Dedengan oייםon nhw a ONU. I welcome to the 8th meeting of the Justice Committee in 2016. Agenda item number one is consideration of supportment legislation. I welcome Anabelle Ewing, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs to the committee to speak to the three affirmative SSIs. We will take evidence from the first two SSIs together because that relates to similar matters on civil procedure reform. I also welcome the two officials accompanying the minister this morning, such as Walter Drummond Murray from civil law and legal system division and Greg Walker from the director of legal services. I remind members that officials are permitted to give evidence under this item, but not to participate in the formal debate on the instruments of item 2 on the It is a chance for item 3 to put to ministers and officials any points that they seek clarification on. However, without further ado, I ask the minister if she would like to make an opening statement. I am pleased to be able to be given the opportunity to speak briefly to these orders. They continue our work in implementing the reform set out in the 2014 Court Reform Act, the first of those orders, the Sheriff Court simple procedure brackets limits on award of expenses brackets order 2016 ensures that the current policy restricting the recoverability of expenses and small claims is maintained in the new simple procedure, which procedure is to replace the small claims procedure as of 28 November of this year. The second order, the Court Reform brackets Scotland brackets act 2014 brackets relevant officer and consequential provisions brackets order 2016 provides for a number of consequential amendments as a result of the reforms, including those related to the introduction of simple procedure. In addition, after the appointment of the first auditor of the sheriff appeal court this year, the order adds this post to the list of relevant officers in section 107 of the 2014 act with regard to the imposition of fees. I hope that that is a brief introduction and I am happy to take any questions. Do members have any questions? I note on the second order that is the limit some award of expenses that the Delegated Powers Committee has made a couple of observations. I want to address my question to the second of them, which relates to the drafting error and paragraph 2 of the table of civil legal aid fees in the new schedule 2A, which provides an incorrect description of the paragraphs. The Delegated Powers says that the Government tends to correct this by correctional, but has asked the Government to correct the error by amending the instrument. I wonder if the minister can give us feedback on what your position is on the request from the Delegated Powers, because I think that I would certainly instinctively feel that the Delegated Powers are correct to request that it be replaced rather than simply corrected by a correction slip. The clarification is definitely this instrument. I may have it wrong. The civil legal aid amendment regulation fees are on the wrong one. I have a head of myself. In that case, can you read it into the report when we come to it, convener, because I will not bother saying it again. Are there any other questions? Minister, do you want to make any closing remarks? No, thank you. That is fine. If we move now to the motions, the first is motion 01714 that the Justice Committee recommends that the shared-of-court simple procedure limits the award of the expenses order 2016 draft be approved. I invite the minister to speak and move the motion. Formally moved. Do members have any comments? No comments. The question is that motion 01714 in the name of animal viewing be approved. Are we all a crew? Thank you. The second motion is 02128 that the Justice Committee recommends that the Courts Reform Scotland Act 2014 relevant officer and consequential provisions order 2016 draft be approved. I invite the minister to speak and move the motion. Formally moved. Do members have any comments? No comments. Does the minister have any closing remarks? No, I assume not. I put the question on the motion. The question is that motion 02128 in the name of animal viewing be approved. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move to item 3, subordinate legislation. I invite Annabelle Ewing, minister of community safety and legal affairs, to speak to the third of the Minister of Social Security on the maximum number of judges. The third SSI on the maximum number of judges in Scotland brackets order 2016 deals with the issue of the maximum number of judges as set out in section 1 of the Court of Session Act 1988. The order before you today will increase the maximum number of judges of the Court of Session by 1 so that the total will be 35. Judges of the Court of Session also sit, of course, as judges of the High Court of Justiciary. An increase in the number of judges in the Court of Session is required as a consequence of the recent appointment of Lady Smith as chair of the Scottish child abuse inquiry. Lady Smith is an in-house judge of the Court of Session on secondment to the inquiry. During the secondment, Lady Smith will not be available to sit in court, however, she will remain a judge for the purposes of the statutory limit set forth in the 1988 act. As the inquiry is expected to last until at least October 2019, the Lord President requested an additional judge to meet the demands of the business in the Court of Session and the High Court. The Lord President, in that regard, did not consider that a series of temporary appointments for that period of time would secure the most efficient disposal of court business and took the view of being neither realistic nor sustainable to proceed in such a fashion. That is why we are bringing this order before you today, convener. Thank you. Do members have any questions? Anything else? Oh, sorry, Douglas. Can I ask the minister what happens following the completion of the inquiry in 2019 to the number of judges? Well, in 2019 it would depend, in fact, on circumstances at the time. If that is when the inquiry finishes, Lady Smith will remain an inter-court judge. As to what the total number of judges will be at that time will depend on, obviously, who else is there and who is seeking retirement. However, what the cabinet secretary has made clear to the Lord President, further to the Lord President's request to increase at this time the overall number to 35, although in effect we are looking at 34 operational judges, and the cabinet secretary did indicate that it would, indeed, be sensible to review the desariability of maintaining the number of judges at the maximum each time a request is made for a new senator appointment in the future. Obviously, that will be kept under consideration as we go forward. So, do you think that it is fair to assume that there will be a request made at the completion of the inquiry to reduce the number to 34? Well, we cannot know that at this time. We would have to take a view on the circumstances at that time, but, although Lady Smith is leading the inquiry, she is not available to sit in the inner house. Therefore, the Lord President did request in the circumstances that that de facto gap was filled. That is what this order would seek to do to ensure that Lady Smith is in a position to get on with chairing the child abuse inquiry. As we are looking, as a committee, to agree to this motion, the problem is, as I understand it, in section 10 of our report, page 2, about the financial implications. Now, there are no financial implications to what you are putting forward today because Lady Smith's salary and pension are paid for by the inquiry. Following the completion of that inquiry, there will then be an additional judge and salary and pension, and where does that money come from? Or is it immediately after the inquiry that there will either be a proposal to have the substantive change to the number of judges confirmed to 35 and the costs associated with that? What I would say to the member is that the position as of when the inquiry finishes, it is scheduled to finish no earlier than October 2019, but we do not know if that is the final date for completion of the inquiry. We would have to see what the circumstances were at that time, and we would be considering the position carefully. Obviously, the position would be further to any request of the Lord President at that time. I am not unable to proceed exactly what the position will be once the completion of the inquiry, because, first of all, we do not know exactly when the inquiry on child abuse will complete and, second, we do not know what the position will be in terms of the number of judges and senators in post at that time. Of course, things can happen in the interim period. If I can just come on that point. