approaches were made to him, I am not aware of what the conversation was. I am really not in a position to comment.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): I want to be clear on the sequencing. We have Chief Constable Barton submitting his investigation conclusions on 12 May 2017; that is the end of one chapter, it seems to me. The next step, as you have described it, is your role in doing a preliminary assessment as to whether a misconduct inquiry would have to happen. In coming to your preliminary assessment view, what input—separate from its submission of a report—would there have been from Durham Constabulary? Would you simply have gone back to clarify points, or was Durham Constabulary out of the picture, with no role in the preparation of the preliminary assessment beyond the fact that it had submitted a report that you would be drawing on?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I am very fortunate that I have a conduct expert to my left, but I will try to answer that myself and then hand over to Superintendent McDowall, who will put me right on anything that I may leave out.

Durham Constabulary’s independent complaints investigation was complete and entire in itself. It came to the conclusion that a number of the complaints were upheld, that some were partially upheld and that others were not upheld. It took the view that there was a prima facie case involving a number of officers, which, if proven, might lead to a finding that their conduct was in fact misconduct and in breach of the standards of behaviour that we expect of professional police officers.

My decision making was formed with support—in this case, that support was an assessment of the particular matters that came out. We separate out the complaints issue, we look at the individual officers, and then I make a decision on the basis of what is provided to me—in this case, the Durham Constabulary report—as to whether there is a prima facie case that requires to be investigated. Durham Constabulary spoke about eight officers originally. Looking at the case in detail, I determined that, for seven of those officers, there was a prima facie case, that their conduct, if proven, could amount to gross misconduct, and that, therefore, an independent misconduct investigation should take place. That was based on the Durham Constabulary report.

Stewart Stevenson: In relation to how you came to your conclusion, you used the phrase “with support”, and that is really what I am focused on. What was that support? Where did it come from? Did it involve going back to Durham Constabulary to say, “You have come up with this charge sheet,” and to get further information, so that the preliminary assessment could be as complete and reasonable, in all sorts of ways, as would be necessary? I just want to know whether, after 17 May, Durham Constabulary was no longer part of the decision-making process, or whether it was still advising you.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I did not go back to Durham Constabulary other than to thank it for its report. I do not know whether any of my colleagues in our conduct world felt that it would have been appropriate or helpful to do that at that stage.

Superintendent Andy McDowall (Police Scotland): Mr Stevenson, there is not much more that I can add to the deputy chief constable’s interpretation of how we formulated that regulation 10 preliminary assessment. The Durham Constabulary report was conclusive, and it was the information contained within that report that allowed us to formulate an assessment so that we could progress matters under the conduct regulations, as required. It was the Durham Constabulary report that the regulation 10 preliminary assessment was based on.

Rona Mackay (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP): I do not want to labour this too much, but can I ask you a bit more about the terms of reference? I feel that I need clarification, and I am still quite confused by it all. Chief Constable Barton said that it was three to four months into his investigation when he was told it would not be an investigation, that he did not have full investigatory powers and that it would instead be an inquiry. Is that when you took over, Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick—after the preliminary work had been done and you decided to take legal action? I am puzzled as to why the original remit from the chief constable of Police Scotland did not take that approach at the outset.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: As I said earlier, I did not become the decision maker until the end of January 2017—I was appointed officially on 14 February 2017. The terms of reference were set out in a letter to Durham Constabulary from the chief constable of Police Scotland on 4 August 2016. Durham Constabulary began work at that point and I first engaged with Mr Barton in January 2017 when the work had been under way since August.

Rona Mackay: That is what I am trying to determine. Was it after you had sight of that work that you decided that a different procedure needed to take place? Was it at that point that you said, “I need to take legal advice”?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Those were simply my initial conversations with Mr Barton. I spoke to him at the end of January, we had a meeting on 30 January 2017 and we had an exchange of letters about the terms of reference. Until then, I was not aware that there was an issue or a difference of view about the terms of reference and the extent of his inquiry; of course, as soon as he raised that with me, I had to listen very carefully. Then I determined that I needed to take some legal advice on the application of the conduct regulations in Scotland to the particular circumstance, and that is when I did that.

Rona Mackay: When you were liaising with him, how long was it before you realised that you would need to take advice?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: We had a number of conversations and we had an exchange of letters in February. Then I received senior counsel’s opinion on 21 March 2017. It was sequential: we talked about the terms of reference, we realised that we had a different professional view about the issue and we discussed it. I believe that Mr Barton said that he took legal advice—my recollection is that he mentioned that to me—and we also took legal advice. Importantly, I was very conscious of my responsibility to be open-minded about the views that he had come to, but also to make sure that we were proceeding on a very sound legal basis. If I am very honest, no legal advice was taken at the time in relation to the 2015 issues, when IOCCO and IPT determined that we had acted unlawfully, and I was very keen to make sure that we were operating on a sound legal basis, and hence taking legal advice.

I actually took two different sets of legal advice because, during those conversations and as we were getting the first set of senior counsel’s opinion on the Scotland regulations, Mr Barton made a specific proposal about how he might proceed under the regulations. I asked for that to be put to senior counsel to look at specifically because, again, I wanted to be open-minded about whether that was an appropriate—or, indeed, a better—way to proceed. I took legal advice on that, so that we could go down that road if that was appropriate for all concerned.

However, the second set of senior counsel’s advice, on that very specific point, was that we could not be advised to go down that route—that, in fact, the Scotland regulations would not allow us to do that while keeping within the regulations, which have the force of law. I felt that it was my responsibility to make an informed decision, based on two sets of legal advice that was very specific on those points.

Rona Mackay: I take it that you stand by that decision today, and that you believe that you did the right thing by taking that advice.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I believe that I did, yes.

Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con): Good afternoon. Mr Barton said:

“When I was given the inquiry, it was made clear to me by the chief constable that we were being asked to do an investigation. That means that we can investigate, access all the documents and interview people, so that we can make a recommendation on whether or not there may be misconduct.”—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 22 February 2018; c 2.]

As part of that, he said that he wanted to interview senior officers and, before that, he wanted to see a chain of emails from those senior officers. He was not allowed to do that; the reason given for that was legal privilege. Would you like to comment on that, Mr Campbell?

Duncan Campbell (Police Scotland): Good afternoon, Mrs Mitchell. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on that. I was interviewed by Mr Ellis in December 2015 and January 2016, as part of the investigation. I was asked to provide factual information, which I did. That essentially related to my interaction with this committee’s predecessor committee between December 2015 and January 2016. I was also asked to provide a chronology and a copy of information that passed between me and the IPT in the period immediately following the hearing on 22 July.

Mr Ellis also asked me to provide additional information around the factual material. I indicated to him that I took the view that the material that he was looking for was legally privileged and that I would need to get the chief constable’s permission before privilege was waived; that privilege was vested in my client, who was the chief constable. The matter was not immediately pursued further with me. When it was subsequently pressed, I offered the chief constable advice about his entitlement to waive privilege as he saw fit. I also indicated to him that, if he was minded to do that, he might wish to avail himself of independent legal advice on whether to waive privilege. I did not withhold any material that Mr Ellis asked for and which I was in a position to provide to him.

Margaret Mitchell: What aspect of the chain of emails did you think was covered by legal privilege? Was it every single bit of the emails between those senior officers?

Duncan Campbell: I have seen Mr Barton’s evidence in that regard. I am not in a position to comment on emails passing between senior officers. I was only able to comment on material that was held in our own file, which concerned matters that were put to me for advice.

Margaret Mitchell: Should you not have made that distinction? Should you not have said, “On the basis of the emails I hold in my file, my advice is that legal privilege kicks in, but of course you can see any of the emails in a chain of correspondence that the senior officers have had”?

Duncan Campbell: That was not the inquiry that was made of me by Mr Ellis. I do not know whether he made that inquiry of anybody else, but he did not make that inquiry of me.

Margaret Mitchell: He was quite clear that he asked to see the emails that people sent to each other. I think that that was fairly reasonable. Given that the remit was, as Mr Barton said, to

“investigate, access all the documents and interview people, so that we can make a recommendation”,

Mr Ellis had to see everything. Mr Barton also said quite clearly that

“It is legitimate for a senior police officer or a member of the Scottish Police Federation to sit down with their solicitor and to be absolutely sure that those conversations are sacrosanct.—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 22 February 2018; c 11.]

That is a given. That is not what we are talking about here.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I may be able to help. That issue came up with Mr Barton in our discussions in January and February—in fact in February, as I recollect; we also had an exchange of letters about it. I have just noted that, from my letter of 22 February 2017, I was able to confirm to him that we were waiving legal privilege in relation to the briefing documents that he required for his investigation.

Another issue related to access to a telecommunications product. As I said, when in the course of our conversation Mr Barton raised one or two issues with me that he felt that we needed to progress, I was able to resolve them, as far as that was possible. I think that that has a bearing on the point that you were just asking about, Mrs Mitchell.

Margaret Mitchell: It most certainly has. It took three months—the issue goes right to the heart of the criticism that the legal department was risk averse, that it was not open and that it was not transparent. Given the benefit of the analysis that has been made and the fact that the correspondence was subsequently released—albeit three months later—would you care to reflect now as to whether you might do things differently in future?

Duncan Campbell: The correspondence that I sent to Mr Ellis was sent sooner than the date that Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick refers to in terms of the briefing note.

As far as being risk averse is concerned, my role in providing advice to Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick and to colleagues in the professional standards department is to be risk aware, rather than risk averse—in other words, to be aware of the risks that would arise if certain courses of action were followed and to offer advice on that premise.

Margaret Mitchell: Your advice was to not release.

Duncan Campbell: No. With respect, my advice was not against releasing—it was not to not release. My advice to the chief constable was, “It is your privilege and it is for you to determine whether to waive it. It is not for me to waive the privilege on your behalf”.

Margaret Mitchell: So what took three months? If you looked at it and the request was made, I would have thought that you would have passed on that information. Did it take you three months to come to that conclusion? Who made the decision ultimately that the information would be released?

Duncan Campbell: It was not a decision that was taken by me. I initially reflected the situation back to Deputy Chief Constable Livingstone, the day after I had seen Mr Ellis. I explained to him that, in part, a request had been made for access to privileged material. It was suggested to me that that might be quite an unusual request and that I should reflect that back to Mr Ellis, which I did the following day.

Margaret Mitchell: Why did it take three months to release these emails? They were subsequently released.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: As I said, when we had our discussions at the end of January and in February, this was one of the issues that Mr Barton raised with me. I was able to confirm to him that, having had a discussion with the chief constable, we would be happy to provide the briefing documents that he was requesting.

Margaret Mitchell: Perhaps I can put this another way: is there a problem with communication? It took three months, but you have still not told me why. This investigation should have been going smoothly, and these emails should—as it turns out—have been released. They were subsequently released, but why did it take three months to do so?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I came to the issue at the end of January and the beginning of February. I was appointed as decision maker on 14 February, and I was able to confirm to Mr Barton on 22 February, as a result of his raising the matter with me, that we would be providing him with the material.

Margaret Mitchell: Are you saying that you only came to this late and that, in other words, it was somebody else’s problem?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I am saying that as soon as I became aware of the matter, I sought to have it resolved, as it was.

Margaret Mitchell: Are there lessons to be learned?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: There are indeed. As I have said, the lessons that are set out in Mr Barton’s report and our discussions with him along the way form the basis of a significant amount of organisational learning for us not only in relation to the original matters of the IPT and IOCCO, but subsequently.

Margaret Mitchell: With respect, we have had such platitudes before. You have come here today, fully aware of the evidence that was given two weeks ago about this gap, and you are seeking to reassure us that things have moved on and that everything was quite amicable at the end. However, that is not the case. No criminality was found, and I am afraid that what we are hearing today merely sounds inept.

I want to ask about data protection and the request for the addresses of the retired officers, which was refused. Whose decision was that, and what was the reason for the refusal?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Shall I take that?

Duncan Campbell: Yes.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: As we know, every organisation has responsibilities with regard to data, and they are set out in data protection legislation. As retired officers are effectively members of the public, we have a responsibility for their data, including their personal details. Again, Mr Barton raised with me the point that this seemed to be taking some time—

Margaret Mitchell: Can I stop you there? We were told at our previous meeting that

“lawyers in Police Scotland said that we were not allowed to know where those retired officers lived”.—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 22 February 2018; c 11.]

We are talking not about a member of the public or somebody with an interest, but about the person in charge of the investigation. As it is really a legal question, I feel that I have to ask Mr Campbell about it.

Duncan Campbell: I first became aware that access to retired officers was an issue when I was shown the letter from Mr Barton dated 7 February, which I think is before you. I was shown the letter either that day or possibly the next. When you look at the Official Report of Mr Barton’s evidence on 22 February, you might form the impression that I or one of my colleagues had already given some advice or instruction that home addresses were not to be released.

I hope that I can reassure you that that was not the case. We had not had any involvement in the matter until receipt of the letter of 7 February. I discussed it with Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick; the next day—I think—we discussed a number of matters, which were reflected in her letter of 13 February and one of which was the way in which we proposed to resolve the issue of access. We wanted to facilitate access, but to ensure that we did so in a lawful and proportionate way.

Margaret Mitchell: You say that you did not give legal advice, but was Mr Barton told by someone else that it was legal advice? If so, that was erroneous, given that two months later he got the information about where the retired police officers lived. How was the matter resolved?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: In my letter to Mr Barton of 13 February, there was an undertaking to resolve it—in fact, by that stage, it was in hand. We were doing what we were required to do in relation to personal information, which was to contact the individuals and ask them whether they were happy for us to provide that information—that is, their contact details—to Durham Constabulary.

Margaret Mitchell: Finally, on professional standards, Mr Barton said that he moved as fast as he could,

“and the only times that we paused were when we asked for preliminary assessments. At any time in our inquiry, the officers in the professional standards department could have done a preliminary assessment. If they had done that, they could have switched the process, even under their arcane rules, into an investigation, and they chose not to do that”.

Mr Barton then makes the main point when he says:

“We gave them ample opportunity on a number of occasions to switch to a full investigation. We were balked in speaking to some people because we were not given the addresses and we were balked because we were not allowed to see what were assessed as being legally privileged documents, although they were not. I just wanted to comment on timeliness.”—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 22 February 2018; c 14-5.]

There seems to have been a five-month delay in this process. Do you wish to respond, Mr McDowall?

Superintendent McDowall: I must confess that I am somewhat perplexed as to how we could suddenly jump from a complaints investigation straight into a conduct investigation. We have already discussed the regulation 10 preliminary assessment process, and as the conduct portfolio lead for Police Scotland, I would point out that the regulation 10 process follows on from an appointment of an investigating officer by the deputy chief constable to investigate misconduct matters. Legally in Scotland, we are not allowed to investigate police misconduct unless that process has been undertaken. As I mentioned to Mr Stevenson, the basis on which we formulated the regulation 10 preliminary assessment was the concluded—and conclusive—Durham report. We could not have appointed an investigating officer without having gone through that legal regulatory process.

Margaret Mitchell: I remain unconvinced by these explanations, and I am somewhat concerned that, despite areas being put into in the public domain at the committee’s previous meeting, we still do not have any answers. Perhaps you will reflect on that as we move forward.

Ben Macpherson (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP): Good afternoon. Going back to the legal opinions, I believe that Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick said that decisions were made on 30 January with regard to the terms of reference. Was that when the decision to seek senior counsel was made?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I am afraid that I cannot recall exactly when the decision was made.

Ben Macpherson: Would it have been thereabouts?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: My first meeting with Mr Barton was on 30 January and we were talking about those issues at that point.

Ben Macpherson: In following up that meeting, I want to ask two real questions. First, why was senior counsel rather than internal legal advice sought? What was the position in that respect? Secondly, was Mr Barton content and in agreement with the process of seeking senior counsel?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: First of all, I wanted to take the best possible advice to make an informed decision about this. Internal legal advice will, of course, be part of that, but senior counsel’s advice will relate to very specific points, and I think that it is common for most organisations and many police services to seek senior counsel’s advice on particularly important or complex matters. I am not suggesting for a moment that I could not have had in-house advice—in fact, I was receiving that advice where that was appropriate—but it is called “senior counsel” for a reason and I wanted to make sure that we were getting the best possible focus on the matter.