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that that is cost-neutral at the moment, but there will be a scenario when Lady Smith finishes her inquiry whenever that is, and there will then be 35 judges all paid for because she will no longer be—well, the minister's aid is shaking his head, but she will only be paid by the inquiry, presumably, as long as the inquiry is on-going. Therefore, whenever the inquiry finishes, we will have 35 judges and therefore it cannot be cost-neutral, because at that point we will start to pay for 35 judges and their pensions rather than 34 with Lady Smith being paid her salary and pension by the inquiry. I think that what we are saying is that it is cost-neutral as of today. I am not making any predictions as of the future, because, as I say, there are at least two variables here. One is that we do not know exactly when the inquiry will complete. The inquiry should be allowed under the excellent direction of Lady Smith to do the job that it is being tasked to do. Second, we do not know what will pertain in terms of the number of judges and who may be seeking to retire in terms of senators at that unspecified date in the future. I am trying to be helpful, but I cannot take out a crystal ball today. What I am saying is that, as of today, the position is that this order would be cost-neutral. As to further years in the future, we would, of course, keep this matter under consideration. I pointed out to the committee convener that the cabinet secretary has already made that clear to the Lord President that this matter will be kept under consideration. I hope that the member will find some assurance there that we are very carefully looking always at the cost of the operation of the justice system. I am fairly confident that any change to the legislative position would require to come back to the committee. I would be happy if, in post, to come back at that later date in the future. I am sorry, but can you confirm that it would be a change to the legislative position if we are agreeing today to go up to 35 cost-neutral if, in the future, after the end of the inquiry, there is a decision to maintain at 35 but it is no longer cost-neutral? Would that come back to the committee if the numbers are not changing but the financial implications are? Yes or no? Would that come back to the committee? If it was deemed to be a change to the legislative position that would trigger committee's involvement, then, yes, it would come back to the committee. Would the financial implications trigger that change? I would have to look carefully at what triggers the committee's involvement if it was an order, if it was by way of an order, that required the committee's involvement, then obviously the matter would come back to the committee. I would suggest that, if we are being asked to agree this order today based on the fact that you have put in here that the financial effects are cost-neutral, if that element changes, I would expect as a committee member that to come back to the committee. I would be worried why a Government minister would not want that to come back to the committee. I am not suggesting either way what I am suggesting is that you have posed a particular technical question as to what would happen down the line and whether that would require a change by legislative order. That, I think, is the nub of the matter. If it did require a change by legislative order, then of course the committee would have oversight of that. I am trying to be helpful but I do not have a crystal ball to deal with all the variables involved here to principle ones of which I have mentioned a couple of times to the member. It is cost-neutral as long as inquiry continues. As soon as the inquiry ceases, there will be a cost implication potentially. Perhaps the minister could write to the committee if she is not able to tell us today if it would come back to the committee or just exactly what the procedure would be in that event. I am happy to do that, convener. Stuart Stevenson. Just very simply, minister, is the Government, as a matter of policy, continuing with the view that the number of operational judges required is 34? My understanding is that that was the position. That is the position but, of course, we have got the particular circumstances of the very important child abuse inquiry and Lady Smith has agreed to take over the direction of that inquiry. That is why we were in the position. That is why the policy surrounding the number of operational judges remains unchanged. The second question is the processes for removing a judge from judgeship are extremely onerous and not in the gift of politicians. Therefore, in practical sense, the option of removing a judge to conduct the inquiry is not in practical terms available. Is that correct? Well, I think that there are particular rules not within the gift of Scottish ministers and, quite rightly so, in terms of the separation of powers. The decision was made that Lady Smith would take up the role of chairman of the inquiry. That leaves a de facto gap in terms of the number of senators available to ensure the smooth administration of justice in Scotland and the Lord President had put in this request and the Scottish Government was minded to accede to that request in the particular circumstances presenting at this time, and that is the order before the committee today. Liam Kerr I am following up the similar line of inquiry. Obviously, we are in a caution neutral situation at the moment. I think that you hinted at the fact that, at the moment, without a crystal ball, it is impossible to gauge who may step down from that role and where we might be in 2019 or thereafter. However, in acceding to the Lord President's request, has any assessment been done on the pattern of retirels over the previous, I do not know, five, ten years and looking ahead what the likelihood is of retirements between now and 2019 that may leave us in a position where, come 2019, it will remain caution neutral because we will be at the point of still having 34 judges in place. I do not have that information to hand today, but I am happy to have officials look into the matter to see if there is any information that we can helpfully provide to the member in that regard. Okay, thanks. Perhaps I could ask the ministers the statutory age in which judges retire? 70? 75? 75. And they do map them out in each other? 75. 75, so perhaps— 70, I am sorry. 70. Perhaps by looking at the ages of the existing judges, we could answer Liam McArthur's question. Maybe further information that could be provided to the committee. Thank you. Are there any other questions from members? If not, then ministers, do you want to make any further remarks? No, thank you. Thank you. Then we will move to the debate on motion 01715 that the Justice Committee recommends that the maximum number of judges in Scotland's order 2016 draft be approved. I invite the minister to move the motion. I am happy to move it. Do members have any comments? No comments? Douglas, sorry. Can I take the morning of the motion and mention it being cost-neutral? What motion do you have before you? I am looking at the order here, so— The order. The background information, does it mention it being cost-neutral? So what I am wondering is, if we are waiting for further information from the minister— written information—we are agreeing something today without knowing the implications to what the minister was going to write to us about? I do not think that it affects the motion today, Percy. I think that the relevant question might be when the inquiry ends, we do not quite know what the implications will be. So if we were dubious at all about appointing perhaps Lady Smith— No, I do not think that. That is where the jubiety is. The jubiety, for me, occurs in 2019. If someone just looks back to the record of this meeting and sees that the committee agreed, yet we were waiting for outstanding information from the minister. Just on the cost neutrality of it. Or how it goes forward after 2019. We have to—I think that it is the 10th of November to agree this. If the minister could get the relevant information to us in advance on that, it could be circulated round the committee. Can you agree then? I will defer to Peter. We must report on the 10th to the chamber. The plan is not to have a meeting next week as we are away in business. An option for the committee would be to request this information by a particular date. The committee could delegate if it could pass the motion today. Or not, as the case might be. Delegate authority, the convener, to agree the report in line with normal practice. There could be an informal opportunity for members to see a draft of the report, including the information provided by the minister and to indicate whether they are content with the reply that has been provided, and report to Parliament on those terms. We used to be clear that if we pass the motion today, that must be set out in the report. There is no going back in that decision to agree to the motion today. Douglas, that is on your mind, John. I would be quite happy to follow that approach. John. I think that it is important that we send a very clear signal that this is not about the individual and that there is a compelling need for this individual to be appointed. I think that in previous session we did look at issues around succession planning and retirement, and I think that that is quite appropriate in any part of the public sector, but I would be very keen that we make this appointment. I was just going to make a matter of process that it is, of course, not this committee that approves this. It is Parliament. In other words, the approval does not happen today. We do not formally approve today. The committee approves today and then goes to Parliament. The committee can approve it today, and pending the information from the minister Parliament will confirm that approval. Minister, I take it that you do not want to make any closing remarks. No, thank you. I can ask you to move the motion. We agreed on the course that we want to approve. The question is that the motion 01715, the name and annul while you're in, be approved. Are we all agreed? Right. That concludes consideration of the three affirmative instruments on today's agenda. The committee's report will note and confirm the outcome of the debate on the three affirmative SSIs. Now, is this the case for all of them? Are members content to delegate authority to me as convener to clear the final draft of the report? Agreed. Thank you. In that case, it remains for me to thank the minister and officials for attending today, and we shall now have a brief suspension. Maid minister, convener, in relation to one of the negative instruments, if the minister were able to remain to answer my simple question. Maid minister, it was referred to entirely up to you if you want to look at that negative. Is that really the difference? Absolutely, I understand it. So I would need time to consult with the officials. If you don't mind, can we just... I mean, how important is it? No, no, it's only a matter of process. I think of it as just a matter of process. I think it would be just simply helpful if the Government indicated in relation to what delegated powers have said in relation to the errors, which I accept are comparatively minor, what their intentions are. And that is all there is to it, not necessarily now. Yeah, I think the important thing is the second instrument, amends all of these, and they were picked up, but it is a going concern, an ongoing concern with the committee that these errors persist. Minister, thank you very much for your attendance today. Thank you. Suspend