I certainly discussed that with Mr Barton. I made him aware on both occasions—and when he came back with his specific proposal, too—that we were taking advice, and I was very frank in discussing the content of that advice with him. I know that Mr Barton told the committee that he took legal advice himself and ultimately, as our exchange of letters suggests, and as he mentions in his final letter to us after his report was received, we agreed to differ. However, we agreed to proceed on the basis of the legal advice that we as Police Scotland had received.

Ben Macpherson: But there was no objection from him at the time about your instructing senior counsel.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I do not think so—I do not recollect that at all. We had a number of conversations about the matter. We knew the points on which we differed professionally with regard to our interpretation of the Scottish regulations, and I hope that I was very open with him about what I intended to do.

Ben Macpherson: I ask the question simply because of Mr Barton’s position that Police Scotland was—to use his phrase—“overly legalistic” in the process. I know from having instructed senior counsel in a previous role that it can take longer and that that perhaps led to the time delay. Moreover, it is often the case that different legal opinions are sought from different advocates. Was that ever considered?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I am trying to think whether I specifically considered that—I do not think so. As you have suggested, I was quite mindful of time; I asked for senior counsel’s view to be taken, but I did not specify which senior counsel it should have been. I am not a lawyer myself. In fact, because the two matters were taken so closely together, it was for the benefit of time that we decided to take opinion on the general point and on the very specific proposal.

Ben Macpherson: Paragraphs 51 and 52 of the first legal opinion, in particular, state the risk in senior counsel’s view of judicial review. Was Mr Barton receptive to that risk and did he understand it?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: He must have been receptive, because we ultimately agreed to proceed on the basis of my decision to follow the legal advice that I had received. I was very clear that this was not some abstract matter and that Police Scotland had already been judicially reviewed on a very similar issue, so this was not about having some abstract discussion of what might happen.

Ben Macpherson: And the decision to take legal opinion and the opinion that was given were not questioned or dismissed by Mr Barton.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: We discussed it, and I did not find Mr Barton to be dismissive at all. I hope that he did not find me dismissive, either. We were two professionals who both appreciated the importance and complexity of this particular issue; we were both very determined to do right by the issue and the people involved, particularly the complainers, and to take things forward in an effective way. We agreed to differ. As I understand it, we both took legal advice and then agreed to proceed on the basis of the legal advice that we had received.

Ben Macpherson: The debate over the interpretation of the 2014 regulations prolonged the investigative process, and it has been stated that that had an adverse effect on the individuals involved. Do you accept that?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I have accepted that, and I had the opportunity—for which I was grateful—to apologise in person to three of the four complainers on 1 March and in a letter to all four complainers on the same day not only for the failings that occurred in 2015 but for the subsequent impact on them and their families. I am mindful of that, and I know that Mr Barton was very mindful of it. The discussions that we had when I formally took this on in February and March led Mr Barton to conclude his investigation and his report was with us on, I believe, 12 May.

Ben Macpherson: Being mindful of all of that, what steps do you think will need to be taken to avoid any confusion with regard to the application of the 2014 regulations to any future inquiries or investigations that need to be carried out?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: As a result of the discussions that we had, particularly with Mr Barton and the Durham Constabulary investigation team, not only did we get a very thorough, diligent and professional report from them, which enabled us to progress the processes, but, as you will recall, we went on to develop terms of reference for the PSNI to carry out the conduct investigation. I felt that it was important that we were very clear about those, and we both understood exactly the legislative framework that we would be operating under. The PSNI was happy with that. My personal learning was to take my discussions with Mr Barton on the terms of reference and the difference of view that had arisen into the very early discussions with the PSNI to ensure agreement on its terms of reference.

Ben Macpherson: So despite the admitted delay and the potential damage that that could have had, there has been a constructive outcome to this with regard to future investigations.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Indeed. We have a lot of lessons to learn. As I have said, we had already put that into practice in asking the PSNI to do the work that it has done.

Daniel Johnson: I seek a technical clarification on the nature of this disagreement. My understanding is that, in Scotland, we separate the complaint from the subsequent investigation, and Police Scotland’s contention is that the investigator in the investigation cannot have had any previous involvement in the handling of the complaint, as that would undermine the requirement in the police regulations for the investigating officer to be impartial. Am I correct in understanding the crux of this disagreement?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I understand, too, that that was the crux of the disagreement. That is what formed the basis of the legal advice. As I think I said in answer to Mr Macpherson, this was not an abstract issue for us; we had previously been judicially reviewed on the point and had had to concede it.

Daniel Johnson: That was helpful. Thank you.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD): A little like other members, I am struggling a bit to reconcile the evidence that we had on 22 February from Chief Constable Barton, which was of the moment and reflecting back on what had happened. At that stage, he still felt moved to make some more serious criticisms than the more reassuring tone that you have sought to strike today. That is probably material for the committee in so far as it tends to suggest that, when it comes to lessons learned, you are more reassured than Chief Constable Barton and his colleagues are. I will leave that hanging there for the moment.

On the basis of the evidence that we have had, a couple of things have leapt out at me. It is staggering that access to retired officers was not identified as a potential issue and resolved, not in terms of each case, but in terms of handling, and agreed with Durham when the investigation was initiated. I cannot understand why that almost came as a surprise and out of left field after Durham had been asked to undertake an investigation. Is it not standard procedure? At some stage, there will undoubtedly—almost inevitably—be a request to make an approach to retired officers. How would Police Scotland respond? I can understand why you might need to seek permission but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why you would not anticipate that arising in the early stages—not just at some point, but in the early stages—of the investigation.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: You have quite rightly identified an area of learning for us in terms of preparation for these things. It is something that we took into our discussions with PSNI about what it would need in order to facilitate its subsequent independent conduct investigation.

Liam McArthur: Again, in passing, some of what Chief Constable Barton was referring to when he talked about an attitude and a lack of transparency was reflected in the level of redaction in the reports that were handed to us. I entirely understand and respect the requirement to redact reports of this nature, but it seemed that the extent of the redaction, including of information that was in the public domain, spoke to an approach that Chief Constable Barton was moved to suggest was overly secretive.

I turn to the issue of the pastoral care. There has never been any disagreement around the fact that the four individuals concerned were gravely wronged, as Chief Constable Barton said. You have said that you were determined to do the right thing by the complainers. As I understand it, the IOCCO reported to Police Scotland in July 2015. Chief Constable Barton then suggested that the first contact that was made by Police Scotland with the four was in February 2016. Having been made aware of IOCCO’s concerns, why on earth did it take Police Scotland seven months—or whatever it was—to approach those affected? DCC Fitzpatrick, I appreciate that this predates your involvement but, again, I find that absolutely staggering.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I am afraid that I do not know why it took so long. While we are on the subject of learning, having been asked to become the decision maker in this officially on 14 February, although I was in discussions with Mr Barton in late January—and we agreed whole-heartedly on this—I was determined to offer to meet the complainers as soon as possible and to offer them what I described in my letters to them as a whole-hearted and unreserved apology. I touched on this briefly earlier. That apology was not only for the failings in our processes and procedures around the communications data that the IOCCO and IPT had identified in 2015, but for the impact on them and their families at the time of those acts and since then. I was very grateful that three of the complainers agreed to meet me and I completely understood that the fourth did not choose to do so.

Liam McArthur: My understanding is that the apology was welcome and acknowledged for being as fulsome as you suggest but, just to get this clear, you were apologising for what happened and the impact that it had. Was it also an apology for the lack of on-going engagement and seeming concern for the wellbeing of the existing and retired officers throughout this process?

We have heard from colleagues of yours. In a number of evidence sessions, Deputy Chief Constable Designate Livingstone has made great play of the priority he attaches to the wellbeing of officers and of staff. That was glaringly absent throughout the process, and its absence is potentially on-going. I do not know the outcome of the discussions that you have had but I presume that the impact is also on-going. Certainly the complainants do not feel that the matter has been resolved for them, so I assume that Police Scotland is committed to continuing to work through whatever might bring about a resolution, subject to the willingness on the part of the complainants to engage.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: One of the striking things for me—and I think that this is the case for anybody who sits down with someone—when I spoke individually to the three complainers who agreed to meet with me on 1 March 2017, was to listen to them and to hear what the impact on them had been. Of course, I intended to apologise to them, and I did apologise to them directly and individually, but I also heard about the impact on them and on their families.

The work on wellbeing that Mr Livingstone has spoken to the committee about certainly needs to include our processes and procedures for serving officers, whatever their status and whatever the circumstances of our relationship with them in the future.

Liam McArthur: To be clear, that meeting on 1 March is not an end point. Notwithstanding the fact that the apology that was being sought was offered at that stage, is there an on-going commitment to engagement if that is felt to be necessary by those involved?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Yes. Absolutely, if indeed it is. As you will know, a number of the complainers have retired, but we still have a responsibility to any of them who have not retired.

One of the most significant points of learning for us was probably the fact that there was a very long gap, which you have identified. With Durham Constabulary’s help, I was able to meet the complainers at the beginning of March and that was an important part of what I felt was my responsibility at that time.

The Convener: DCC Fitzpatrick, given the profile and seriousness of the issue, which Police Scotland has acknowledged, a lot of people will be astonished that the outcome is that you have learned things but no one has been culpable in any way. You have a range of disposals. You could reprimand someone or you could caution them. You could send them for additional training. There has been none of that. Where are the individuals who have been involved in this?

Concern has been expressed to this committee that, although these people have been acquitted—and I readily accept that—they are now in more promoted posts. The reason I raise that is because there are genuine concerns about reputational damage and the signal that that sends out. Can you comment on why, after all this, no one even gets spoken to?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: That is not quite the case.

The Convener: What disposals were used then, please?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Seven officers were the subject of the PSNI’s independent conduct inquiry. The PSNI investigation report found that a number of allegations were proven, on the balance of probabilities, but there was no evidence of wilful acts of misconduct. It also described how, although there was no evidence of wilful actions, there was clearly recklessness, and that chimed entirely with the IOCCO and IPT findings that we had been reckless as an organisation. The PSNI found that some of those individuals had been reckless in their own individual behaviour and it also identified failures in leadership systems and processes.

Of the seven officers, four were subject to what we call improvement action, which is a disposal aimed at focusing on why they had behaved in that way and them taking action to make sure that it did not occur again. The PSNI also determined that three individuals were peripheral—that is my word—to these issues, and no further action was taken. For four of the individuals, therefore, action plans were put in place to make sure that their future actions are not likely to lead to adverse outcomes.

The Convener: How many of the seven have subsequently been promoted?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I am afraid I do not have that information, convener. I am happy to provide it to the committee if it would help.

Liam McArthur: Just following up on that, earlier we discussed the lack of access to officers who are now retired. I presume that any improvement actions cannot be applied to those that have retired. Did the PSNI report shed any light on that?

You have talked about reckless behaviour and a lack of leadership. One would assume that something more than improvement actions would be required in the event of reckless actions, so did the PSNI have anything to say about the behaviour and involvement of retired officers and whether, had they still been in the force, more serious measures might have been necessary and appropriate in the circumstances?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Yes, it did. The PSNI observed that it had not been able to engage with officers who had retired because, of course, the conduct regulations fall when an officer retires from policing. The PSNI observed that, on the basis of what it knew, it felt that other action might have been appropriate. Of course, it also observed that it had not been able to engage with or interview those officers. At that stage, that was a judgment as opposed to something that it could say to us was a matter of fact.

Liam McArthur: Is that then something that you can take learning from, even if you can take no action because of the status of the officers as being retired? Are there lessons to be learned from that going forward?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Yes, to the extent that it is important to learn from all of these things. The issue here of course was the conduct regulations, which differ from those in England and Wales and under which there is no way of compelling individuals who have retired to engage with a conduct investigation. In fact, the conduct investigation has no locus for them at all because they are no longer serving as police officers. That particular point is a regulatory issue and not something that we have control over.

Liam McArthur: Given the role of this Parliament in looking at where regulation is and is not working, would you support our looking at that? Is it a deficiency in the way that the regulations are structured that, by dint of retiring, an officer can escape any sort of sanction, not for criminal offences, but for serious misdemeanours on their part?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: There is a range of views about that in policing. The 2014 conduct regulations have been in place for more than four years. There is learning about the regulations, just as there has been organisational learning for us all the way through in other matters in relation to CCU and comms data and so on. I think it is very wise to keep these things under review.

The Convener: Can you tell us why you cannot publish the PSNI report?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Again, I look to Superintendent McDowall to keep me right on this, but my understanding of the conduct regulations is that, under the arrangements that exist in England and Wales, for example, hearings—in particular, on conduct matters—may be held in public, whereas that does not apply in Scotland. There is a presumption in the conduct regulations that misconduct proceedings—that is, on the conduct of the misconduct—will be in private and that people therefore have an expectation of privacy.

The Convener: My question is specifically on the report and why it is not possible for it to be published, even in redacted form. I express some surprise, because I would have expected that, as the disciplinary authority, you would have a full grasp of the small number of regulations that comprise the conduct regulations.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I am sorry if the committee thinks that I do not have—

The Convener: I am only going by your comment that it was your understanding. I would have thought—

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: My understanding is that there is an issue around the misconduct process, and the proceedings being in private. I was going to ask Mr McDowall, as my left-hand man here, to put me right if I had misinterpreted the regulations.

Superintendent McDowall: Absolutely. The police misconduct proceedings in Scotland are private proceedings. That is not similar to England and Wales. As a result—I do not think that this refers just to the specific matter of the PSNI investigation—it is important that we maintain consistency, not just for regulatory compliance but for all other misconduct regulations, which are not put into the public domain.

The Convener: Was the information that there were to be no proceedings shared with the complainers?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I wrote to the complainers on 30 June with the result of the complaints investigation. The letters were very lengthy.

The Convener: That was the Durham Constabulary report. What about the PSNI report?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: That is right. I am trying to look now—[Interruption.] On 15 January, when we were speaking to the subject officers and letting them know the outcome of the conduct investigations into them—I am sorry; that took me a moment, because there have been so many letters on this—letters from me were hand delivered to each of the four complainers. Therefore, the complainers heard the outcome on the same day as the officers who had been subject to the misconduct investigation.

The Convener: Are you able to share how they responded to your decision not to institute proceedings?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I think that that is a matter for them, convener.

The Convener: On the point about the retention of material and the recent exchanges on that, Police Scotland used quite an unusual phrase, if you do not mind me saying so, when it referred to any material on Police Scotland databases that did not “reflect the truth”. Can you explain what that means, please?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Yes; I hope so. The committee will be aware that the original material that led to the IOCCO breach was one set of material; ultimately, the IPT judgment governs the disposal of that material. I understand that four of the complainers, three of whom were serving officers at the time, had some concerns, quite rightly, about other material about them that might be held on any of our databases—for example on our human resources database, or our professional standards database. When we talk about material that does not reflect the truth of these matters, that means any material that the complainers feel does not effectively represent the truth.

The IPT order governs the material that relates to the authorisations and the communications data. In speaking to the three complainers, as I did on 1 March 2017, I wanted to assure them of the fact that, if there was any material that they felt did not reflect truthfully what had happened, we would be very open to removing that material from any of our databases, such as our intelligence, HR, complaints or other databases.

The Convener: The complainers used the words “delivering our remedy”. Do you think that Police Scotland has delivered a remedy for people who have been wronged?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: There are two aspects to that. One is the effective remedy, which is referred to by the IPT; it was determined that that could come about only by an independent investigation into what has happened. Effectively, we have had two independent investigations. I know from speaking to the complainers when I met them on 1 March last year that they feel very gravely wronged in this matter, so for me there is that separate issue about what people feel personally is an effective remedy. Again, I cannot answer for the complainers on that, because I know that that is a very personal view.

The Convener: Do you think that it is legitimate that they continue to feel wronged?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Absolutely. As I said to them when I met them, and as I have repeated in my letters to them, I feel that we failed them absolutely as an organisation, and that we continued to fail them by not being in contact with them. I continue to offer them my whole-hearted apologies for that failing.

The Convener: What reassurance can you give the people of Scotland that we will not see a repetition of this abuse?

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: I have spoken about organisational learning. I think that it is very easy to use the phrase “organisational learning”, but I also think that it is legitimate to ensure that those lessons are actually implemented and that they effect change.

As the committee is aware, HM inspectorate of constabulary carried out a very early assurance review of our CCU arrangements, which has led to substantial change. The 39 recommendations that HMICS made have all either been completed or, in the case of three, are finally proposed for closure. In fact, HMICS is back with us to conduct a further review of our progress in implementing those recommendations. There is independent assurance around whether we have moved on from those days.

The Convener: Thank you. The committee will seek an update from the inspectorate on that work. Are there any further questions?

Margaret Mitchell: May I comment on one thing? It concerns the information that should be withdrawn. You said that it was about regulation, and that it did not fully reflect the truth. We were told quite bluntly that it had been made up. Unless you speak very plainly and say, “A spade is in fact a spade, we are holding up our hands to that and we will address it”, the lack of openness, transparency and accountability in how senior management—we are not talking about the rank and file—are getting on with their jobs on a daily basis, will mean that we will be here on a regular basis. At a senior level, openness, transparency and accountability must be at the very heart of what you do.

The Convener: Do you wish to respond, DCC Fitzpatrick? We are very keen that there is maximum engagement with the inspectorate on following up those 39 recommendations.

Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick: Indeed, convener. I will respond to Mrs Mitchell’s point. We have asked Durham Constabulary, and it has very kindly agreed, to provide independent assurance on the process of removing material that, as I said, does not reflect the truth on all of our databases.

The Convener: I thank you all very much for your evidence. We now move into private session.

14:21 Meeting continued in private until 14:30

Meanwhile a day after the woeful evidence from Police Scotland witnesses to MSPs, information has emerged at an employment tribunal that Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick asked for relocation expenses to be paid by cash transfer.

A former accountant with the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) – Amy McDonald told the tribunal that the payment would not have gone through the payroll system, where it would have been taxed.

Mrs McDonald said this was akin to a bonus payment and was against SPA and government rules.

The tribunal heard that the senior accountant was frozen out by the SPA after raising objections.

Previously at the tribunal hearings, Mrs McDonald had also revealed four unnamed senior SPA figures had received significant payments of public cash – totalling £350,000.

Mrs MacDonald claims the four who received the payments should not have been entitled to them.

The payments included a £165,000 “golden handshake” for a senior executive who had been arrested for domestic abuse just weeks previously.

Mrs McDonald – who was the Scottish Police Authority’s director of Financial Accountability – told the tribunal she raised objections with the watchdog’s officials.

Two months after raising concerns, Mrs McDonald informed the public spending watchdog Audit Scotland and Justice Secretary Michael Matheson.

As a result, Audit Scotland probed issues raised and published a scathing report into the SPA’s finances in December, criticising the “unacceptable” use of taxpayers’ money – which has not been repaid.

DCC Fitzpatrick became Scotland’s most senior female police officer when she moved from the Metropolitan Police in London in 2012, ahead of the formation of Police Scotland in April 2013.

The Audit Scotland report said the deputy chief constable was given £18,000 to relocate during the 2014/15 financial year, and another £49,000 for a similar move in 2016/17.

Mrs McDonald told the employment tribunal hearing in Glasgow that DCC Fitzpatrick had asked for a cash transfer to be made for the expenses although by the time she made the request she had lived in Scotland for four years.

Mrs McDonald said: “I could not see any exceptional circumstances to support this payment of relocation expenses.

“There was no event or circumstance which I can see to support the claim.”

Mrs McDonald said DCC Fitzpatrick viewed the payment as more akin to a bonus and added: “The SPA does not allow bonuses to be paid. And Scottish government rules also prevent bonuses from being paid.”

Mrs McDonald said normally such payments would go through the payroll.

Ms McDonald said: “The deputy chief constable asked for a cash transfer. This is something which does not go through the tax system.”

In its report, Audit Scotland said relocation money paid to DCC Fitzpatrick and a further £53,000 to settle her tax liability in 2017 “did not represent a good use” of public funds.

While Audit Scotland rebuked the SPA for its poor accounting of these payments, none of the public funds have been repaid.

A BBC Scotland article reports that Ms McDonald’s tribunal case relates to hundreds of thousands of pounds in further payments received by other senior figures in policing from the SPA, all of which she says she raised concerns about through the body’s whistleblowing policy.

However, a court order obtained by the SPA prevents the names of those senior figures – who received large payments of public cash – from being revealed in connection with the proceedings.

Mrs McDonald is a qualified chartered accountant who joined the SPA as director of financial accountability in 2014. However, and possibly as a result of raising objections to matters of financial accountability, Mrs McDonald is no longer in a financial role at the SPA having moved to a position with its forensic science team.

The case in which the details of cash demands by DCC Fitzpatrick have emerged relates to an action brought by Mrs McDonald – who claims she has suffered as a result of highlighting the potential financial wrongdoing.

BBC Scotland has further revealed that the tribunal later heard that after Mrs McDonald had submitted her grievance, she was warned she had posed a terrorist threat to DCC Fitzpatrick.

In her application to the tribunal she had said that the deputy chief constable had sold her house but insisted she had only revealed the town and county where it was located.

Asked what she understood the threat to be, she said: “I had put DCC Fitzpatrick’s personal safety at risk, potentially she could come to great harm as a consequence.

“Not harm just for DCC Fitzpatrick but for her family as well.”

Mrs McDonald said she was extremely frightened by this and was put under a great deal of stress.

Further information payments to DCC Rose Fitzpatrick can be found in the Scottish Sun here: Law unto themselves – Police Scotland branded ‘dodgy tax haven’ for wrongly listing part of top cop’s taxpayer-funded £120k relocation deal as childcare vouchers

Events have further moved on today, with the announcement that the deputy chair of the Scottish Police Authority – Nicola Marchant – who was appointed under the former chair Andrew Flanagan – is to resign from her role on 21 March.

In a statement issued by the Scottish Police Authority, SPA Board member, Nicola Marchant, has announced her resignation from the Board of the SPA having stood down as Deputy Chair last month.

Dr Marchant informed the Cabinet Secretary and SPA Chair earlier this week and will step down on 21 March 2018.

Susan Deacon, Chair of the SPA said: “I want to thank Nicola for the contribution she has made to the SPA over the last two and a half years as a Board member, as Deputy Chair and most recently for her work on the Executive Review of the SPA. I wish her well for the future.”

Politicians have described this as a good move, however, there has been recent criticism of the new SPA Chair Susan Deacon’s praise of the Scottish Government’s approach to policing, raising questions as to whether Ms Deacon – who replaced Andrew Flanagan as SPA Chair – will fair any better in bringing transparency to the discredited Scottish Police Authority.

Previous articles on the Scottish Police Authority can be found here: Scottish Police Authority – Poor governance, private meetings & lack of accountability at Police regulator

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

MEET THE KREMLIN: Former chair of Scottish Police Authority evidence to MSPs challenges Justice Secretary’s account of ‘no notes taken’ meetings to discuss Chief Constable’s return to work amid misconduct investigation

MSPs heard evidence from former SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan. THE former chair of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) has told a Scottish Parliament Committee he felt he was left with “no choice” but to halt plans for Chief Constable Phil Gormley to return to work – after meeting the Justice Secretary & officials.

Appearing before the Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee (PAPLS) earlier today, Ex SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan told MSPs that the Justice Secretary – Michael  Matheson – told him during a meeting it would be “bad decision” to let Chief Constable Phil Gormley return to duty.

In evidence to the Committee, Mr Flanagan said of the November meeting with the Justice Secretary “I think he indicated that he thought it was a risk to the stability of the senior team.”

Mr Flanagan went on to say that when a second meeting took place –  an hour later – Mr Matheson – now with three officials alongside him – changed and focused on the “process” behind the decision instead.

Mr Flanagan told MSPs: “I explained the circumstances and he told me that he thought it was a bad decision.”

“It was clear to me that he did not want the chief constable to return at that point.”

“We had a discussion about the stability of the senior team, because that was a consideration that the SPA had had.”

Mr Flanagan said that after an hour’s break in which he attended a committee, he was was recalled to Mr Matheson’s office, where three officials had joined the Justice Secretary.

He said: “It was clear that the Cabinet Secretary was still very unhappy, but he changed to discuss the process rather than the decision itself.

“I reminded him of his comment earlier that it had been a ‘bad decision’. He told me not to bother with that. We then went on to discuss some of the process itself.”

Alex Neil MSP (SNP) asked Mr Flanagan whether he had “lied” to Mr Livingstone he deflected a query about Mr Gormley’s return – after the SPA had decided in favour – with a text message saying “deliberations were ongoing”.

Mr Flanagan said: “No, I don’t think I did.”

Mr Neil added: “The amnesia around the Scottish Police Authority is beyond belief.”

Mr Neil also excoriated the whole SPA board’s handling of the matter, saying its non-executive directors had “utterly failed in their duty” and should fall on their swords.

Andrew Flanagan’s evidence to the PAPLS Committee has now cast doubt over Mr Matheson’s version of events which the Justice Secretary gave to MSPs earlier this week.

The differing accounts of Mr Flanagan & Justice Secretary Michael Matheson of what happened during their meeting relate to discussions around the Scottish Police Authority’s decision to allow Chief Constable Phil Gormley – who is currently on ‘special leave’ to return to his post last November.

The SPA Board had decided Mr Gormley could resume his duties, and had compiled draft Press Releases announcing their decision – but the decision was reversed after the meeting between Andrew Flanagan & Michael Matheson.

It also emerged the Scottish Police Authority did not consult the watchdog investigating complaints against Mr Gormley – which led to him being put on special lave, nor was the acting Chief Constable – DCC Iain Livingstone, told in advance of the SPA’s decision to return Mr Gormley to work.

In an earlier account of events to the Scottish Parliament, Mr Matheson said s his concern was with the process behind the decision to allow the Chief Constable to return to work, rather than the decision itself.

Mr Matheson claimed he had and he had merely requested the SPA “reconsider” the decision to return Mr Gormley to his duties.

Michael Matheson had earlier told MSPs at Holyrood: “This is not about an operational decision-making matter, but about the SPA’s process in making a decision… I am very clear that it is not the outcome of the SPA’s future decision on the chief constable’s leave situation but the process that the SPA goes through in making it that needs to be robust and defendable.”

During Matheson’s account of events, it also transpired there was no notes or minutes taken of the meeting with Andrew Flanagan – a habit of secrecy now often indulged in by Scottish Ministers to avoid disclosure and potential Freedom of Information requests.

The full evidence session from the PAPLS Committee hearing today can be viewed here:

Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee – 25 January 2018

Coverage of questions from PAPLS Committee member Alex Neil can be viewed here:

Alex Neil questions to SPA at Public Audit and Post legislative Scrutiny Committee 25 Jan 2018

A debate in the Scottish Parliament on the circumstances of the Justice Secretary’s role in what led to the reversal of the SPA’s decision to allow the Chief Constable to return to work, can be viewed here:

Debate: Justice – 24 January 2018

and on Tuesday, the acting Chief Constable of Police Scotland – DCC Iain Livingstone, appeared alongside Susan Deacon, the new Chair of the Scottish Police Authority at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to give evidence on what he had not been told of the SPA’s decision to return Phil Gormley to work.

Coverage of the Justice Committee meeting on Tuesday can  be viewed here:

Justice Committee – 23 January 2018

While the battle over who said what to who, between Scottish Ministers & former bosses at the Scottish Police Authority continues, readers will be well aware of a number of suspensions of senior offices at Police Scotland, and a drip drip feed of complaints against current Chief Constable Phil Gormley, the latest of which appears to have been made by the Scottish Police Federation.

Why exactly, many may wonder, is this debate around suspensions of top cops & dodgy decisions at the SPA relevant.

Well, the answer is that what has come out in this debate, shows a train of Ministerial intervention on the sly, without using the powers of Ministerial direction.

And, perhaps more importantly for the community at large, the amount of backstabbing, allegations & counter allegations against other senior Police officers has revealed the highly factional management of Police Scotland, where ambition and power is just as prevalent as in politics and other sectors of public life, and the corporate world.

An earlier report by DOI on events which led to the resignation of Andrew Flanagan and John Foley can be found here GONE EXEC’IN: Scottish Police Authority Chief Executive takes early retirement with pay-off, following resignation of ‘Kremlin’ Chair Andrew Flanagan – discredited board & Vice Chair who backed secretive top duo remain in posts

and here: GONE KREMLIN: Chair of Scottish Police Authority resigns, lingers in office ‘until replacement found’ for discredited Police watchdog – focus now moves to ‘collective amnesia’ board who failed to support transparency crusading colleague

A full report of today’s hearing at Holyrood and the events leading up to it, can be found on the Herald newspaper here : Matheson accused of misleading parliament and urged to consider his position

Further reports in the media tonight feature comments from a spokesperson for Mr Gormley’s legal team – who criticised the “unnecessarily protracted process” and the fact that that the chief constable has yet to be interviewed, seven months after he volunteered to step aside to allow the Pirc to secure evidence.

A spokesperson for the Chief Constable’s legal team commented: “Throughout this unnecessarily protracted process Chief Constable Phil Gormley has co-operated fully with all parties to allow this matter to reach a fair and proper conclusion, whilst maintaining his denial of all of the allegations against him. It should be remembered that it was the Chief Constable who volunteered to step aside temporarily to enable the evidence required to be secured by the PIRC.

No-one could have anticipated that, seven months on, the Chief Constable himself would not yet have been interviewed to put his evidence forward in oral representations.

The evidence this morning at the Scottish Parliament Public Audit Committee of the disagreement between the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the SPA regarding his return to full operational duties (which has still yet to be implemented), is of serious concern. 

The Chief Constable’s professional reputation, career and welfare have been eclipsed by a public battle of wills between the SPA and the Scottish Government.

It demonstrates that the present system for investigating complaints against the Chief Constable is unworkable and requires a fundamental review. It is hard to see how any fair process can now follow given such public disagreement.”

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GONE EXEC’IN: Scottish Police Authority Chief Executive takes early retirement with pay-off, following resignation of ‘Kremlin’ Chair Andrew Flanagan – discredited board & Vice Chair who backed secretive top duo remain in posts

Chief Exec. John Foley retires from discredited Police quango. THE Chief Executive of the embattled Scottish Police Authority (SPA) is to take ‘early retirement’ – with an as-yet undisclosed pay off for leaving the crisis hit Police governance quango which oversees the running of Police Scotland.

John Foley – who faced heavy criticism along with SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan for running the SPA like the “Kremlin” in sessions before the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee in April of this year will depart in October after the SPA’s year end accounts are signed off.

Ironically – Foley – whose retirement was announced earlier today by the SPA – will leave the discredited Police watchdog quango months before the eventual departure of Chief Executive Andrew Flanagan, who announced his resignation earlier in June.

However, Andrew Flanagan is to remain in the £70,000 a year post – while the Scottish Government look for a successor.

A recruitment round for the role of SPA Chair was only announced earlier this week, with a closing date for applications of Thursday 21 September 2017.

Commenting on Foley’s decision to take early retirement, and a payoff, Chair Andrew Flanagan said: “This new reporting arrangement is a further tangible step in strengthening oversight of forensic services, and will support work to develop a long-term strategy for forensics to complement the 2026 strategy for Police Scotland.”

“I want to pay tribute to the professionalism which he has shown throughout our consideration of this, and indeed for the valued service he has given to SPA and policing over what has been a period of unprecedented change.”

Commenting on his own departure, CEO John Foley said: “The SPA has continued to evolve and improve since its inception in 2013 and strengthening the governance of Forensic Services is the next stage of that journey and one I fully support. Clearly the revised arrangements have significant implications for the CEO role I currently hold and following detailed discussions with the Board since the start of the year I have chosen to seek early retirement.

“It has been an honour and privilege to have served as the first permanent CEO of the SPA for the past four years. I am confident that the Authority and policing will continue to improve in the coming years and I want to thank all of the staff and officers who I have had the pleasure of working with over the past four years.”

The SPA board said Foley would be paid in lieu of his contractual notice period as part of his overall settlement – but gave no figure on what the substantial payoff is likely to be.