to allow time for the minister to leave. The fifth item of business today is consideration of two negative SSIs that relate to civil legal aid fees. The first is civil legal aid Scotland fees, amendment regulations 2016, SSI 216, oblique 290, and civil legal aid Scotland fees, amendment number two, regulations 2016, SSI 2016 oblique 317. I refer members to paper 3 and ask for any comments. Concerned in the financial effects section of the civil legal aid Scotland fees, amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016 290, to see that there was an expectation that this measure would represent an increase in current costs, seeing the legal aid bill go up by 43 per cent, and I felt that, given the analysis in that section that we could perhaps do with some more information from the minister on why that would be the case if we are intending to simplify matters. As I understand it, this regulation looks at legal fees and takes cognisance of the fact that there may be less legal representation and therefore less legal aid. We would expect an increase in costs to be modest in the range of 93,000. Does that seem a little bit strange? Perhaps we could seek some clarification on that. Are members happy to do that? Are there any further comments on the negative instrument? On seeking more information, I am not quite sure what more information we are going to get that is not in before us already. This is supposed to be a simple procedure that means that you might not have to have representation encouraging more people not to have legal representation, and yet there is an increase in fees that does not seem to make sense. Is that your point? I will speak here as well to understand, given the questions that are asked or the challenges that are posed around the accuracy of the calculations, to understand where those numbers come from and what expectation there is that moving away from a block fee to a detailed fee will increase the bill. I think that if there is going to be a significant increase in costs as a result of going down the detailed fee route, we should know why that is. There is always a danger when you deal with percentages. The figure quoted, of course, that sound very compelling, or put another way, 93,000, to get a more simple procedure. It does not seem to be an issue to me, I have to be honest. We could have a right to mention and seek clarification. In the meantime, are members happy to note? Are we content to note the instrument and is the committee agreed that we approve it or note it? Do not want to make any recommendation. Okay, that's fine. We don't want to make any recommendation, only seek further clarification, that's fine. I suspend briefly to allow the next set of witnesses for our round table session to take their place. Item 6 is a round table evidence session with the British Transport Police, and it's a pleasure to welcome the various witnesses round the table. I don't intend to name them. Instead, we'll do just a quick introduction right round the table, so everyone knows who's who. I'm Margaret Mitchell, convener of the Justice Committee. I'm Rona Mackay, vice-convener of the Justice Committee. I'm Nigel Goodband. I'm the chairman of the British Transport Police Federation. I'm Darren Townsend, the general secretary of the British Transport Police Federation. Mary Fee, MSP, West of Scotland. Stuart Simpson, MSP, Bamshire and Buchan Coast. Bernie Higgins, assistant chief constable, operations and justice, Police Scotland. Marie Evans, MSP, Angus North and Merns. Oliver Mundell, MSP, Friddon Fisher. Douglas Ross, MSP, Highlands and Islands. Gordon Cross, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. Liam McArthur, MSP for Orkney. Good morning. I'm Adrian Hanstock, deputy chief constable of the British Transport Police. I'm John Finnie, MSP, Highlands and Islands. Nick Fife, director of the Scottish Institute for Police and Research. Ben Macpherson, MSP for Edinburgh, Northern and Leith. John Foley, chief executive officer of the Scottish Police Authority. Fylton MacGregor, MSP, Cotebridge and Crescent. The Justice Party. Do you want to introduce yourself? Peter McGrath, Clarke to the Justice Committee. The idea of the round table is to stimulate the conversation, not to have the formal question and answer. From that, I think that we get a better discussion and a better understanding of the issues. I'm going to open by highlighting that the BTPA has highlighted and put forward a number of options for the future of the British Transport Police in Scotland. They range from administrative changes to full-blown integration into Police Scotland. I'm opening it up to the panel as a very first question to discuss and give your views on which option you would prefer. Who's going to kick off first? Thank you very much for inviting us along. I think that we've made clear in all of the submissions that we absolutely understand the right will and, if you like, the direction of elected officials. That's what we'll work in to ensure that we contribute properly to any changes that emerge. Sticking with the actual question, which would be the preferred model, I think that, if I had to nail our position down, it would, at this stage, be recommended option 2, which is more of an interim and incremental development that preserves the best of what we think is already in place for the force. It doesn't introduce additional layers of complication, but ensures that the Scottish Government retains direction, control, accountability, has some control of funding or control of funding, whichever is chosen, but taking more of the direct leadership of the force, ensuring that we, as I say, are accountable, but preserves the operational capabilities that we think are significant and the transport policing ethos that we described throughout our submissions, is really what is at the heart of BTP, why it is different and specialist. I should just have said, if you do want to make a contribution, just catch my eye or just indicate or the clerk's eye, you don't have to press any buttons, if by magic then your microphone will come on. Anyone else who we've got? Oliver Mundell? I think that if you're saying the option 2 is your preferred route, I guess the question really is what do you and some of the other panellists make of the sort of haste in bringing forward such a significant change and what do you think is motivating that? I guess it hinges on the influence that clearly Scotland would like to have over the way the force operates. There's been a number of points I think made throughout and I've seen certainly some of the public comments to use an old hackney phrase if it's not broken what we're trying to fix, but I think the force executive and significantly stakeholders accept and acknowledge that Scottish public, Scottish politicians want to have a controlling hand, a clear say in what the force is doing. Now we don't think there's anything arguably that is out of kilter with what that might look like. We're absolutely open to stronger accountability, more exposure to what we're doing and why and why we feel that adds value both to the public but also the stakeholders who've run the railways and I think just in the nutshell that's why that option feels to be a win-win really for both sides without adding additional expense, additional controls in effect creating a border for operational policing that we don't need to do. So I suppose you're saying that one of the real strengths is that you have this free flowing across the whole of the UK and that that may be challenged in some of the other models? Indeed and you know there are some examples in our submissions you know whether that's around football policing, the movement of large numbers of people that we know can be problematic for all passengers or impacts of incidents without putting too fine a point of it dealing with disruption to the services that can be quite significant caused by fatalities, bomb hoaxes, abandoned luggage, its understanding the impacts of those. In real start terms an incident occurring in Edinburgh very quickly within an hour is impacting in the Midlands and London and elsewhere. What we can swing into place automatically without any control or negotiation is a response to that whether it's managing people, whether it's rerouting services because of the embedding staff we have in different train operating, regional operating sensors, control sensors, it just happens we don't have to then negotiate to say we've had an incident can you now arrange for your people to take on these these additional measures for us so that we can preserve services. If you'll indulge me one second you know one of the feedback I had on not in relation to this issue but from a train operating director just last week was he said years ago if we had a disruption to service we would be rolling out replacement bus services, marshals to deal with crowds, great big pieces of communications he said now we have a level of confidence, BTP hands the service back to us within 70 minutes for 70 minutes it's inconvenient but we can manage that because we're confident in the way that you bring all of the elements together and that includes their staff it's not just a policing response. Now the point I would make is how do we preserve that how would we wish to preserve that without introducing a dual control that could introduce further delay would be our position. I'm going to give priority to the witnesses and then bring in the members if that's okay so then followed by John Finnie. I would just like to reiterate some of the points that my deputy chief constable makes around the acknowledgement and and the respect that certainly we have as an organisation around the accountability and ownership that certainly the not just the Scottish Parliament but the Scottish people want around how policing is conducted within their environment and that's absolutely understandable. Our, certainly one of our concerns in light of so much within policing at the moment that is flagged around evidence-based aspects to it very much evidence-based policing is a term that's constantly used around current policing models. We would really like to know as an organisation what is the evidence base from where this decision is coming from to change what has already been shown as being a successful policing model and a model that works not only for England and Wales or any of that sort of stuff but more importantly is shown to work successfully for the people of Scotland and for the travelling public in Scotland and that was what certainly something that I was hoping to get out of today to get an understanding of the evidence that supports the reason for the change. I'm not sure that there's anyone qualified here around the table to give that evidence or to talk to that evidence but it's most certainly a point that's that's worth making during this round table discussion. Is it specifically on that point? It's just a very quick remark. You just have to say that it was brought forward as part of the Scotland Bill so that's where it emanated from. I'm not replying to your part about the evidence for it. I'm just saying that. But I think it was just brought in at the end of the Scotland Bill and perhaps there wasn't the due scrutiny of it that there could have been. John Finnie? Well, I can't let that pass, convener, regardless where it was brought in and it was brought in and significantly it was agreed by all the parties. I think that that is important. I'd like to comment on a number of the submissions, particularly the one that I don't know if it's yourself that's done it, Mr Hanstock, from BTP. And a recurring theme that things could only get worse, presumably things could get better. So for instance, in relation to comments that an attack in Scotland may well be prevented in England, well under present arrangements similarly an attack in England could be prevented from Scotland. And given the very well evidence, and it's the point that also Mr Townsend makes, about the performance of BTP, why anyone would seek to change, not least not that this would be a motivator for me, the compelling financial imperative of the efficiency with which you discharge your duties, particularly in relation to the tragedies, like fatalities on the line. But in relation to option 3, I would like to ask about that, because again it's predicated on a particular approach. You talk about option 2, BTP continued to align to principles set out in Scots law, but yet in the introduction you talk about domestic burglary, which of course clearly isn't applicable in Scotland. And later on talk about the 43 different forces were involved in delivering the service. Well, that's 43 in England and Wales. So again, it's not a broad perspective, but particularly what I wanted to know about was the comment that the challenge is associated with providing duplicate central support functions in dual accountability. As regard the support functions and counter-terrorism is across not just the UK but beyond, presumably the rail operating companies in Scotland, not just ScotRail, pay for these as well. So why would there be any diminution of these support functions? I think if I respond to that, I don't think that's what we're saying, that there would necessarily be any huge diminution or indeed difficulty in working with colleagues. It's absolutely possible and we do that now. I think the point I've made with 43 forces and 44 with Police Scotland is that there are protocols and understandings that we take responsibility for straight away without having to negotiate with command teams and leadership, whether it's operating across boundaries, across force areas. We might be, for example, dealing with an offender that resides naturally within a county area. We don't have to negotiate to then go and operate in that area. Of course operationally it is all absolutely doable. It's whether or not we feel though that we introduce for operating companies the fact that they have to negotiate with two different police forces to arrange their funding to understand who they contact in the event of certain delay. I mentioned different train operating directors. If there's an issue that's affecting the east or west coast main line, they'll pick up the phone and speak to the command team, one command team. It's knowing where that is and how to influence it, I guess, if you've got to do that through two companies. Those relationships develop. I don't think that any of the points being made are in any way showstoppers, but it introduces another layer of consideration and potential complexity, I think, is the point that we're making. You would acknowledge that there are arrangements, unconnected exclusively with transport, that apply across the police services of the United Kingdom and beyond? Oh, indeed. Some of those are, of course, preserved powers. You'll be undoubtedly aware and there's elements of the strategic policing requirement that all police forces in the UK have to commit to deal with the threats to the UK, whether that's from terrorism, organised crime, people trafficking and similar risk issues to the public. We are the police and we work in the public interest. I don't think we would ever put any delineation on those responsibilities. Mary Fee. John has more or less asked the question that I was going to ask, and it was around the way you work across the country to deal with terrorism or threats of terrorism. I just wondered perhaps if you wanted to expand a bit more on, practically, what you do now to ensure that there's almost a seamless operation across the country of sharing information and knowledge, and what impact you think it would have practically on what you do day to day if British Transport Police were part of Police Scotland? Taking the first point then, how do we understand the, if you like, the intelligence picture? Again, like Police Scotland and all forces, we are part of the national counter-terrorism arrangements and we work very closely with the police-led counter-terrorism arrangements seen most starkly just last week when we dealt with a bomb that was left on the tube in London. That was a national counter-terrorism response that involved a number of agencies and forces working together. Day to day, that's exactly how it would operate wherever that attack may have occurred. We often see the focus in London and capital cities, but equally Scotland has been touched by terrorism and attacks and those data activities will swing into place. Again, it's looking at the impact within a railway environment when, if I can use that example on the tube, what straight-away happens is it's not just about an incident that's happened at North Greenwich and we had to close part of a tube line. It was recognised in that passengers travelling into London are disrupted from that, that there's fear of travelling. How do straight-away our resources ride across the entire country step up their visibility to reassure people that we're alert to any potential threat? Again, that can happen in any case. This is just about a service mobilisation of the police. I think the point we make is that those things happen seamlessly now. There are rehearse plans. When you press that button to move to critical, then it's completely rehearsed and understood. Like we've made very clear throughout, none of these are insurmountable opportunities to put in place. The point of having, though, a dedicated resource that understands what does this absolutely mean for railway and people who use the railway. Terrorism probably overinflates the debate, in my view, to be honest, because if a terrorist attack occurs, then, of course, the national response is to deal with that because it's a threat to all of us. Probably what's more starkly is the prioritisation of things that might not be seen as quite as important. How would somebody trespassing on lines be prioritised against somebody fighting in the town centre? How would somebody who's a victim of domestic abuse be prioritised over a member of staff in the railway environment who's been spat at? These are all entirely important and things that we give enhanced priority to because it affects the confidence of people to work in the railway environment. If they don't feel they've got that connection and dedication, it undermines their ability. I saw this starkly in London. I was responsible for the transport policing element in the Met, about 2,500 officers policing the overground section of transport. Those dilemmas in senior command existed. Do we resource the buses or do we resource those parts of the city that are suffering from youth violence and knife crime? Of course, I think that we know where that decision would be placed. That's our fear that it's not the high-level things that would be affected. It's probably more the less prioritised in general sense. That's very helpful. Members on the list, but Mr Goodman? Deputy Chief Constable has possibly answered the question, but I wanted to just echo the term about that. We shouldn't just simply focus on the terrorist side. British transport police officers, whatever shift they work, they've done their uniform to parade and work within that environment. It's not diluted by any other outside influence. That is solely their responsibility. That's what they specialise in and that's what they understand. Putting that responsibility into a bigger organisation like Police Scotland, it becomes just another cog in a bigger wheel. I generally believe that it won't have the same daily attention and delivery of the same service that it receives at the moment because that is our sole responsibility. It's not influenced by any outside influence. It's not diluted in any way that we have to attend calls into the city centre. We are solely focused on policing that environment and that is why we are specialised because it is a particularly difficult environment to police. It's unlike any other environment in policing, to be honest. I was right. Maybe I didn't fully answer it. Where that flows through more pertinent though is in the leadership because all of the leaders and people who have been promoted in the force have experienced that environment as constables and first responders. I think where I've seen in the previous places where it becomes difficult is where people move between those commands without understanding the specialism. A particular point, Mary Vee. Can I ask a very brief supplementary then? Would