The SPA stated: “While it is not possible at this stage to calculate a definitive figure on the overall financial settlement until Mr Foley’s formal leaving date is confirmed, SPA has agreed with Mr Foley that the costs of his financial package will be made publicly available as soon as practical after that leaving date.”

The SPA said it will now conduct a process seeking a 12-month secondee to act as chief officer for the SPA. A 12-month tenure will allow the review underway of the SPA’s wider executive requirements to be completed, the HMICS thematic inspection of the SPA to report next spring, and for a new SPA Chair to be appointed.

John Foley joined SPA in August 2013 as interim Chief Executive with management responsibilities for both the SPA’s governance and statutory forensic services responsibilities, and was formally appointed permanent CEO later that year.

Mr Foley’s early retirement comes under the terms of the approved SPA Voluntary Redundancy and Early Retirement scheme applicable to all eligible staff affected by a material change to their role, and commensurate with his age (over 55) and length of service (4 years).

Although the CEO role becomes redundant from 1 September 2017, the existing Board members – who were castigated by MSPs for a collective amnesia in their attempts to answer questions before Parliamentary Committees – has decided to keep John Foley on as Chief Executive until the SPA’s 2016-2017 annual accounts are signed off in late October 2017.

The board – which comprises members who have already taken large payoffs from other public bodies under terms of being “too ill to work” – stated they had consulted Audit Scotland – the equally discredited accounts body which counts among it’s duties a responsibility to audit public finances in Scotland and ensure value for money.

However, it has come to light the same Audit Scotland recently swept a £2.4 million loss at Scottish Borders Council under the carpet – the very same local authority which paid off SPA board member David Hume a total of £318,434 in 2012 after claims of bullying at the South of Scotland local authority.

In 2012 it was reported David Hume took a £318,434 secret “too ill to work again” secret legal deal from the corruption ridden south of Scotland local authority.

Hume then joined the SPA while also working for the Scottish Government in a position on Children’s Hearings Scotland. Hume’s salary for the CHS work was funnelled through his consultancy company – Enlighten: David Hume Consulting Ltd.

Hume’s term as SBC Chief Executive span dark years at the local authority, financial scandals with the loss of £4million from the education budget, consistent allegations of a culture of backhanders at the council, and a lack of duty of care.

Scottish Borders Council had been caught up in the Miss X Rape scandal, resulting in a Scottish Parliament inquiry which heard the Council had covered up a years long case where a severely disabled woman who lived close to the Council’s St Boswell’s HQ was repeatedly raped and abused. It transpired Scottish Borders Council held a written admission of rape from the man a full two years before the case came to light. A man was later jailed for 10 years for the crimes.

Scottish Borders Council decided not to discipline any social worker, despite the fact that Miss X, a woman with learning disabilities, had been subjected to an appalling catalogue of violent physical and sexual abuse.

The remaining text of the statement issued today from the SPA focussed on changes in reporting, reminiscent of “window dressing”.

The Scottish Police Authority (SPA) is to take further steps to strengthen the leadership, visibility and governance of Forensic Services.

From 1 September 2017, the Director of Forensic Services will report directly into the Board of the SPA rather than through the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Authority.

One consequence of this change in reporting is a significant reduction in the line management and direct budget accountabilities of the existing SPA CEO role, and which make the role in its present form redundant.

The SPA Board has been considering the implications of forensic reporting with the CEO since the turn of the year, and as a result John Foley has opted to take early retirement under the existing SPA scheme.

As accountable officer, and to ensure business continuity, the Board has requested that Mr Foley stay on until the completion of the 2016-17 SPA accounts, which are hoped to be signed off by the end of October.

To provide the Board with contingency against any change to that expected timeframe, the Board has also agreed a payment to Mr Foley in lieu of his contractual notice, in addition to his eligibility for an early retirement payment.

The Director of Forensic Services, Tom Nelson, will from 1 September 2017 report directly to the SPA Board. He will personally report into the Deputy Chair of the SPA, Nicola Marchant.

The Chair’s review of governance in policing, published in March 2016, highlighted the need for reorganisation of the SPA’s delivery functions, which are primarily in forensics services. Further professional advice was sought from HMICS on forensics later in 2016 which has informed the approach and steps taken to date.

The SPA approved in June 2017 a proposal to create a dedicated Forensic Services Committee to scrutinise forensics delivery. The HMICS Thematic Inspection of Forensic Services, published in late June 2017, also made a number of recommendations around leadership, visibility, and governance.

The Scottish Government announced in June that a review of how the executive of the SPA can best support the Board would be led by SPA Deputy Chair Nicola Marchant, and independent local authority Chief Executive Malcolm Burr. It is expected to report its conclusions and recommendations in Autumn this year. In addition, HMICS are expected to publish its Phase 2 thematic inspection report of the SPA in spring 2018.

The HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland report into the authority, authored by inspector Derek Penman, found “positive signs of improvement” in SPA board operations over the last 18 months, with improved relationships between the SPA and Police Scotland and the development of the Policing 2026 strategy described as a “major milestone”.

But the HMICS report was highly critical of the approach which had led the SPA to meet in private.

Mr Penman said the “recent parliamentary scrutiny and media concerns over openness and transparency have weakened public confidence in the SPA and detracted from its ability to perform its statutory function”.

He described the decision to hold meetings behind closed doors as “precipitous”, and said it “should not have been implemented” until signed off by the board in full.

Mr Penman welcomed the decision of the board to revert to holding meetings in public and publishing committee papers in advance, but wrote: “I am aware that some board members continue to maintain that their decisions to implement private meetings and publish papers on the day of the board were essentially correct.

“There is a fundamental need to listen to the views of stakeholders to maintain public confidence, and on this occasion the SPA has failed to do so until pressed by parliamentary committees.The SPA must recognise the legitimate interests of parliament, local authorities, staff associations, the press and the wider public in the scrutiny of policing in Scotland.”

TRANSPARENCY FIRST: Former Board member Moi Ali spoke out on transparency concerns at Police Watchdog:

A glimpse into the world of the Scottish Police Authority’s board meetings features an excerpt from the SPA’s meeting of 15 December 2016, in which Board Member Moi Ali raised serious concerns about recommendations in relation to the publication on the day of board meetings and the holding of committees in private.

More on the discussion around the Governance Framework and input from Moi Ali who raised her concerns at the meeting can be viewed here:

Scottish Police Authority 15 December 2016 meeting Governance framework discussion

Ms Ali said she understood there were good reasons for those recommendations she had serious concerns about the lack of transparency around the two proposals, and that there were real drawbacks in relation to holding committee meetings in private.

Moi Ali said her concerns were two fold – the perception issue in relation to private meetings where it may be perceived that decisions may be taken behind closed doors, and that defacto decision may well be taken behind closed doors and that the process of decision making will be hidden and there is a danger in due course this will morph into a different kind of body in which effectively real decisions are taken albeit not in name but then come back to the SPA Board for rubber stamping rather than transparent debate.

UNFIT AUTHORITY: – Crisis continues at Scottish Police Authority after Board members criticise MSPs scrutiny of Cop Quango:

SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan’s decision to stay in the lead role at the now discredited Scottish Police Authority comes after one of it’s Board members – Graham Houston – launched a blistering attack on open hearings at the Scottish Parliament’s PAPLS Committee’ – after it’s members quizzed the Chair & CEO of the SPA, along with Scottish Government Civil Servants at an earlier meeting of 20 April 2017.

Scottish Police Authority Board Member Graham Houston hits out at PAPLS scrutiny of Police Watchdog

Criticising MSPs scrutiny of the Scottish Police Authority, Board member Graham Houston said: “I also think as an example of good governance I think the treatment of my fellow board members by an audit and scrutiny committee was frankly appalling and I think if that is an example of what is expected of good scrutiny it leaves a lot to be desired. And I suggest that the members of that committee look to themselves about setting an example and also look to the guidance on board about how they conduct themselves in doing that.”

Mr Houston then attacked the media, accusing the press of abusing the ‘openness’ of the SPA and concludes by stating “I think that what will transpire is that probably we are one of the most open public authorities in Scotland.”

The SPA’s statement on the outcome of the meeting claimed it had strengthened the transparency and accessibility of its governance arrangements by making a number of revisions to Board and committee meetings and publication of papers.

The changes decided at the meeting, which will come in to effect from 1 June 2017 include:

SPA committee meetings held in public, with items taken in private only when necessary and with a clear articulation of the reason.

The publication of agendas for all public Board and committee meetings will be available on the SPA website 7 days in advance of meetings.

The publication of papers for all public Board and committee meetings will be published on the SPA website (under embargo) 3-working days in advance.

The publication of agendas for closed Board and committee meetings will be published on the SPA website (redacted if necessary) and a summary of the business conducted will be reported to the next public Board meeting.

The public will also have the opportunity to pose questions about policing matters to the SPA Board in advance of meetings.

In addition, the SPA Board established a new Deputy Chair role. Nicola Marchant has been unanimously appointed to that position with immediate effect.

Houston’s criticism of the refers to the following hearing, in which evidence revealed to MSPs portrayed the Scottish Police Authority as a haven of secrecy, run in the style of  a “kremlin” operation – according to former Cabinet Secretary & PAPLS member Alex Neil MSP (SNP):

Scottish Police Authority – Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee – Scottish Parliament: 20th April 2017

A full report on the PAPLS meeting of 20 April can be found here:POLICING SECRETS: Former Scottish Police Authority board member Moi Ali invited to give evidence at Holyrood, after MSPs accuse SPA bosses of running Police watchdog like Kremlin ‘secret society’

A further appearance of current and former board members of the Scottish Police Authority before Holyrood’s PAPLS Committee on the 11th May – established evidence in relation to a sequence of alarming events at the SPA – giving MSPs significant cause for concern of how the SPA Chair was in effect, personally running the Police watchdog as a “secret society”.

Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee – Scottish Parliament: 11th May 2017

A full report on the PAPLS hearing of 11 May can be found here: UNFIT AUTHORITY: Chair of Scottish Police Authority “is not fit to continue on any public board” – says former SPA board member in evidence to Holyrood’s Public Audit Committee scrutiny of Police watchdog

The hearing also established not one board member of the now discredited Police Watchdog backed former board member Moi Ali – who was forced to resign from the SPA after she bravely raised issues of transparency and accountability during a meeting of the Scottish Police Authority in December 2016.

Then, at a hearing of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice sub-committee on Policing, Andrew Flanagan was asked by MSPs several times to consider his position as SPA Chair – yet Flanagan refused each call to stand down and allow the Scottish Police Authority to move on from the current crisis.

Justice Sub-Committee on Policing – Scottish Parliament: 18th May 2017

A more detailed report on the 18th May 2017 hearing of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing can be found here: AUTHORITY LOST: Chair of Scottish Police Authority refuses to resign after facing challenge from Justice Committee MSPs to consider his position on discredited Police watchdog

SLOW SECRETARY: Justice Secretary Michael Matheson was criticised for lack of action in Police watchdog governance crisis

Justice Secretary Michael Matheson ducked out of taking immediate action on tackling the leadership & governance crisis at the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) – despite calls from across the political spectrum to act on restoring faith at the discredited regulator of Police Scotland.

During ‘Topical Questions’ at the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday 30 May 2017, MSPs from all parties called for a resolution to the crisis at the Police Regulator, and Andrew Flanagan’s refusal to step aside.

In response, Justice Secretary Michael Matheson said he was “conscious of the issues” and promised to consider the reports sent to him by the committees.

In Holyrood’s main chamber, Mary Fee MSP (Scottish Labour) told Michael Matheson that Andrew Flanagan had “lost the confidence of MSPs from all parties, including back benchers from the governing party.

“It is clear that his position is untenable. It seems that Mr Flanagan and the Justice Secretary are the last two people to see that.”

She called for a “drastic overhaul of how the SPA is run”.

Shying away from immediate action on the crisis at the Scottish Police Authority, Matheson replied: “I am sure that the member will recognise that it is important that ministers give thorough consideration to these issues in coming to a determination,”

The Justice Secretary added: “On the wider issue of the governance and structure of the SPA, there is no doubt that there are aspects of the way in which the SPA has operated over the past few years that have not worked as well as they should have and that there are areas in which I believe further improvements could be made.

“I have been clear about the need for the SPA to operate in an open and transparent manner as it undertakes its processes and considers matters, and I have repeatedly made that clear.”

Questions to Justice Secretary Michael Matheson on Scottish Police Authority & Andrew Flanagan 30 May 2017

A full report on MSPs questions to Justice Secretary Michael Matheson can be viewed here:Justice Secretary dodges call to fire Chair of discredited Scottish Police Authority – as cross party MSPs say Andrew Flanagan’s position is untenable, and crisis will impact on diversity, recruitment & transparency at public bodies

Previous articles on the Scottish Police Authority can be found here: Scottish Police Authority – Poor governance, private meetings & lack of accountability at Police regulator

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

COPS & LAWYERS: Concerns on Public Bodies Legal Fees spending as figures reveal Scottish Police Authority fork out over £1m in legal fees, Police Scotland spend at least £1.3 million on external lawyers

Millions from Police budget ends up funding lawyers. SCOTLAND’S single national Police service – Police Scotland is spending millions of pounds of public cash on external law firms, advocates & QCs over and above the significant costs of it’s own in-house legal teams.

The single national Police service for Scotland has admitted paying at least £1,316,819 to external solicitors, QCs, advocates and the courts over a three year period – over and above costs for in-house legal teams.

The largest beneficiaries of public cash from Police Scotland are Clyde & Co (formerly Simpson & Marwick) who were paid £361,801.91.

However, while that firm was still Simpson & Marwick prior to its merger with Clyde & Co, they earned £284,914.15, giving total earnings since January 2014, of £646,716.06.

Other big-earning firms from Police Scotland’s public cash splurge on major law firms were Morton Fraser (£278,069.60) and Ledingham Chalmers (£103,906.08).

However, the figures – released in response to a Freedom of Information request – Police Scotland & SPA Fees to external lawyers, law firms & QCs 2014 to 2017 – are now subject to scrutiny – after journalists questioned the Police as to why over half a million pounds paid by the Police to a law firm named in a £400m collapsed Hedge Fund scandal and a suspended judge were excluded from the figures handed over by Police well out of timescales tolerated by the Scottish Information Commissioner.

It was reported by the Scottish Sun in March 2016, a sum of £187K was paid to lawyer Peter Watson – a sheriff who has been suspended from the judicial bench for well over two years, and a further £364,830 was paid to Levy and Mcrae – the Glasgow based law firm named in a £28m writ in connection with the collapse of the Heather Capital hedge fund, run by Gregory King who is subject to a Crown Office probe now in it’s fourth year.

Police Scotland also disclosed at least £52,014 has been paid to in respect of Opinions of Counsel and Senior Counsel instructed by in-house Legal Services directly and at least £32,378 has been paid to the Scottish Court Service since January 2014 by in-house Legal Services directly.

Police Scotland also disclosed the names of law firms and Advocates Chambers who have received legal fees.

And, today, it has emerged in an additional, three months late FOI disclosure – the controversial Scottish Police Authority (SPA) has admitted to spending millions more on legal fees for it’s own use, with at least £623K spent on external law firms and £435K on it’s own in-house legal teams.

SPA Legal Costs (in-house and Third Party) From Jan 2014 to June 2017 saw the following public cash spends on third party legal costs: £154,449 (2013/14) £104,570 (2014/15) £175,785 (2015/16) £167,667 (2016/17) and £20,543 spent already in this financial year which runs to 2018 making a total of £623,012 on third party legal costs.

Costs for the SPA’s own in-house legal team has now reached £434,512 in just three years.

However, unlike Police Scotland, the secretive Scottish Police Authority refused to identify the names of law firms & counsel involved in it’s £1million plus legal expenses bill.

The SPA’s refusal to identify legal firms via FOI legislation has now been submitted for review, and possible investigation by the Scottish Information Commissioner, after weeks of deliberate delays by the SPA in disclosing the legal costs.

Additionally, questions are also being raised with the Scottish Information Commissioner on Police Scotland’s attitude towards Freedom of Information timescales after weeks of deliberate delays in the force’s handling of FOI requests.