a concern of yours be then that if there is any kind of pullback from the operation, the daily operation of police if you're subsumed into Police Scotland, that the responsibility for the day-to-day incidents that happened on the train may be passed down to the ScotRail staff? I'm not sure whether it would be passed down to Rail staff because Rail staff couldn't deal with some of the policing issues. I just believe that when you are another cog in a bigger wheel, the service that we deliver, which has been proven to be an excellent service, and let's not deny the fact that this is about the service that we provide not only to the train operating companies, but to the travelling members of public. I think that that will be diluted in the priorities of Police Scotland are totally different to what the train operating companies and the passengers want. I suspect that there are many communities who would love to dictate to Police Scotland how they would like their police officers to function within their communities. The train operating companies do have that relationship with us and get involved with discussing and negotiating their priorities, and we try to achieve them successfully on many occasions. I generally believe that it could potentially be diluted if it was part of the bigger organisation. I take that as a resource, but I'm conscious that I haven't heard any comments from Police Scotland or the Association of Police Superintendents. Mr Crossing, do you want to come in just now before I take Douglas? I'll touch on that. There could be a detriment to service—absolutely everybody gets that—but there could be an enhancement to service by the ability to flex resources that exist within Police Scotland who could go and assist, for instance, on the railway. For me, what we have to make sure is that there's no detriment to service to the public that they get from Police Scotland as it exists just now or from British Transport Police. The bigger issue for me that's not been discussed is about cross-border policing powers moving forward. We know just now that British Transport Police do a lot of work for us, particularly around events, football, etc., where they seamlessly move across the border protecting our public. That would take a legislative change in my mind to allow that to continue if those officers then became part of Police Scotland. If that legislative change didn't come through, we couldn't provide that seamless service to the public as it exists just now. Can I ask you about backfilling? That's an issue just now within Police Scotland, and we're now assuming British Transport Police into Police Scotland. How do you have any concerns in that regard? Was your first bit about backfilling? Backfilling, yes. I think that what's already been discussed is that the intention would be to look at a railway division or BTPs, assuming that they're into part of a port's policing and where there would be protection roundabout there. That protection—in my mind—would mean that they would definitely stay in a particular area. It would allow us to flex resource. I think that we're all mature enough to understand that, at times, that would mean that people would have to move perhaps from doing something on the railway to assist elsewhere. Likewise, within normal policing, we'd assist within the railway. At present, Police Scotland actually responds to a lot of rail incidents as a first responder, particularly when it's at outline areas. We have a relationship with BTPs to deliver that. I'm confident that, if we get the right processes in place, as Mr Hanstock has articulated, it's having that confidence that the processes are in place and that the relationships that we have in place will continue to deliver a quality service. I will get to you, Douglas, but I want to let DCC Hanstock come in again, because he's a witness. We really want to hear from him. Thank you. I'm very grateful for Chief Superintendent Croson's points there, but if I could offer a counter, absolutely we work in collaboration with Police Scotland now. Similarly, BTP officers respond to Police Scotland issues in some of the more remote elements too, so this is very much about policing communities and environment, and that happens now. On the point of cross-border collaboration, yes, of course, it's entirely possible to legislate for jurisdictional capacity, but I guess the point would be is why would BTP provide that additional cover arguably if they don't have responsibility for Scotland then? You mentioned about events, policing. We do that seamlessly now. We will move people from our C division up into D, which is Scotland, without any consideration of what the implication of that is, because that's our end-to-end policing. However, if we didn't have responsibility for Scotland, why would we want to move those resources in that way? It would, I guess, be a commissioned service that Police Scotland would have to pay for. Can I bring perhaps Mr Higgins in just now, because we haven't heard from you at all? Thank you, convener. Good morning, colleagues. I don't really have too much to say other than to give you a broad overview of what the Police Scotland position is and then give some general comments. Firstly, that isn't a land grab on the part of Police Scotland. We will respect the decision of Parliament and deal with that decision. In terms of operationally, I have to agree with the DCC. It's complicated but not insurmountable. Operationally, we could absolutely police the rail network in Scotland. There would be massive transition issues to overcome and we would need to plan carefully for the future in terms of what the DCC talked about in terms of senior officers having that intimate knowledge over a number of years. Operationally, it cannot be said that it's insurmountable. Where it is more complex is certainly in the back office in terms of conditions of service for existing staff, for the officers themselves, in terms of their pensions, their contracts. Again, that's something that brighter people than me can work out. When we talk about resilience, if we entered into a service level agreement with the rail operators, then any service level agreement that the chief constable would undertake to maintain that level. Right now, we would absolutely undertake to maintain the current level of staffing in train stations across Scotland. As Gordon rightly pointed out in many occasions, that would be supplemented by existing Police Scotland asset and resource. Like everything else, police officers would agree with me if there was a threat to life incident outside a train station and the expectation that even as it is just now, then BTP officers would go and deal with it. To give the committee some reassurance, we would absolutely enter into an agreement with the train providers and give that guarantee that we would maintain the current level of officer provision. In addition, we would afford grandfather rights to all existing BTP officers, which in essence mean that, if they want to continue and serve within the BTP for the remainder of their police career, we would respect that wish. Okay. I'll let Doug listen, because he has been waiting very patiently. I've got a few points to make. First of all, I'll come back to the point that was made by Rona Mackay and John Finnie. Yes, there was cross-party agreement with the Smith commission to devolve the functions of the British Transport Police to the Scottish Parliament. What there is certainly not cross-party support for is the destruction of the British Transport Police, as it is, and assuming it into an organisation that is still going through considerable challenges since the formation of the single police force over three years ago. I would like to start my questions with Police Scotland and Mr Foley of the SPA. First of all, what specialist and national resources that are available to Police Scotland are you currently withholding from the British Transport Police? None. It's a very close working relationship. For example, whenever we have a major event, Ryder Cup, Commonwealth Games, the recent old-firm game, then British Transport Police are at the planning table. If they require any of our specialist assets—dogs, firearms officers, public order—we would supplement it. It's the right thing to do. It's absolutely the right thing to do, and I'm encouraged by that. In stark contrast, what the First Minister said in the chamber earlier on this year, when she said that the move to assume British Transport Police into Police Scotland will allow them to have access to that specialist and national resource that Police Scotland has access to. The First Minister is telling MSPs in this Parliament that you're withholding access, yet you've just very clearly said there that there are no functions that you currently have that you won't give to the British Transport Police in its current format. There's nothing that the dogs, the organisation, with major events like the Ryder Cup—so I'm very encouraged to hear that response, because it's certainly not the impression that was given by the First Minister in the Parliament. It's not for me to speak on behalf of the First Minister. However, what I would say is that our specialist assets are not routinely deployed into BTP. It's a matter of request and consideration. To my knowledge, we have never refused a request, but what I'm saying is that, should that occur, then it would be routine deployments of additional assets into the railway state, as opposed to on a needs must and request basis, as is currently the position. It's good to hear this good working relationship that you currently have that is not denying any of that availability. Can I ask either ACC Higgins or Mr Foley what were the discussions that the SPA or Police Scotland had with the Scottish Government prior to the Scottish Government's consultation on the future of BTP within Scotland? We would have had discussions around that time with civil servants to understand what that might mean. I can tell you that we have jointly set up a BTP programme board, and I sit on that board as the chief executive of the British Transport Police Authority and civil servants. The idea behind that is to manage the process through