The breakdown of the total figure for solicitors’ fees by solicitor from 2014 – 2017 as paid by Police Scotland are as follows:

AC White £396; Allan Black & McCaskie £300; Allcourt Solicitors £462; Balfour & Manson £1236.3; Blackadder & McMonagle £342; Brazenall & Orr £168; Carruthers Curdie Sturrock & Co. £324; Clyde & Co.(Simpson & Marwick) £361801.91; Cockburns  £54; Corrigal Black £306; Criggies £42; Douglas Gilmour & Son £36; DWF £134.8; Gray & Gray £60; George Mathers & Co £600; Grigor & Young £1920; Hamish L Melrose £540; Hunter & Robertson Solicitors £1872; John Henderson & Sons £2232; Leddingham Chalmers £103906.08; Linda George Family Law £984; MacIntosh Humble £174; Mackie Thomson £96; Mackintosh Wylie £48; Macnabs Solicitors £312; Malcolm & Hutchison £132; Mathie McCluskey £78; McCluskey Browne £2032; McCusker McElroy & Gallanagh £30; McIntyre & Co £258; McLellan Adam Davis £54; MacDonald McIver & Co £353.1; Morton Fraser £278069.6; Patten Prentice £96; Rankin & Aitken £42; Reid Cooper £15901.92 ;Russel & Aitken £60; Russell, Gibson McCaffrey £4084.8; Simpson and Marwick £284914.15; Stewart Balfour £48; Thorntons £3760.16; W & AS Bruce £60 TOTAL: £1,068,320.82

The sum paid to advocates broken down by chamber and year are as follows:-

Chambers fees from 2014 – 2017: 5 Essex court £16620; Ampersand £84000; Arnot Manderson £12840; Axiom  £8640;  Black  £6600; Compass £20334; Terra Firma £3780 TOTAL: £152,814

The National newspaper reports on the Police spend on external law firms, here:

Police Scotland ‘spends £1k a day to fight legal battles’

Martin Hannan Journalist 13th August

Police Scotland’s legal costs were exposed after FoI requests

DESPITE having its own legal team, Police Scotland has spent more than £1000 per day on external legal lawyers and court costs since January, 2014.

In the three years and six months to June of this year, Police Scotland paid out £1,316,819 to external solicitors, QCs, advocates and the courts, according to figures released under Freedom of Information (FoI) rules.

Peter Cherbi, the legal issues campaigner and blogger who made the FoI requests, has criticised the force after it refused to answer The National’s questions on the issue, directing us to use FoI questions.

Cherbi said: “There are firms on the FoI list provided by Police Scotland who specialise in legal issues relating to defence of damages claims and other similar legal issues, yet at this time the force appears unwilling to cough up the real reasons for running to lawyers at all hours of the day.”

More than 950 fee notes were issued to Police Scotland by law firms and individual solicitors, with £32,378 paid directly to the Scottish Courts Service for costs incurred in numerous actions.

More than 40 law practices across Scotland were paid for work, some of which is believed to have been connected to the many police property disposals which have taken place over the past few years since the national force was created in 2013. Other firms were paid for expertise in various personnel and legally complex matters, and QCs, solicitor and advocates all represented the force in court, including cases at the Court of Session.

In all, solicitors received £1,068,320 in that time. The National can reveal that the biggest earners from police work were Clyde & Co (formerly Simpson & Marwick) who were paid £361,801.91 for their involvement in such high-profile cases as former Assistant Chief Constable John Mauger’s failed action for judicial review of a decision by then Chief Constable Sir Stephen House – Maria Maguire QC acted for the force in that case.

While that firm was still Simpson & Marwick prior to its merger with Clyde & Co, they earned £284,914.15, giving total earnings since January 2014, of £646,716.06.

Other big-earning firms were Morton Fraser (£278,069.60) and Ledingham Chalmers (£103,906.08). By contrast, Renfrewshire law firm McCusker, McElroy and Gallanagh were paid just £30.

The total sum paid to advocates and QCs was £152,814 – in its response to the FoI request, Police Scotland explained: “These figures relates to instances where advocates have been instructed directly by Legal Services.”

The force’s response added: “I regret to inform you that I am unable to provide you with the figure in respect of fees charged on occasions where Counsel and/or Senior Counsel have been instructed by external solicitors acting for the Chief Constable as it would prove too costly to do so within the context of the fee regulations.”

The response did state, “951 fee notes have been rendered by external solicitors since January 2014”.

The National asked the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) which is supposed to superintend the national force if it was aware of the extent of usage of lawyers outside the legal services section of Police Scotland. We also asked if Police Scotland had to pay the legal costs of anybody taking out a court action against the force, and why do many solicitors firms were used?

We also asked what is the annual budget for the legal services section and asked both Police Scotland and the SPA to say if any of the costs were for defending Police Scotland personnel accused of crimes, or if any external cost was incurred in defending Police Scotland personnel in civil cases. The reply we received was “you would have to submit an FOI request in relation to these questions”.

Peter Cherbi commented: “While chief constables and senior officers have been talking up their lack of resources and funding in public, Police Scotland have been keeping law firms afloat with huge public spends of funds better spent on front line policing.

“The force’s overuse of law firms for legal action and other legal services must be opened for public inspection on a case-by-case basis. What are Police Scotland spending all this money on lawyers, and why? What are the processes employed by Police Scotland for using legal services? A key question given they have their own in-house lawyers.

“The public have a right to know and the Scottish Parliament should be looking to raise questions on this issue, which would make for some interesting exchanges before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice sub committee on Policing.

“This addiction to lawyers and exorbitant legal fees by Police Scotland and other public bodies must be brought to a halt as the operational budgets for policing and any public service are not meant to act as unaccountable public subsidies for the legal profession.”

Previous articles on the Scottish Police Authority can be found here: Scottish Police Authority – Poor governance, private meetings & lack of accountability at Police regulator

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GONE KREMLIN: Chair of Scottish Police Authority resigns, lingers in office ‘until replacement found’ for discredited Police watchdog – focus now moves to ‘collective amnesia’ board who failed to support transparency crusading colleague

Scottish police board chief Andrew Flanagan resigns. A SCANDAL involving poor governance and accusations of secrecy at the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) has finally led to the resignation of  the Police watchdog’s embattled Chairman – after a series of bruising encounters before two Scottish Parliament committees.

Andrew Flanagan, who was appointed Chair of the Scottish Police Authority in 2015 – announced his decision to resign from the role earlier this week on Wednesday, citing recent media and Parliamentary attention on his disagreement with a former board member and perceptions around SPA transparency.

The statement, issued by the SPA said Mr Flanagan has concluded that debate on these issues risks distracting policing from important work underway on strategy and finance and that it is in the best interests of policing in Scotland that he stand down.

In his resignation letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr Flanagan offered to continue in post until a successor is appointed by Scottish Ministers, and to ensure there is no delay in implementing the Policing 2026 strategy and underpinning financial deficit reduction plans.

Mr Flanagan said: “Recent events have focussed on my disagreement with a board member and perceptions of a wider lack of transparency in the SPA. I have apologised to the former board member and put in place changes to the governance processes of the SPA. There are many serious challenges faced by policing in Scotland, but the continued media and Parliamentary debate on these issues risks coming a prolonged distraction.

“With a strategic direction for the service well in train and the right mix of leadership in Police Scotland to deliver it, I do not wish the ongoing debate to get in the way as we move into the implementation phase. I have therefore taken the decision that it would be in the best interests of policing if I were to step down from my role as Chair of the SPA.

“The next few months will involve an intensive period of work to develop implementation plans and effective governance structures to manage and oversee the transformation programme. To avoid any hiatus or delay, I have indicated to the Cabinet Secretary that I would be willing to stay on until he appoints a successor and to ensure an orderly handover.

“I take pride in being a part of this chapter of policing history in Scotland, and for the personal successes I have had since taking up the role in 2015 – in particular shaping a long-term strategy for Police Scotland, recruiting a new Chief Constable and senior leadership team, and setting a clear direction for bringing financial sustainability.

“As a result, I am confident that the single police service in Scotland now has a solid platform from which to build an even better service for the people of Scotland. I hope that is a position on which we can build both consensus and momentum.”

The full text of Andrew Flanagan’s resignation letter to Justice Secretary Michael Matheson is as follows:

Since taking up my role as Chair of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) in 2015, I have made significant progress on a number of fronts. These successes include creating a long-term strategy for Police Scotland, recruiting a new Chief Constable and re-shaping the senior team at Police Scotland, determining the financial position and setting a clear direction for bringing financial sustainability and significantly improving policing’s engagement at community and local level. I have also reshaped the SPA board ensuring we have a much-improved mix of skills to address the challenges policing has faced. The improvements to the governance of C3 and the full recovery of the monies spent on I6 are further examples of progress and I am pleased to say we have avoided similar controversies to those which arose in the early years of the SPA and Police Scotland.

Notwithstanding these successes, recent events have focussed on my disagreement with a board member and concerns that by discussing with the Board issues raised by HMICS rather than copying his letter this was indicative of a wider lack of transparency, which of course is not the case. To remedy these issues, I have apologised to the former board member and put in place changes to the governance processes of the SPA to ensure there can be no perception of a lack of openness. Despite the limited nature of these matters and at a time when serious challenges are faced by policing in Scotland, there has been prolonged and continued debate in the media and in Parliament. This is not helpful to the SPA or policing more generally and is proving a distraction to the important work we are undertaking.

Last week, I submitted to you the final version of our 10 year strategy, Policing 2026, for your consideration and agreement. We have also recently finalised the senior team at Police Scotland with the appointments of the Finance and HR Directors. With these two important elements in place I do not wish the ongoing debate to get in the way as we move into implementation of the strategy and take the necessary steps to reduce the deficit. In addition, the debate has become quite personalised and has impacted on me and my family. This is not something that I wish to endure further. I have therefore taken the decision that it would be in the best interests of policing if I were to step down from my role as Chair of the SPA.

The next few months will involve an intensive period of work to develop the implementation plans and associated investment and financing plans. Further, we need to build project management capability and the governance structures to manage and oversee the transformation programme. Delivery of the initial cost reductions to meet the deficit reduction targets is also required. To avoid a hiatus or delay I would be willing to continue as Chair until you find a successor and we can have an orderly hand-over.

I would like to place on record my thanks to my Board for their support over the last few weeks. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank you for your support during my time as Chair. I am confident that policing now has a solid platform from which to build an even better service and that the benefits of delivering on the aims of a single service are achievable.

In response to Mr Flanagan’s carefully arranged resignation letter, strikingly offered just over a week from a general election, Justice Secretary Michael Matheson issued a letter to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee, and the Justice Committee confirming the SPA Chair’s resignation.

The text of Justice Secretary Michael Matheson letter to both Scottish Parliament committees, in full:

Dear Acting Convener and Convener,

I am writing in response to letters regarding the Scottish Police Authority from the Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee (12 May and 7 June 2017) and Justice Sub­committee on Policing (25 May 2017).

A key issue raised by both Committees is the position of the Chair of the SPA. I have been advised by the Chair that he is announcing today that he plans to step down from his role once a successor is appointed. I am grateful to Andrew for his contribution to policing and the significant progress that has been made in establishing the future direction of policing. However I understand and accept his reasons for stepping down and welcome his commitment to providing continuity until a successor is appointed. That process will start as soon as possible. Continuity will be important over the coming months as SPA is in the process of finalising the Policing 2026 strategy and putting implementation plans in place. It would not be in anyone’s interest for SPA to be without a Chair during this period.

As you are both aware, the SPA has already set out a number of planned changes relating to transparency and openness which I know the Committees will welcome. For example, the SPA Board has agreed to hold its Committees in public while recognising – in line with On Board – the need to hold some items in private; papers are now published on the SPA website in advance of meetings; and all formal correspondence from HMICS and Audit Scotland will now be circulated to all Board members as a matter of routine.

A number of the issues raised by the Committees will also be further explored as part of the inspection by HMICS to assess openness and transparency in the way that the SPA conducts its business. As you are aware, HMICS agreed to bring forward this part of their review at my request. It is due to report to Parliament on 22 June and I am sure we all await this report with interest.

In addition to this, I have also announced a review of the ways in which the SPA Board can be better supported to deliver its statutory functions – including:

• how the executive of SPA works with Police Scotland to collectively provide the information required to support the Board take informed, transparent decisions in the context of the guidance set out in “On Board: A guide for Members of Statutory Boards;

• how the arrangements for engaging stakeholders in the work of the Authority can be strengthened;

• the staffing and operating structure that fulfils the aim of providing the most effective support to the Board;

• areas where processes could be improved.

It will be jointly led by the SPA deputy chair Nicola Marchant and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Chief Executive Malcolm Burr who will provide an independent perspective..

Your respective correspondences also highlighted some detailed points which I will now address.

Steps to ensure Board members understand the practical implications of the On Board guidance

As the PAPLS Committee heard in evidence from members of the SPA Board, those appointed to public bodies receive a copy of On Board as part of their induction. Since 2016, the Scottish Government has implemented a corporate induction for new Board members to support them as they step into their roles. This provides an opportunity for Board members – through networking and inputs from a range of speakers – to explore the practical implications of the On Board guidance. This is part of a rolling programme of networking and peer-learning activities for those involved in public body governance around topics related to On Board, including events for Chairs and development days for Board members. On Board is clear that part of the role of a Board member is to question and, as necessary, challenge proposals made by other Board members.

Information flows between Police Scotland and SPA

My reading of the evidence provided by Mr Graham to PAPLS was that he viewed these as much improved from the position he experienced in his early days on the Board. Again, my first-hand experience is that relationships are much improved and the challenge now will be to ensure that continues. Nevertheless, I am sure there is always scope for further improvement in this area.

The extent to which Scottish Government has prior knowledge of SPA meetings and papers As highlighted by officials in evidence to the PAPLS Committee, the Scottish Government is responsible for the policy and legislative framework for policing and Safer Communities Directorate is the sponsoring directorate, meaning that they have a proper and legitimate interest in SPA’s work. Issues discussed at the Board frequently result in the Scottish Government being asked to comment publically on the substance of the matter. Early sight of papers is therefore of value in the work that officials do in supporting Ministers. I would, however, refute any suggestion that the Scottish Government is using this information to control or dictate the agendas for SPA meetings. Indeed, my view is that the evidence presented to the PAPLS Committee on this point was noticeably lacking in detail and substance.

The number of days worked by Board members

In terms of effective scrutiny and best value, there is a balance to be struck between time and cost. Although the guidance is for a maximum of 5 days a month, there is flexibility at the discretion of the Chair to go beyond this upper limit if there is good reason to do so. I view this as a reasonable approach.

The need to improve diversity on Boards

I agree that there is a need to improve diversity on Boards and Scottish Government is taking positive action to ensure that public appointments are accessible and attractive to the broadest range of talent across Scotland. We have, for example, made notable success in redressing the gender imbalance in recent years with, overall, 45% of our Board positions now held by women. I wrote to the Chair of the SPA on 26 April asking him to consider taking forward activities that would support a diverse range of future potential Board members, including for example co-opting people onto Committees.

Information on the process for the appraisal of the SPA Chair

Guidance for the appraisal of Chairs and Board members is set out in the attached link: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/02/6844. Given the significance of the SPA as a public body, the Chair’s assessment is carried out by DG Learning and Justice. The Chair’s high level objectives for the current year are:

• LEADERSHIP / GOVERNANCE: Drive forward the SPA to become an effective, high performing public body.

• STRATEGY / DELIVERY: Work in partnership with Police Scotland to maintain momentum on the 2026 strategy to develop – and then deliver against – the final strategy, implementation plan and financial plans.

• RELATIONSHIPS / REPUTATION: Establish good relationships which enhance the reputation of the Scottish Police Authority and improve outcomes for the people of Scotland.

• FINANCE / FINANCIAL RESILIENCE: Ensure that the Accountable Officer and Police Scotland are held effectively to account for enhancing the financial capability, capacity and leadership with a strong strategic approach to financial planning.

Within Leadership / Governance, progress I expect to see includes an effective review of the SPA corporate governance framework, taking account of the feedback received, and making demonstrable progress towards the commitment of 50:50 by 2020.

Information requests to SPA by Ms AH

Scottish Government officials have been encouraging (and continue to encourage) SPA to be as helpful as they can be in dealing with Ms Ali’s requests for information. Ultimately, SPA has the responsibility to respond in a way that is consistent with the appropriate legislation and agreed processes.

Conclusion

I believe I have addressed all of the issues raised by the committees and, as noted above, we await the conclusions of HMICS’ initial work on governance and transparency issues, scheduled for publication on 22 June.

Copies of this response have been sent to – Andrew Flanagan, SPA Chair; John Foley, SPA Chief Executive; Derek Penman FIMICS; Paul Johnstone, Scottish Government DG Learning and Justice; and Margaret Mitchell, convener of the Justice Committee.

The review – referred to by Andrew Flanagan and the JUstice Secretary, is to be jointly led by Nicola Marchant – appointed as deputy chairwoman by the current board which includes Andrew Flanagan, and Malcolm Burr, chief executive of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar.

It will report back to Mr Matheson in the autumn.

Speaking to the media Mary Fee, convener of the justice sub-committee which was the first to declare it had no confidence in Mr Flanagan’s leadership, said “openness and transparency have decreased during his time as chair of the SPA”.

She said: “We should view this as an opportunity to work proactively with the SPA to put in place a chair who will lead the board in an open, transparent manner and take the SPA forward.”

Jackie Baillie, acting convener of the public audit committee which led much of the questioning, said there had been “serious concerns” about Mr Flangan’s leadership.

She said: “With the announcement of his resignation today, we hope the SPA will now head in the right direction and put an end to its culture of secrecy. This is desperately needed in order to restore public confidence.”

Mr Flanagan’s resignation was welcomed by political parties, with Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson saying the move was “needed to allow the correct focus on oversight and delivery”.

Labour’s justice spokeswoman Claire Baker said it “must only be the start of the complete overhaul that is needed at the top of the SPA”.

Green MSP John Finnie said Mr Flanagan “should have resigned weeks ago”, while Lib Dem Liam McArthur said “serious damage has already been done to the reputation of the organisation”.

TRANSPARENCY FIRST: Former Board member Moi Ali spoke out on transparency concerns at Police Watchdog:

A glimpse into the world of the Scottish Police Authority’s board meetings features an excerpt from the SPA’s meeting of 15 December 2016, in which Board Member Moi Ali raised serious concerns about recommendations in relation to the publication on the day of board meetings and the holding of committees in private.

More on the discussion around the Governance Framework and input from Moi Ali who raised her concerns at the meeting can be viewed here:

Scottish Police Authority 15 December 2016 meeting Governance framework discussion

Ms Ali said she understood there were good reasons for those recommendations she had serious concerns about the lack of transparency around the two proposals, and that there were real drawbacks in relation to holding committee meetings in private.

Moi Ali said her concerns were two fold – the perception issue in relation to private meetings where it may be perceived that decisions may be taken behind closed doors, and that defacto decision may well be taken behind closed doors and that the process of decision making will be hidden and there is a danger in due course this will morph into a different kind of body in which effectively real decisions are taken albeit not in name but then come back to the SPA Board for rubber stamping rather than transparent debate.

UNFIT AUTHORITY: – Crisis continues at Scottish Police Authority after Board members criticise MSPs scrutiny of Cop Quango:

SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan’s decision to stay in the lead role at the now discredited Scottish Police Authority comes after one of it’s Board members – Graham Houston – launched a blistering attack on open hearings at the Scottish Parliament’s PAPLS Committee’ – after it’s members quizzed the Chair & CEO of the SPA, along with Scottish Government Civil Servants at an earlier meeting of 20 April 2017.

Scottish Police Authority Board Member Graham Houston hits out at PAPLS scrutiny of Police Watchdog

Critisising MSPs scrutiny of the Scottish Police Authority, Board member Graham Houston said: “I also think as an example of good governance I think the treatment of my fellow board members by an audit and scrutiny committee was frankly appalling and I think if that is an example of what is expected of good scrutiny it leaves a lot to be desired. And I suggest that the members of that committee look to themselves about setting an example and also look to the guidance on board about how they conduct themselves in doing that.”

Mr Houston then attacked the media, accusing the press of abusing the ‘openness’ of the SPA and concludes by stating “I think that what will transpire is that probably we are one of the most open public authorities in Scotland.”

The SPA’s statement on the outcome of the meeting claimed it had strengthened the transparency and accessibility of its governance arrangements by making a number of revisions to Board and committee meetings and publication of papers.

The changes decided at the meeting, which will come in to effect from 1 June 2017 include:

SPA committee meetings held in public, with items taken in private only when necessary and with a clear articulation of the reason.

The publication of agendas for all public Board and committee meetings will be available on the SPA website 7 days in advance of meetings.

The publication of papers for all public Board and committee meetings will be published on the SPA website (under embargo) 3-working days in advance.

The publication of agendas for closed Board and committee meetings will be published on the SPA website (redacted if necessary) and a summary of the business conducted will be reported to the next public Board meeting.

The public will also have the opportunity to pose questions about policing matters to the SPA Board in advance of meetings.

In addition, the SPA Board has established a new Deputy Chair role. Nicola Marchant has been unanimously appointed to that position with immediate effect.

Full details of the changes and next steps agreed by the Board are outlined in the following paper: http://www.spa.police.uk/assets/126884/400419/governance

Houston’s criticism of the refers to the following hearing, in which evidence revealed to MSPs portrayed the Scottish Police Authority as a haven of secrecy, run in the style of  a “kremlin” operation – according to former Cabinet Secretary & PAPLS member Alex Neil MSP (SNP):

Scottish Police Authority – Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee – Scottish Parliament: 20th April 2017

A full report on the PAPLS meeting of 20 April can be found here: POLICING SECRETS: Former Scottish Police Authority board member Moi Ali invited to give evidence at Holyrood, after MSPs accuse SPA bosses of running Police watchdog like Kremlin ‘secret society’

A further appearance of current and former board members of the Scottish Police Authority before Holyrood’s PAPLS Committee on the 11th May – established evidence in relation to a sequence of alarming events at the SPA – giving MSPs significant cause for concern of how the SPA Chair was in effect, personally running the Police watchdog as a “secret society”.

Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee – Scottish Parliament: 11th May 2017

A full report on the PAPLS hearing of 11 May can be found here: UNFIT AUTHORITY: Chair of Scottish Police Authority “is not fit to continue on any public board” – says former SPA board member in evidence to Holyrood’s Public Audit Committee scrutiny of Police watchdog

The hearing also established not one board member of the now discredited Police Watchdog backed former board member Moi Ali – who was forced to resign from the SPA after she bravely raised issues of transparency and accountability during a meeting of the Scottish Police Authority in December 2016.

Then, at a hearing of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice sub-committee on Policing, Andrew Flanagan was asked by MSPs several times to consider his position as SPA Chair – yet Flanagan refused each call to stand down and allow the Scottish Police Authority to move on from the current crisis.

Justice Sub-Committee on Policing – Scottish Parliament: 18th May 2017

A more detailed report on the 18th May 2017 hearing of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing can be found here: AUTHORITY LOST: Chair of Scottish Police Authority refuses to resign after facing challenge from Justice Committee MSPs to consider his position on discredited Police watchdog

SLOW SECRETARY: Justice Secretary Michael Matheson was criticised for lack of action in Police watchdog governance crisis

Justice Secretary Michael Matheson ducked out of taking immediate action on tackling the leadership & governance crisis at the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) – despite calls from across the political spectrum to act on restoring faith at the discredited regulator of Police Scotland.

During ‘Topical Questions’ at the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday 30 May 2017, MSPs from all parties called for a resolution to the crisis at the Police Regulator, and Andrew Flanagan’s refusal to step aside.

In response, Justice Secretary Michael Matheson said he was “conscious of the issues” and promised to consider the reports sent to him by the committees.

In Holyrood’s main chamber, Mary Fee MSP (Scottish Labour) told Michael Matheson that Andrew Flanagan had “lost the confidence of MSPs from all parties, including back benchers from the governing party.

“It is clear that his position is untenable. It seems that Mr Flanagan and the Justice Secretary are the last two people to see that.”

She called for a “drastic overhaul of how the SPA is run”.

Shying away from immediate action on the crisis at the Scottish Police Authority, Matheson replied: “I am sure that the member will recognise that it is important that ministers give thorough consideration to these issues in coming to a determination,”

The Justice Secretary added: “On the wider issue of the governance and structure of the SPA, there is no doubt that there are aspects of the way in which the SPA has operated over the past few years that have not worked as well as they should have and that there are areas in which I believe further improvements could be made.

“I have been clear about the need for the SPA to operate in an open and transparent manner as it undertakes its processes and considers matters, and I have repeatedly made that clear.”

Questions to Justice Secretary Michael Matheson on Scottish Police Authority & Andrew Flanagan 30 May 2017

A full report on MSPs questions to Justice Secretary Michael Matheson can be viewed here: Justice Secretary dodges call to fire Chair of discredited Scottish Police Authority – as cross party MSPs say Andrew Flanagan’s position is untenable, and crisis will impact on diversity, recruitment & transparency at public bodies

Previous articles on the Scottish Police Authority can be found here: Scottish Police Authority – Poor governance, private meetings & lack of accountability at Police regulator

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

IT’S GOOD TO GO: Justice Secretary dodges call to fire Chair of discredited Scottish Police Authority – as cross party MSPs say Andrew Flanagan’s position is untenable, and crisis will impact on diversity, recruitment & transparency at public bodies

SPA Chair still in post as Justice Secretary delays action ‘to consider reports’. SCOTLAND’S Justice Secretary has ducked out of taking immediate action on tackling the leadership & governance crisis at the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) – despite calls from across the political spectrum to act on restoring faith at the discredited regulator of Police Scotland.

During ‘Topical Questions’ at the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday of this week, where MSPs from all parties called for a resolution to the crisis at the Police Regulator, and Andrew Flanagan’s refusal to step aside, Justice Secretary Michael Matheson said he was “conscious of the issues” and promised to consider the reports sent to him by the committees.

In Holyrood’s main chamber on Tuesday, Mary Fee MSP (Scottish Labour) told Michael Matheson that Andrew Flanagan had “lost the confidence of MSPs from all parties, including back benchers from the governing party.

“It is clear that his position is untenable. It seems that Mr Flanagan and the Justice Secretary are the last two people to see that.”

She called for a “drastic overhaul of how the SPA is run”.

Shying away from immediate action on the crisis at the Scottish Police Authority, Matheson replied: “I am sure that the member will recognise that it is important that ministers give thorough consideration to these issues in coming to a determination,”

The Justice Secretary added: “On the wider issue of the governance and structure of the SPA, there is no doubt that there are aspects of the way in which the SPA has operated over the past few years that have not worked as well as they should have and that there are areas in which I believe further improvements could be made.

“I have been clear about the need for the SPA to operate in an open and transparent manner as it undertakes its processes and considers matters, and I have repeatedly made that clear.”

LibDem MSP Liam McArthur argued that the SPA would “be inhibited in moving forward as long as he remains the chair”.

The Greens’ John Finnie suggested Flanagan’s managerial style, and the way in which he reportedly treated Ali, a woman of Bengali and Irish descent, would dissuade women and ethnic minority people to join public boards.

The Justice Committee expressed “very serious concerns about the standards of governance” at the body and said it “does not have confidence that the current chair is the best person to lead the board”.

Full report & video coverage of questions to Justice Secretary Michael Matheson at the Scottish Parliament:

Questions to Justice Secretary Michael Matheson on Scottish Police Authority & Andrew Flanagan 30 May 2017

Topical Question Time: Scottish Police Authority (Meetings)

1. Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Justice last met the Scottish Police Authority and what issues were discussed. (S5T-00571)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Michael Matheson): I have regular meetings with the chair of the Scottish Police Authority and meet the board approximately once a year. We discuss a range of key strategic issues in policing.

Mary Fee: As the cabinet secretary is aware, last week, the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing published its report on the governance of the SPA. That report says: “the Sub-Committee does not have confidence that the current chair is the best person to lead the Board.”

That follows similar concerns from the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee.

We know that, under the current leadership of Andrew Flanagan, public meetings were held in private and critical letters were hidden from board members, and we have heard about the disgraceful ousting of now former board member, Moi Ali.

Andrew Flanagan was appointed chair of the SPA to improve openness and accountability. He has failed. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me, with the Justice Sub-committee on Policing and with his own back benchers that Mr Flanagan’s position is untenable and that he should go?

Michael Matheson: I am conscious of the issues that have been raised by the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which provided us with a copy of its report last Thursday. As I am sure that the member will recognise, we will give careful consideration to that report and its findings, along with the issues that have been highlighted by the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee and the evidence that that committee and the member’s sub-committee received. Once we have considered all those issues, we will be in a position to state clearly the Government’s response and our decision on the position of the chair of the SPA.

I am sure that the member will recognise that it is important that the ministers and Government consider these issues carefully. I can give the member an absolute assurance that we will consider the findings in the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing’s report as we arrive at the Scottish Government’s position on this matter.

Mary Fee: Andrew Flanagan has lost the confidence of MSPs from all parties, including back benchers from the governing party. It is clear that his position is untenable. It seems that Mr Flanagan and the justice secretary are the last two people to see that. We need a drastic overhaul of how the SPA is run, and that must start at the very top of the SPA board. We need leadership from the SPA, but we do not have that at the moment.

If Andrew Flanagan is not going to do the right thing and resign, we need leadership from the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government approved Andrew Flanagan’s appointment as chair. If the cabinet secretary will not withdraw that now, I simply ask what it will take for the Government to take action.

Michael Matheson: I have given the member an assurance that we will consider the findings of her sub-committee’s report. Once we have had the opportunity to consider them in detail, as well as the issues that have been raised by the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, we will be able to respond to these matters. I am sure that the member will recognise that it is important that ministers give thorough consideration to these issues in coming to a determination.

On the wider issue of the SPA’s structure, and the way in which the SPA operates, the member will be aware that I have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland to bring forward the governance aspect of its statutory inspection that was due to take place this year. HMICS has agreed to do that and intends to publish a report by 22 June on those issues. In its letter to me, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee welcomed my decision to ask for that work to be undertaken.

It is important that we consider these issues, and I assure the member that we are considering them carefully, and we want to ensure that they are appropriately addressed.

On the wider issue of the governance and structure of the SPA, there is no doubt that there are aspects of the way in which the SPA has operated over the past few years that have not worked as well as they should have and that there are areas in which I believe further improvements could be made.

I have been clear about the need for the SPA to operate in an open and transparent manner as it undertakes its processes and considers matters, and I have repeatedly made that clear. However, there is no doubt that there have been improvements in the way in which the SPA has been operating. For example, as was set out in evidence that was given to the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, there have been improvements in the way in which the SPA has considered issues such as the contact, command and control division; improvements in the relationship between the SPA and the executive team in Police Scotland; and improvements in the way in which it has taken forward work on the development of the 2026 strategy.

Irrespective of that, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed by the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing and members of the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee. I give the member an assurance that they will be considered carefully, and that the Government will come to a decision once it has considered all these matters.

Douglas Ross (Highlands and Islands) (Con): The evidence from the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, MSPs of all parties and, indeed, former board members is clear: Andrew Flanagan’s time as chair of the Scottish Police Authority should be over, and his continuation in that post is untenable. Does the Scottish Government continue to have full faith in Andrew Flanagan as chair of the Scottish Police Authority—yes or no?

Michael Matheson: As I have just said to Mary Fee, we will consider the findings of both committees’ work in this area and we will then come to a decision on this issue.

I am surprised that a member who is, apparently, his party’s spokesman on justice would not want to ensure that we go through due process in considering these issues. It is important that Government ministers give careful consideration to these issues when coming to a decision, and that is exactly what we will do. Once we have completed that process, we will set out our decision on this matter.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green): It is my personal view that Mr Flanagan’s position is untenable and that he must go. The cabinet secretary will agree that we must have vibrant and diverse public boards. In his response to both committee reports, will he consider the impact that Mr Flanagan’s conduct has had on the likelihood of our being able to recruit women and ethnic minority people to these boards?