integration. ACC Higgins referred earlier to matters that I would describe as workforce matters, such as pensions. We are working through those aspects of it to make sure that everyone from a people's sense is taken care of and that we get the best possible outcome. That's useful, but that's post the announcement of the consultation by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government could have had a consultation on what to do with British Transport Police in Scotland. Instead, its consultation was, how do we integrate British Transport Police with Police Scotland? What was the discussion with the Scottish Government before its consultation, which basically said that, unambiguously, it will be merged into Police Scotland, rather than that there are three options of varying degrees of complex nature. We have gone for the most complex and difficult merger, and therefore, they must have had assurances from Police Scotland and the SPA prior to their consultation that that was acceptable. I couldn't say that it's definitely the most difficult option, because clearly we're working through that at the moment. Would it be less difficult than maintaining the BTP functions but having more accountability and scrutiny within either the Parliament or the SPA, rather than, as we've heard already, from ACC Higgins about going into all the personnel issues, staffing issues and the cross-border issues that are affected? I wouldn't say that it was necessarily more or less difficult. It depends on what the outcome is at the end of the day. Clearly, we have a single police service in Scotland, and the SPA would look to see that if we integrate BTP into the single Police Scotland service, that it operates more effectively as part of that unit than it did before. However, I can't say that as a definite outcome at the moment, because we're still working through those processes. What led the SPA, or Police Scotland, to say that this is the definitive model that we think would be best from a financial point of view, from any other point of view? Were there any discussions on that? We didn't take a view to that extent, convener, because, largely, we are following the will of Parliament, and it's in the Scotland Bill. Therefore, as an authority, that's what we have to carry out, which is our function, is to do what Parliament wishes. Very similar to Mr Foley, convener. The recommendation of the Smith commission, as you will be well aware, has specifically not responded to the public consultation, where I believe that the three options have been developed, and the reason for that is that we will simply await the decision of Parliament. Just on that point, was it? It's been a promise of the Scottish Government that the specialist railway policing, expertise and capacity will be maintained and protected within the broader structure of Police Scotland. I don't know how you can guarantee that, because the level of uncertainty that sits within the officers of BTP Scotland won't guarantee the retention of staff, because there are certain staff who are at a time in their career that won't want to take a particular risk by changing terms and conditions, changing pensions, rights, et cetera, and transfer over, which isn't a voluntary transfer, it's very much going to be an enforced transfer. Therefore, there will be individuals who will choose to leave policing if they don't any longer remain a British Transport Police officer. How do the Scottish Government and Police Scotland give the public the guarantee that they can retain that expertise, knowing that, potentially, there are going to be officers who leave the force? I think that you've had a good quote on that, Douglas. I'll move on to Stuart Stevenson. Thank you. I wanted to broaden it out a wee bit in a couple of ways. The first of which is that we have British Transport Police that's long established and, of course, has created another era. As specialists in moving large numbers of people around, it's only rail for which they're responsible. I wondered whether the skills and abilities and experience could sensibly equally be applied to other modes of transports, in particular like ferries and like airports. For example, the incident that there was last week where it appears a CS canister was released at London City Airport. If somebody had walked the four minutes that it takes from the check-in desks to the Docklands-like railway, it would have been the British Transport Police dealing with it, but, as it happened, I presume it would be the local special branch and armed response people who would be resident in the airport. It strikes me as a kind of obvious thing that that seemed wasn't it. Of course, there is the further complication that the previous Mayor of London Boris Johnson and the current Mayor of London are interested in merging the City of London Police, the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police in London. In particular, with Transport for London taking over many of the heavy rail responsibilities operationally in that area, they are making that argument. I wonder whether the argument there touches the argument here. I think that it's probably quite different, but it would be interesting to hear whether, rather than having a specialist from Police Scotland at Edinburgh Airport, where Edinburgh and Glasgow are 6 or 7 million people a year travelled to London, the railways is 2 or 3 million, whether the specialisms might be deployed in different transport areas. There are special branches at Stranraith to go across Ireland, for example, and so on and so forth. I just wonder what there is there. A number of very live issues. Some members may be all too familiar that BTP was once responsible for ports policing, so it does have a long history of that. If I can touch on two things then. The first is, should we be doing more of what it says on the tin, transport policing? There is debate in government in London at the moment about an expansion of infrastructure policing that would see a force, a single force, not necessarily called British Transport Police, but a force that would be responsible for arterial roads policing, airports and other transport modes that you describe. You're quite right. Airport policing is just another public service agreement that could be assumed by a number of things and I think you're quite clearly picking up on. It's the end-to-end journey. The final link in that chain is some of the work that we do if again, if I can bring it right down to a basic level, is protecting people from the theft of cycles. It's really important when they've travelled 30 miles on a commuter journey to get to their station, find they can't get the last two miles home, somebody snick their bike, and that's why our focus is sometimes at odds with what geographic policing might see as a priority. Infrastructure policing, yes, and I guess I can paraphrase. Just to interrupt briefly, you're not including the Ministry of Defence's responsibility in relation to critical national infrastructure policing. No, and that infrastructure, which is another specialism. It is, and there are a couple of models that I think are again referenced in our submission that are under debate, but again, I can almost paraphrase ACC Higgins. Of course, we could do that. If asked, we could expand our remit to provide a seamless transport service, should that be, should that be with the will. Turning to London, again, there's been a number of times that the principle of the Met's taking over responsibility for the three forces that operate in London. But again, it misses the point somewhat that policing the tube and the networks that end in London is one element of policing it. It misses the end-to-end impact right across the network, though. Dealing with the fatality in Milton Keynes very quickly stops all movement of people at Euston and the termini in that part of the capital. It's how we then seamlessly again make that connection without having to have layers of activity. Can I just come in then? That argument would also apply if there was a road traffic accident on the entrance to a railway station or to a major airport. Unless we have a single police force doing everything that all police do covering the whole of this island, there are going to be interfaces. Absolutely. Burnie makes the point. We respond to what we need to deal with to preserve life, to deal with the most serious incidents. The BTP officers have jurisdiction throughout England, Wales and Scotland now. They are not just restricted to the environs of railway stations anymore and do that. We've had any number. It's interesting when I moved across here. People gave me the epithet saying, were you going to be walking up and down corridors collecting fares now, weren't you? We'll actually know. We do everything that I was doing in the Met, but we also have the added complication of high voltage, heavy rolling stock, cramped environments, tunnels, cuttings, heights. It's a double whammy when you're policing in railways, not just a single extension of what you happen to do in the streets. The trams in Edinburgh, for example. I don't think we cover Edinburgh trams, but we show in Croydon, we do in Newcastle. Right, that's okay. Just to reassure members, I've got Mary Oliver and Liam on the list. However, I'm conscious that I haven't heard from Professor Nick Fife. If there's anything you'd like to say just now, Professor Miles would be happy to hear it. Okay, thank you, chair. I mean, I suppose just to put my contribution in a little bit of a perspective, I'm part of the team that's responsible for the evaluation of police and fire reform in Scotland, so our evidence is really looking at the challenges around the integration of the legacy forces both in police and fire. I suppose what we've attempted to highlight in our evidence are some of the challenges around that. None of those challenges are insurmountable, but I think they're all things that one ought to be mindful of in relation to this. I suppose just two or three key points. One would be the need to clearly articulate the benefits of integration. Going back to Mr Townshend's point about having an evidence base around a policy decision of this kind, but I think