Michael Matheson: The member raises an important issue. This Government is clear about the need to have greater diversity on our public bodies. I recently made some further appointments to the SPA, and I have written to the chair of the SPA board in recent weeks, highlighting the need to have greater diversity on the board, as that is extremely important. It is also extremely important that, when ministers consider such issues, we follow due process in considering any concerns that are raised with us in order that we do not dissuade people from thinking about applying for appointments to public boards.

I assure the member that it is clear to me that we must do everything possible to increase diversity not just within the membership of the SPA board but on any boards within the justice setting and that the boards should take proactive measures to assist in achieving that. For example, it is not necessary to have direct appointments if there is no space for them, as members can be seconded to support the work of public bodies in order to encourage greater diversity and give those people experience of the work that the board undertakes with a view to their applying for a place on the board at some point in the future.

The Government is clear about the need for greater diversity in the scrutiny of legislation, and I am clear that we need greater diversity on all boards in the justice sector. Our recent track record on appointments to justice boards demonstrates that we are making significant progress by increasing the number of women members, in particular, and I am determined that we will continue to drive that forward.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD): The cabinet secretary will have heard Andrew Flanagan’s statement at the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing last week. There is no doubting that he was extremely contrite and offered an apology. However, a number of members made the point that the position that he holds has been undermined and that the SPA will be inhibited in moving forward as long as he remains the chair.

Given that, at the most recent SPA board meeting, which was held last week, concerns were again raised by board members about the publication of papers in advance of the meeting, does the cabinet secretary not believe that the culture shift that we all want to see in the SPA will be impossible until there is a change at the top?

Michael Matheson: The member will be aware that the SPA board decided, at its meeting 25 May, to return to the presumption that its committee meetings would take place in public and that all papers would be published in advance. I have been very clear with the SPA about the need to ensure that it is open and transparent in conducting its business.

The member will recognise that, as has been highlighted, there is a need for private space in some of the SPA board’s work, given the sensitive and confidential nature of some of the information that it is provided with. That is particularly the case when the information relates to operational matters for Police Scotland. A safe space needs to be provided for discussions and for the sharing of that information to take place.

Notwithstanding that, my view is that the presumption that committee and board meetings will take place in public is the right approach. That is why I have asked HMICS to bring forward the early part of its statutory inspection, which was due to take place in the autumn of this year, and to look specifically at the issue of governance within the SPA. That work has already been started and HMICS will report by 22 June. I have no doubt that the report will support us in looking at what further measures the SPA needs to put in place.

I recognise the need for the SPA to operate openly and transparently, and I have been clear with it, over an extended period, that the processes and mechanisms that it has in place must be able to deliver that openness and transparency effectively.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): We know that the chair of the Scottish Police Authority did not tell his board about a letter from Derek Penman that advised of the forthcoming inspection. Now, we understand that, on a previous occasion, Mr Flanagan did not share an advice note on forensic services with the board. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that is a further example of a lack of transparency? Does the chair of any public body who behaves in that way meet the Scottish Government’s own guidance for those who serve on public boards?

Michael Matheson: Jackie Baillie will be aware that Andrew Flanagan has accepted that he should have passed that note on to the other members of his board and that he made an unacceptable error. We need to ensure that chairs of any public bodies pass on relevant information to other members of the board to allow them to come to an informed position on matters when they are being discussed. The chair has also accepted that the advice note should have been passed on to board members. Again, we will consider that in looking at the matter as a whole.

I assure members that the Government will come to a position on the matter, but it is appropriate that we consider all the facts and information that have been provided. In part, that is for the reason that was highlighted by John Finnie, which is that we want to attract individuals to stand for and work on our public bodies. We need to ensure that ministers and the Government go through a due process in considering these matters and coming to a decision. My concern is that a failure to do that would dissuade people from taking up public appointments, and we want to avoid that. That is why we will consider these matters very carefully and in a detailed way, and we will then come to a decision.

CHAIR MUST GO – Crisis continues at Scottish Police Authority as Justice Secretary dodges duty:

Justice Secretary Michael Matheson’s refusal to sack Flanagan as the crisis in governance and leadership at the Police Watchdog continues to grow – comes after a string of stinging criticisms and revelations over poor governance at the Scottish Police Authority, and accusations the SPA was being run as a secret society.

Legal observers who have been following developments speculate more action, and a decision may have been taken much earlier on the status of the current SPA Chief and board, had now former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill held the justice brief.

Holyrood’s Justice Sub-Committee on policing said they had “no confidence” in Flanagan’s leadership, and criticised his decision to hold meetings in private and for his treatment of Moi Ali, a board member who spoke out against the move.

They were the second Scottish Parliament committee to express concerns about the SPA’s governance.

Members of the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny (PAPLS) Committee have also criticised Andrew Flanagan for his treatment of board member Moi Ali, who was forced to resign from the Police Watchdog after speaking out over concerns about transparency and the publication of papers for board meetings.

A full report on the PAPLS meeting of 20 April can be found here: POLICING SECRETS: Former Scottish Police Authority board member Moi Ali invited to give evidence at Holyrood, after MSPs accuse SPA bosses of running Police watchdog like Kremlin ‘secret society’

A full report on the second PAPLS hearing of 11 May can be found here: UNFIT AUTHORITY: Chair of Scottish Police Authority “is not fit to continue on any public board” – says former SPA board member in evidence to Holyrood’s Public Audit Committee scrutiny of Police watchdog.

A more detailed report on the 18th May 2017 hearing of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing can be found here: AUTHORITY LOST: Chair of Scottish Police Authority refuses to resign after facing challenge from Justice Committee MSPs to consider his position on discredited Police watchdog.

A further article on the Justice sub Committee on Policing’s report into the crisis at the Scottish Police Authority can be viewed here: NO CONFIDENCE: Chair of Scottish Police Authority refuses to stand down, as board member criticises Holyrood scrutiny of governance, secrecy culture & lack of accountability at discredited Police watchdog

The report from the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing can be found here:  Justice Sub Committee on Policing Report on Governance of the Scottish Police Authority

According to declarations on the SPA website, Andrew Flanagan also holds positions on the Civil Service Commission, NHS Business Services Authority, London-based NEL Commissioning Support Unit, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, positions he earns up to £75,000 a year in addition to his £70K salary as SPA Chair.

Flanagan’s decision to remain in office comes after members of Holyrood’s Justice Committee said in a report  they had “serious concerns”in the current SPA Board – which has responsibility for oversight and spending of the £1.1 billion Police Scotland budget.

Responding to the Justice Committee’s criticisms of the SPA and their report SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan refused to stand down.

Mr Flanagan said: “As I have already done with the views of other parliamentarians, I and the SPA Board will consider this report very carefully over the coming days and reflect on its contents.

“As I indicated in my evidence to the Committee, I have publicly acknowledged recent mistakes without caveat or qualification. I also believe that in my time in office I have brought much improvement and clarity to the strategy, governance, sustainability, and relationships within policing.”

“I remain focussed on building a broad consensus around my continuing leadership of the SPA, and my contribution to a stable and collaborative leadership within policing as a whole.”

SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan’s decision to stay in the lead role at the now discredited Scottish Police Authority comes after one of it’s Board members – Graham Houston – launched a blistering attack on open hearings at the Scottish Parliament’s PAPLS Committee’ – after it’s members quizzed the Chair & CEO of the SPA, along with Scottish Government Civil Servants at an earlier meeting of 20 April 2017.

Criticising MSPs scrutiny of the Scottish Police Authority, Board member Graham Houston said: “I also think as an example of good governance I think the treatment of my fellow board members by an audit and scrutiny committee was frankly appalling and I think if that is an example of what is expected of good scrutiny it leaves a lot to be desired. And I suggest that the members of that committee look to themselves about setting an example and also look to the guidance on board about how they conduct themselves in doing that.”

Mr Houston then attacked the media, accusing the press of abusing the ‘openness’ of the SPA and concludes by stating “I think that what will transpire is that probably we are one of the most open public authorities in Scotland.”

Video footage of Graham Houston’s criticisms of MSPs scrutiny of the SPA can be found here: Scottish Police Authority Board Member Graham Houston hits out at PAPLS scrutiny of Police Watchdog.

A glimpse into the world of the Scottish Police Authority’s board meetings features an excerpt from the SPA’s meeting of 15 December 2016, in which Board Member Moi Ali raised serious concerns about recommendations in relation to the publication on the day of board meetings and the holding of committees in private.

More on the discussion around the Governance Framework and input from Moi Ali who raised her concerns at the meeting can be viewed in video footage here: Scottish Police Authority 15 December 2016 meeting Governance framework discussion.

Ms Ali said she understood there were good reasons for those recommendations she had serious concerns about the lack of transparency around the two proposals, and that there were real drawbacks in relation to holding committee meetings in private.

Moi Ali said her concerns were two fold – the perception issue in relation to private meetings where it may be perceived that decisions may be taken behind closed doors, and that defacto decision may well be taken behind closed doors and that the process of decision making will be hidden and there is a danger in due course this will morph into a different kind of body in which effectively real decisions are taken albeit not in name but then come back to the SPA Board for rubber stamping rather than transparent debate.

While Flanagan still clings to power, the Justice Committee expressed “very serious concerns about the standards of governance” at the body and said it “does not have confidence that the current chair is the best person to lead the board”.

Previous articles on the Scottish Police Authority can be found here: Scottish Police Authority – Poor governance, private meetings & lack of accountability at Police regulator

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

NO CONFIDENCE: Chair of Scottish Police Authority refuses to stand down, as board member criticises Holyrood scrutiny of governance, secrecy culture & lack of accountability at discredited Police watchdog

Chair Andrew Flanagan clings to power at Police regulator. AMID further calls to quit, the Chair of the embattled Scottish Police Authority (SPA) grimly remains in office and at the centre of a crisis which has eroded public confidence in the Police watchdog to the point only a clean sweep of the board may begin to repair significant reputational damage to the regulator of Police Scotland.

Facing further criticism from the Scottish Parliament’s Justice sub-committee on Policing late last week, Andrew Flanagan again refused to stand down from his £70K position as Chair of the SPA.

According to his declarations on the SPA website, Andrew Flanagan also holds positions on the Civil Service Commission, NHS Business Services Authority, London-based NEL Commissioning Support Unit, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, positions he earns up to £75,000 a year in addition to his £70K salary as SPA Chair.

Flanagan’s decision to remain in office comes after members of Holyrood’s Justice Committee said in a report  they had “serious concerns”in the current SPA Board – which has responsibility for oversight and spending of the £1.1 billion Police Scotland budget.

The Justice Committee expressed “very serious concerns about the standards of governance” at the body and said it “does not have confidence that the current chair is the best person to lead the board”.

The report was issued after the Justice Committee held an evidence session with SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan & CEO John Foley after hearings at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit Committee heard details of Andrew Flanagan’s treatment of Moi Ali – a former SPA board member who spoke up over concerns about the lack of transparency & accountability at the Police Watchdog.

At an earlier meeting of the PAPLS Committee Moi Ali accused Flanagan of bullying, which led to Ms Ali’s resignation from the Police regulator after she publicly objected to plans to hold meetings in private and arrangements over the publication of board papers prior to meetings.

During the evidence session at the Justice Committee, SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan told MSPs he had issued a written apology to Ali on Tuesday of that week, however, evidence has since emerged the apology was emailed to Ms Ali  less than two hours before Flanagan was to appear before MSPs to answer concerns about harassment and transparency.

The Justice Committee have not yet commented on whether they plan to quiz Mr Flanagan further on his contradictory claims in relation to his communications with Moi Ali.

While Justice Secretary Michael Matheson has remained conspicuously silent in the crisis at the SPA, Matheson has quietly requested an inspection of transparency and accountability issues at the organisation be brought forward by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS).

The results are expected in June, however Justice Committee member Mary Fee MSP (Scottish Labour) branded Flanagan’s testimony to the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing “frankly inadequate”, adding: “We do not have confidence in his leadership.”

The report released by the Justice Committee says Flanagan’s repeated use of the phrase “I have to accept” when discussing his treatment of Moi Ali – does not reassure the committee that he has a “real belief and understanding” that the actions he took and “repeatedly defended were wrong”.

Speaking to the BBC, Mary Fee MSP – Convener of the Justice sub-Committee on Policing – said: “Though he was apologetic, we are not confident he accepts he was wrong.

“This issue remains unresolved. We will continue working with the Scottish Police Authority, and other justice stakeholders, until we are confident the governance of the SPA is significantly improved.”

Also speaking to the media, former Police officer & Justice Committee member John Finnie – also the Justice spokesperson for the Greens, said: “Andrew Flanagan said nothing at his most recent appearance in front of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing which led me to believe that he has learned the important lessons necessary for him to lead the SPA.

“Mr Flanagan’s half-hearted apology, emailing Moi Ali around an hour before his appearance at the sub-committee, epitomises his approach to this whole sorry saga – looking out for his own self-interest rather than that of the Scottish Police Authority.

“In order to effectively chair an important public body it is vital that you hold the confidence of Parliament. It is clear from the views expressed by both the Public Audit Committee and today by the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing that Mr Flanagan lacks that confidence.

“He certainly does not hold my confidence.

“This ongoing situation continues to overshadow the vital work of the SPA and must be resolved sooner rather than later. I would ask Mr Flanagan to seriously reflect on his position.”

Giving evidence to the sub-committee, Flanagan was asked if he accepted there had been “reputational damage to SPA that it may not recover from”.

He replied: “I think we can recover from it, I think there has been some damage there. I think my apology to Moi is a start of that process, it is not the end of the process.

Responding to the Justice Committee’s criticisms of the SPA and their report SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan said: “As I have already done with the views of other parliamentarians, I and the SPA Board will consider this report very carefully over the coming days and reflect on its contents.

“As I indicated in my evidence to the Committee, I have publicly acknowledged recent mistakes without caveat or qualification. I also believe that in my time in office I have brought much improvement and clarity to the strategy, governance, sustainability, and relationships within policing.”

“I remain focussed on building a broad consensus around my continuing leadership of the SPA, and my contribution to a stable and collaborative leadership within policing as a whole.”

“Today, and in recognition of recent areas of contention, the SPA has backed my recommended changes to governance that will increase both the transparency of our meetings and the accessibility of information.”

“This will begin to address the concerns of stakeholders, and the inspection report of HMICS will provide a further opportunity to build on that.”

“I also look forward to further developing and broadening the Board’s approach with the appointment today of Nicola Marchant as the first Deputy Chair.”

It has since been reported in the Herald newspaper SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan did not share a crucial report on forensics with all his board members.

The SPA has control of forensic services – including DNA, drug analysis and scene examination – and Mr Penman sent the chair a “professional advice note” (PAN) on the subject.

The document flagged up possible reforms on a part of the Police service that has had to make efficiency savings.

Speaking to the Herald, a spokesman for HMICS said of the advice note: “HMICS received a letter on 31 October 2016, from the [SPA] Chair acknowledging the final version and confirming that it had been shared with all board members.”

The Herald further reported: “However, asked yesterday to confirm that Mr Flanagan had shared the advice note with all board members, a spokesman for the SPA said:

“The SPA members received briefing from their officers last August in which one of the options set out in respect of forensic services clearly reflected the HMICS advice note. The paper provided to members made clear that background papers available to them included the independent analysis and advice by HMICS in relation to forensic services.”

A senior policing source said it was a “fair assumption” that the advice note was not given to all board members at the time.”

Report from the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing: Justice Sub Committee on Policing Report on Governance of the Scottish Police Authority

1. The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing held an evidence session on the governance of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) on 18 May 2017.

2. It took evidence from Andrew Flanagan, Chair, and John Foley, Chief Executive of the Scottish Police Authority.

3. This was in response to the letter from the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice outlining its “very serious concerns about the standards of governance at the SPA”, following its recent evidence sessions^

4. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has asked Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) to bring forward aspects of his intended statutory inspection into the state, efficiency and effectiveness of the Scottish Police Authority scheduled for 2017/18. The Cabinet Secretary has asked HMICS focus on transparency and accountability issues.]

5. Accordingly, HMICS is currently undertaking a Thematic Inspection of the Scottish Police Authority – Phase 1 Review of Openness and Transparency and is to report to the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2017. The terms of reference are as follows:

The overall aim of this review will be to assess the openness and transparency in the way that the Scottish Police Authority conducts its business. It will specifically examine:

(i) the Authority’s decision on holding meetings in private and the publication of meeting papers; and also assess

(ii) the Authority’s compliance with relevant legislation, guidance and standing orders and the awareness and understanding of the Chair, Board members and SPA officers of these.

Introduction

6. This report outlines the views of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing on the evidence heard at its meetings of 20 April, when representatives of Unison, the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents provided evidence, and of 18 May, with the Chair and Chief Executive of the SPA.

Committee consideration

7. The 18 May evidence session focussed on the following decisions:

• to hold committee meetings in private;

• to not circulate to the SPA board members the letter from HMICS raising concerns about holding committee meetings in private; and

• the Chair’s letter to Moi Ali of 19 December, in response to her dissenting to meetings being held in private.

8. The Sub-Committee considered the decisions taken by the Chair and Chief Executive, the actions they took (or did not take) as a result of those decisions, and the impact on the effective governance and reputation of the SPA.

9. The Sub-Committee also considered the impact of the proposed actions to be taken going forward on the SPA’s governance, transparency and reputation.

Conclusions

10. The Sub-Committee shares the very serious concerns about the standards of governance at the SPA raised by the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee and thanks it for its scrutiny of the governance of the Scottish Police Authority.

11. The Sub-Committee agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, copied to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS), outlining its views. The letter is attached at Annexe A of this report.

PAPLS Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to HMICS, 20 April 2017

PAPLS Letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, 12 May 2017

Letter from the Justice Sub Committee on Policing to Justice Secretary Michael Matheson:

Dear Michael: The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing held an evidence session on 18 May 2017 on governance of the Sottish Police Authority. This was to provide an opportunity for the Chair and Chief Executive of the SPA to address serious governance concerns raised by the Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee in its recent letter to you.

The Sub-Committee also took evidence from Unison, the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS) on 20 April, when SPA governance issues were raised.

The Sub-Committee appreciates that HMICS is currently undertaking an urgent review of the openness and transparency of the SPA and that you are to appraise the performance of the Chair of the SPA. This letter is to inform both.

Openness, transparency and accountability

The Sub-Committee agrees with your assessment that the SPA “needs to ensure that the processes and mechanisms that it has in place are open and transparent’’^”

Many of the issues surrounding the openness, transparency and accountability of the SPA’s governance seem to have been created by the implementation of two of the recommendations in Andrew Flanagan’s Review of Governance, which was published in March 2016. These were that committees should be seen as working groups (recommendation 15) and therefore that their meetings should be held in private (recommendation 16).

In his letter to Andrew Flanagan of 9 December 2016, Derek Penman cautioned that the proposal for committees to meet in private might impact negatively on the openness, transparency and legitimacy of the SPA, as well as public confidence in its governance. Despite this, the decision was made for committees to meet in private.

In a previous evidence session, the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing heard that those representing police staff, officers and superintendents felt that this decision excluded them from participating in the decision-making process.

Craig Suttie of the ASPS told the Sub-Committee that superintendents “had concerns when the governance review came out”, whilst Calum Steele of the SPF said that holding private committee meetings “undermines the SPA’s legitimacy”.

In response to questions on engagement with the unions and staff associations Mr Flanagan acknowledged that he was aware that stakeholders were unhappy, but held the view that the level of engagement was sufficient, saying that “In the committee structure that has been set up, people can come and give evidence … the SPF and other staff associations and unions can come to those meetings”.[4]

The proposal that committees are to meet in public and to publish papers well in advance of meetings is a move in the right direction. This is good practice and it is difficult to comprehend why this approach was not recommended in the governance review.

There is a need for some items to be taken in private, and the Sub-Committee appreciates Mr Flanagan’s assurance that respectful open debate on whether items should be taken in private will be encouraged going forward.

Private committee meetings, issuing papers at the last minute, and reducing input from key stakeholders has damaged the relationship between the SPA and police staff, officers and superintendents. It has also raised questions within the police service and externally about the SPA’s accountability, transparency and legitimacy.

Although there is now a proposal for committees to meet in public, Mr Flanagan suggested that this was due to improvements in the information that is submitted by Police Scotland,rather than being in response to the impact private meetings have had on key relationships and the SPA’s reputation. It is essential to repair both.

As part of his review, HMICS is to “engage directly with the key stakeholders, including police staff associations and members of the media and others who have a specific interest in the policing of Scotland and who may wish access to SPA meetings and papers”.

The Sub-Committee would refer HMICS to its evidence session on 20 April with Unison, the SPF and ASPS and, in light of recent media reports, respectfully request that Mr Penman engage with COSLA during his review of openness and transparency.

Correspondence from HMICS

It is clear that Derek Penman’s letter of 9 December 2016 to the Chair, copied to the Chief Executive, was time critical. In it Mr Penman raises a number of concerns about the Corporate Governance Framework, which was to be agreed at the following week’s SPA board meeting. Whilst Mr Flanagan has now acknowledged that this correspondence should have been circulated as a matter of course, and has committed to doing so in future, the Sub-Committee explored the reasons for the 9 December letter not being circulated.

The Sub-Committee heard that there were practical issues which contributed to Mr Penman’s letter not being circulated immediately. The Chief Executive was out of the country, with the letter apparently not being brought to his attention during or after his leave period. The Chair received the letter “late on Friday” and was not undertaking SPA duties again prior to the board meeting the following week.

However, Mr Flanagan stated that, in his view, there had been no need to circulate Mr Penman’s letter, telling the Sub-Committee that “I felt that his letter captured views that had already been expressed rather than injecting new ones”.

Mr Penman explained to the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee on 11 May that his letter: “contained a level of detail that I would not have had the opportunity to explain in conversations on the margins with members”

Despite this Mr Foley told the Sub-Committee on 18 May that “It is not the case that his [Derek Penman’s] views were not known”

The letter was discussed at the pre-meeting and was not circulated before, during or at any time after the SPA board meeting. Board members and key stakeholders only saw the content of the letter, or in some cases became aware it, once it appeared in media reports some months later.

At the Sub-Committee meeting of 20 April 2017 Drew Livingstone stated that Unison was particularly concerned about not being made aware of the HMICS letter until recently, saying that: “there has been a reluctance on the part of the organisation to listen to opinions that might come across as being slightly dissenting”

Not circulating the HMICS letter to Board Members, as Her Majesty’s Inspector would have expected, was, in the Sub-Committee’s view, a serious error of judgement.

HMICS has a statutory role to look into the ‘state, effectiveness and efficiency’ of the SPA and it should provide HMICS with “such assistance and co-operation as we may require to enable us to carry out our functions”.

The Sub-Committee asks that you consider whether the Chair demonstrates sufficient understanding of the relationship between the SPA and HMICS and whether, in this instance, the required level of co-operation was provided to HMICS.

The operation of the SPA board

The On Board guidance states that “The Chair has an important role to play in ensuring that all Board members are enabled and encouraged to contribute to Board discussions”. Building and maintaining effective working relationships with SPA board members is an essential role of the Chair.

The Sub-Committee considered whether the Chair’s response to Moi Ali’s dissension at the board meeting in December, his interpretation of the On Board guidance and his communication style, enables and encourages members to contribute fully at SPA board meetings.

Treatment of Moi Ali

The Sub-Committee agrees with Mr Flanagan’s view that the tone, content and timing of his letter to Moi Ali in December was a misjudgement on his part and that the manner in which she raised concerns about transparency and perception at the SPA board meeting in December were consistent with her role as a Board member.

This issue has been on-going for almost 6 months and has been deeply damaging to the reputation of the SPA. It is therefore regrettable that Mr Flanagan did not come to this view initially, or before now, and that he did not seek to resolve this matter in person with Moi Ali before she felt it necessary to resign.

Mr Flanagan wrote to Moi Ali on two separate occasions, almost two months apart, but it seems that he did not find an opportunity to speak directly to Moi Ali to seek to resolve the issue and to repair the relationship.

The Sub-Committee notes that Mr Flanagan wrote a personal letter of apology to Ms Ali but that it was only written two days before the Sub-Committee’s evidence session and emailed on the day of the session.

Dissent

Mr Flanagan told the Sub-Committee that “The fundamental issue at the board meeting was that her [Moi Ali’s] decision to dissent was a surprise to me—that was the main frustration”

It remains Mr Flanagan’s view that he should be made aware before a board meeting if a member is likely to dissent in public, so that he was “prepared for that when the board meeting took place”.

This expectation is out of step with what is required of board members in the On Board guidance. Whilst this approach might be desirable for a Chair it does not enable the SPA board members to form a view at board meetings and could inhibit them from dissenting from a decision if they had not previously informed the Chair that they intended to do so. It has led to criticism that decisions are made before SPA board meetings and then ‘played out’ in public. There is an important distinction between a united board and an effective board. It is not always one and the same.

Relationship with SPA board members

The Sub-Committee heard that other SPA board members had only recently commented on the Chair’s treatment of Moi Ali, describing it to him as “a bit hasty and a bit heavy handed”.

The three SPA board members who gave evidence to the Public Audit and Post­-legislative Scrutiny Committee on 11 May, have only recently committed to asking the Chair why the HMICS letter was not circulated. They confirmed in evidence that they had not done so before now, despite the letter being in the public domain for a number of weeks.

It appears that on both these issues, despite having concerns about the Chair’s actions, significantly, SPA board members were reticent about speaking directly to Mr Flanagan.

Mr Flanagan told the Sub-Committee that the SPA board is to appoint a Deputy Chair. He indicated that one of the advantages of this appointment was that this person could meet with members of the Board who might feel constrained in raising an issue of concern directly with the Chair.

The Sub-Committee would be deeply concerned if Board members felt constrained in speaking to the Chair and, if that were the case, would expect the Chair to rectify that position as a matter of urgency.

Going forward

The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing agrees with the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee’s assessment that it is essential that the public and stakeholders be reassured that the SPA is performing to an appropriate standard.

Unfortunately Mr Flanagan’s repeated use of the phrase “I have to accept” did not reassure the Sub-Committee that he has a real belief and understanding that the actions that he took in relation to Moi Ali and in not circulating the HMICS letter, and repeatedly defended, were wrong.

There will be many difficult decisions for the SPA board to take going forward. It is essential that as many of these as possible are taken in public and informed by stakeholders. Openness, inclusiveness and transparency will strengthen the decision­ making process and the accountability of the SPA. Given the evidence that it has heard, the Sub-Committee does not have confidence that the current chair is the best person to lead the Board.

HMICS is currently undertaking a review of the openness and transparency of the SPA.

The Sub-Committee asks HMICS to consider the evidence it has taken and the contents of this report as part of that review. Mr Flanagan has committed to write to the Sub­ Committee with a response to HMICS’ review at the earliest opportunity.

TRANSPARENCY FIRST: Former Board member Moi Ali spoke out on transparency concerns at Police Watchdog:

A glimpse into the world of the Scottish Police Authority’s board meetings features an excerpt from the SPA’s meeting of 15 December 2016, in which Board Member Moi Ali raised serious concerns about recommendations in relation to the publication on the day of board meetings and the holding of committees in private.

More on the discussion around the Governance Framework and input from Moi Ali who raised her concerns at the meeting can be viewed here:

Scottish Police Authority 15 December 2016 meeting Governance framework discussion

Ms Ali said she understood there were good reasons for those recommendations she had serious concerns about the lack of transparency around the two proposals, and that there were real drawbacks in relation to holding committee meetings in private.

Moi Ali said her concerns were two fold – the perception issue in relation to private meetings where it may be perceived that decisions may be taken behind closed doors, and that defacto decision may well be taken behind closed doors and that the process of decision making will be hidden and there is a danger in due course this will morph into a different kind of body in which effectively real decisions are taken albeit not in name but then come back to the SPA Board for rubber stamping rather than transparent debate.

UNFIT AUTHORITY: – Crisis continues at Scottish Police Authority after Board members criticise MSPs scrutiny of Cop Quango:

SPA Chair Andrew Flanagan’s decision to stay in the lead role at the now discredited Scottish Police Authority comes after one of it’s Board members – Graham Houston – launched a blistering attack on open hearings at the Scottish Parliament’s PAPLS Committee’ – after it’s members quizzed the Chair & CEO of the SPA, along with Scottish Government Civil Servants at an earlier meeting of 20 April 2017.

Scottish Police Authority Board Member Graham Houston hits out at PAPLS scrutiny of Police Watchdog

Critisising MSPs scrutiny of the Scottish Police Authority, Board member Graham Houston said: “I also think as an example of good governance I think the treatment of my fellow board members by an audit and scrutiny committee was frankly appalling and I think if that is an example of what is expected of good scrutiny it leaves a lot to be desired. And I suggest that the members of that committee look to themselves about setting an example and also look to the guidance on board about how they conduct themselves in doing that.”

Mr Houston then attacked the media, accusing the press of abusing the ‘openness’ of the SPA and concludes by stating “I think that what will transpire is that probably we are one of the most open public authorities in Scotland.”

The SPA’s statement on the outcome of the meeting claimed it had strengthened the transparency and accessibility of its governance arrangements by making a number of revisions to Board and committee meetings and publication of papers.

The changes decided at the meeting, which will come in to effect from 1 June 2017 include:

SPA committee meetings held in public, with items taken in private only when necessary and with a clear articulation of the reason.

The publication of agendas for all public Board and committee meetings will be available on the SPA website 7 days in advance of meetings.

The publication of papers for all public Board and committee meetings will be published on the SPA website (under embargo) 3-working days in advance.

The publication of agendas for closed Board and committee meetings will be published on the SPA website (redacted if necessary) and a summary of the business conducted will be reported to the next public Board meeting.

The public will also have the opportunity to pose questions about policing matters to the SPA Board in advance of meetings.

In addition, the SPA Board has established a new Deputy Chair role. Nicola Marchant has been unanimously appointed to that position with immediate effect.

Full details of the changes and next steps agreed by the Board are outlined in the following paper: http://www.spa.police.uk/assets/126884/400419/governance

Houston’s criticism of the refers to the following hearing, in which evidence revealed to MSPs portrayed the Scottish Police Authority as a haven of secrecy, run in the style of  a “kremlin” operation – according to former Cabinet Secretary & PAPLS member Alex Neil MSP (SNP):

Scottish Police Authority – Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee – Scottish Parliament: 20th April 2017

A full report on the PAPLS meeting of 20 April can be found here: POLICING SECRETS: Former Scottish Police Authority board member Moi Ali invited to give evidence at Holyrood, after MSPs accuse SPA bosses of running Police watchdog like Kremlin ‘secret society’

A further appearance of current and former board members of the Scottish Police Authority before Holyrood’s PAPLS Committee on the 11th May – established evidence in relation to a sequence of alarming events at the SPA – giving MSPs significant cause for concern of how the SPA Chair was in effect, personally running the Police watchdog as a “secret society”.

Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee – Scottish Parliament: 11th May 2017

A full report on the PAPLS hearing of 11 May can be found here: UNFIT AUTHORITY: Chair of Scottish Police Authority “is not fit to continue on any public board” – says former SPA board member in evidence to Holyrood’s Public Audit Committee scrutiny of Police watchdog

The hearing also established not one board member of the now discredited Police Watchdog backed former board member Moi Ali – who was forced to resign from the SPA after she bravely raised issues of transparency and accountability during a meeting of the Scottish Police Authority in December 2016.

Then, at a hearing of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice sub-committee on Policing, Andrew Flanagan was asked by MSPs several times to consider his position as SPA Chair – yet Flanagan refused each call to stand down and allow the Scottish Police Authority to move on from the current crisis.

Justice Sub-Committee on Policing – Scottish Parliament: 18th May 2017

A more detailed report on the 18th May 2017 hearing of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing can be found here: AUTHORITY LOST: Chair of Scottish Police Authority refuses to resign after facing challenge from Justice Committee MSPs to consider his position on discredited Police watchdog

Previous articles on the Scottish Police Authority can be found here: Scottish Police Authority – Poor governance, private meetings & lack of accountability at Police regulator

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,