it's not just a question about why change is needed, it's also about how change will happen, so being clear about what the mechanisms are by which that process of integration would happen and how it would deliver specific benefits. I think our second point would really be that just a recognition of the timescales required for integration and the skills needed to achieve that. Certainly the journey in terms of police reform over the last three years has seen that process really take probably longer than people anticipated and that three years in we're really I suppose at that phase of consolidation and integration rather than at the stage of transformation, so in terms of radical change we're just reaching that stage. Clearly, as we've already heard, the integration of BTP into Police Scotland would be a highly complex task given the distinctive characteristics of what BTP deals with. A final point is recognising the importance of differences in organisational cultures. It was a point that was made in the evidence both by BTP and BTPA. There is a distinctive culture and ethos of policing the railways and I think just as it was experienced in the integration of the eight forces in Scotland, those cultural differences are really important in terms of a kind of smooth transition towards creating an integrated service, so being mindful of all those things I think is important. I'd just like to ask Professor Fife around the evaluation report, I think it was a year one summary report that I got from the social research. It describes the situation with both obviously the Police Service of Scotland and obviously the fire and rescue and it describes that both of which are currently still on a journey and that you made that point around it. That's not concluded yet and that it's been quite a complex evaluation that's taken place to look at that. The way it's written in there would say that that journey has not been completed yet and it is still on going. My point around this is that is this a complication that this journey currently requires at the moment to add another aspect into organisations that are having to evolve and change and I think it probably credit to my colleagues in Police Scotland that with all the changes they still deliver a magnificent service to the people of Scotland without a doubt. But at the moment is this something that would potentially make that task even more complex you know with a journey that's not yet complete that you're adding a degree of uncertainty that I think my colleague touched on with with offices where there hasn't been no definitive answers around terms and conditions, there's been no definitive answers around pensions and certainly from a staff association perspective those are areas that we would pick up on for our members moving forward. I just wonder what your thoughts were on that level of complexity adding another layer within. Yeah I mean I think that issue of timing is a relevant one. I suppose my point would be that we are just kind of entering that phase of kind of transformational change now that a lot of work is going into a 10-year strategy for Police Scotland at the moment and you know our expectation is that the challenges around transformation will be just as great as the challenges that have been faced around integration and consolidation over the last three years. So it is a critical moment I think in the development of Police Scotland and they will be dealing you know I think with a lot of a lot of change over the next three or four years as this new 10-year strategy is implemented. Mary? Yeah thank you convener. Yeah essentially I asked my question earlier it was really about the backfilling and how you would see the resources moving between the two and if that is a real concern. But I also had some questions I know it was mentioned earlier about the pension arrangements and the different conditions for employment. So it's just to see and to ask you if there have been discussions about that so far have you been given any assurances or what assurances would you be looking for in terms of pension arrangements and conditions for service to ensure that there wouldn't be any financial detriment to officers should that happen? Mr Herstal? Well at that point that is probably the overarching complication of this. We've explored I guess some of the operational limitations notwithstanding it's all quite possible to overcome those arguably with some dual controls that we wouldn't ideally wish to see. But the pensions, the terms and conditions, the legacy rights, the travel arrangements, the resettlement obligations it's I guess complicated by the fact that British Transport Police officers and staff are employees not crown servants and I think we again we've referenced some of those complications that we haven't yet seen a clear way through. I understand officials are very much looking at that but it's a deep concern to the members of the force as the Federation have pointed out and I think on that point it's Professor Fife's point about culture you know there is there's a reason why our officers choose to join BTP it is a very specialist policing role and equally those officers could have chosen to join Police Scotland but they want to be part of the very specialist force and function that we we play. I've had the luxury of working in both environments I've worked in this is now my third police force and I do see a distinction between the policing in British Transport Police. The responsibility and some of the things that officers do that are unlike any other police service the in stark terms dealing with the tragedy of fatality on railways they work and deal with things that I'm not where any other officers I've worked with have had to deal with so frequently. Now again I'm not saying that others can't do that of course they can but there's a choice and there's a reason why British Transport Police officers in Scotland elected to join this force. We're going back to your point the preservation of their rights and conditions in terms it's complex very complex I would argue as as Bernie said it will need some big brains to work through it but undoubtedly I'm sure it could be done. The members have small follow-ups I'll let if they're very brief that Stuart Stevenson Douglas could you take them together please? It's tiny I just don't know the difference because I'm ignorant between Crown Servants and employees if it's possible to concisely explain it to me if not could you point it where I could go and read about it? Indeed and it's probably worth getting some formal distinction between the two but as employees they have employment rights over redundancy and resettlement and if they've employed under a contract that guarantees travel rights they have to be preserved whereas police officers can be moved anywhere they can they work to a national set of pay and reward framework. Douglas then John could you take them together both give you questions and then we'll take the answers together. They're together because mine's to Professor Fife so does John Finnie want to finish? Yes John. To make the point that police officers in Scotland are not Crown Servants they're Public Servants. It's just to Professor Fife and I was hoping to get in earlier but you note in your conclusions that with any mergers there's the need for careful scrutiny of the financial, strategic and operational aspects of a merger and you say that's imperative. Based on what we've heard today that the discussions with the SPA and Police Scotland were not about whether this was the right way forward prior to the consultation it was about how you'll do it after the consultation and given the consultation it's only about one option. Do you think then that the Scottish Government have really carefully considered the scrutiny of the financial, strategic and operational aspects if they've gone about a consultation that already gives the answer before they go out looking for further information? I mean I think as I sort of go on to say I think that potentially there is a role for Audit Scotland and for HMICS to do further scrutiny around this before the process proceeds further so that there is scope for more detailed investigation into the financial and the operational aspects of any integration. To announce your preferred option which the Scottish Government have done here? I mean I could see that that would make sense. Mr Folly, then it's all over followed by Liam. Can I stop you a minute, Mr Folly? Sorry, convener, I accept the point that Mr Ross is making but just to give the committee some assurance that the BTP programme board will be reviewing the financial aspects and indeed is very mindful of the pension and terms and conditions aspect in relation to moving forward and also it would be my intention to consult with colleagues in the British Transport Police Authority with a view to having Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland carry out an inspection possibly next year which would obviously be prior to any implementation. What you say and move on to Oliver, followed by Liam. I know what Mr Folly says as well but it sort of misses the point that we keep coming back to, that those discussions with British Transport Police and consultations are only going to take place round one option that's already been put on the table and I for one just don't think that's good enough but there was two points I wanted to make. The first was in relation to Professor Fife's comments round the continued change in transformation in Police Scotland and I think that that is really worrying and I think certainly in my constituency where we're seeing a further eight police stations or in my region where we're seeing a further eight police stations identified for closure we're seeing continued challenges around rural policing where the new structures don't provide the level of service and the type of policing that the public have been used to and expect and I think that there is a real danger that if we try and rush this decision and that's what it feels like to me that we risk not taking the public and not taking individual police officers within British Transport Police along that journey and that means losing expertise it means a continued diminishing of trust in what the single police force in Scotland is all about and I think we need to really look at those issues but I also wanted on my second point to ask about the number of officers who'll be dedicated to policing the railways because we've heard the term diluted used and the flexing of resources and to me they both sound like the opposite sides of the same coin which is actually about using police officers who are currently dedicated to railway policing to plug gaps that have emerged through the sort of implementation of the single police force and I'm not clear that when we say that the will maintain the current level that that actually means that those officers will be dedicated and that they will be solely focused on the railways and I think that that is a big public concern. I now move to Mr Higgins to reply to that and Mr Croson. Thank you, convener. Firstly, in terms of the current state of Police Scotland, yes, we are in a transition period. We have a strategy based on 2026 and I would argue that that's the actions of a responsible organisation moving forward, creating a more effective and efficient police service to serve the changing needs of all of Scotland's communities. You could argue that in this period of transition, if it's the will of Parliament, this is actually the best time to integrate British transport police into the wider Police Scotland. Again, I make no comment about the decision of Parliament. I'm merely saying that if we're going through a transition period then over the next three or four years it would make sense to me to include this element of it. In terms of the ring fencing and diluting their not words that I used, sir, where I was very clear as the current strategic lead for Police Scotland is that, should that occur, we will ring fence the current establishment of BTP officers, which I believe is sitting at around 225 or thereabouts plus staff. Police Scotland would enter into a service level agreement, which would guarantee that that figure of 225 would remain policing the railway estate, augmented by additional Police Scotland resources. However, there would be a caveat that, in times of crisis, it would be—of course, the chief constable's right to redirect those resources, but I underline the term in times of crisis. I'm sure that times of crisis will provide a lot of reassurance to members of the public, because for a lot of them it seems that Police Scotland is in crisis almost every day. I would ask what is going to happen to those officer levels. Will they be considered in terms of rail officers, dedicated rail officers? Will they be considered as part of the review as well and be potentially reduced as part of that? Mr Higgins, Mr Croson? No is the short answer. We have publicly said on a number of occasions that we would respect the rights of the BTP officers to remain within the railway environment, and in terms of our service level agreement with the railway operators, we would maintain the current establishment. We are going to have a review on an evidence basis for every other officer in Police Scotland, but we are going to continue to have a ring-fence number of officers for British Transport Police. That is based on the fact that the rail providers pay a sum of money for policing services, and that sum of money is based on the number of officers that are deployed. If that sum of money reduces, then clearly the number of officers would be reduced, but you are paying for the assets deployed in the estate. The only thing that I would say, convener, is that the lead-in period to this is potentially April 19, as I understand it. We have many specialists, whether it be road policing, whether it be forensic examinators or examiners, who undergo massive training that is maintained. My belief is that we would simply look at policing the railways with that sort of discipline. To go into a fatal road accident in the A9, you need to be an accredited road policing officer, you need to be a crash scene investigator. Just as DCC has mentioned, there are absolutely specialisms within BTP, but we would simply seek to replicate that along similar lines to what we have had in many other specialist areas of Police Scotland. Very briefly, I think that I touched on Mr Mundell's points. For me, any transition such as that that is proposed has got to remember about people. Our HR department, obviously, is still going through dealing with three and a half years of change. We are in discussions with Mr Follif and the SPA about having confidence that, as the change takes place, we will look after the people who are moving to make sure that they are supported, looking after their wellbeing, because we all know that change puts significant challenges to people. Amongst that, we will also look at the training aspect of it as people move across. Again, I will reiterate my point, as there is an opportunity here for people within Police Scotland to benefit from the experience of well-trained British Transport Police officers and, similarly, for some of their BTP colleagues to learn from the good activities within Police Scotland. That HR strategy needs to be robust enough to look after people during the change. Mr Goodland? I am the point of Mr Higgins. I do not think that you may be able to guarantee the numbers, but you certainly cannot guarantee the expertise that currently pleases the railways, because that expertise will indeed be diluted. I can personally give you that guarantee. There will be officers from the British Transport Police, as the Deputy Chief Constable has pointed out, who joined the British Transport Police because of the nature of that role. If they wanted to join Police Scotland, they would have applied for Police Scotland, so there are officers who ultimately want to be and will remain or want to remain as officers in British Transport Police. Ultimately, you will lose expertise. In addition to that, there are officers at a certain level of service who will, due to the nature of the uncertainty, leave the organisation. Some of those individuals are the middle management and senior management who provide the leadership in addition to the expertise. I personally do not think that you can guarantee that you will replace immediately. Long term, I accept, but immediately there will be a time frame where that expertise will be diluted. Mr Townsend, then Mr Hanscock, and after that, in terms of members, Liam and Ben? Mr Higgins made. I think that you made mention of the figure of 225. With this matter progressing and you speak of going forward to 2019, that for me has to be a real concern around how the process will continue. I think that those numbers will potentially diminish the longer that goes on and the more we progress towards 2019 without any concrete detail or assurances around the whole pensions situation. There is a potential for a liability for the Scottish taxpayer around how those numbers are going to be managed because it is an entirely different pension scheme. I would just ask that Mr Foley is certainly well that that has progressed in order that we can try to give Mr Higgins some assurances around those numbers. If we do not start to see some figures, some detail and just some structure around how that is going to be managed with it being an entirely different pension scheme, because those officers cannot just transfer in to the current Police Scotland pension scheme because it is entirely different and is closed. We have officers on 13 35-year schemes that cannot continue with that into Police Scotland because that is not an option that is open to them. In order to give some certainty and even look to try and sustain those numbers if that is going to happen, work needs to be done around that whole pensions issue and needs to be done quite soon rather than just talk about 2019, but we do not seem to be getting any further along with that. Personally, I give a commitment that we will be addressing that. We have started to look at those matters. The programme board that I referred to earlier has representation clearly from the British Transport Police Authority on it and there are work streams that are now established and they will be looking at those matters and other workforce matters as we move forward, but for me absolutely the workforce issue is at the top priority. I am very conscious of time. I am going to bring in ACC Higgins and then Mr Hanstock, then the now three remaining members, if their questions could be quite succinct. I know you waited a long time but we are looking really just to be able to move here probably no later than about 11.50. Mr Higgins, if the answers could be quite succinct and the questions— Thank you, convener. I will be pleased to not interpret what I have said as trying to make this seem straightforward. It is not. It is massively complicated and complex and I do accept that. I accept your points, Mr Goodand, around potentially losing staff. That is just the circle of life in many ways. People come and people go, but with a transition period of just over two years, part of the complex work that we would undertake is to seek to recruit within Police Scotland to train and to identify exactly what the training needs analysis is for BTP. I am certainly not trying to minimise the task in front of us. It would be massive, it would be complex, but, as DCC has said on several occasions, operationally there is nothing here that is unsurmountable, but the terms and conditions are massively complex. Some of this has been covered, but it is easy to retain the numbers. It is one of prioritisation, I think. I have seen elsewhere that you can maintain the obligations of a contract. It is what skills you put into that. If you have a choice, would you put your experience towards detective roles, risk to the public in other areas, whether that is domestic abuse, child sexual exploitation or other of the high-profile issues, or would you put it into this area? I have seen transport can be a risk from that. Similarly, around the operational delivery, I agree, and we have said a number of times that it is possible, the question might want to be asked, why does British Transport Police exist now if it is so easy for it to be absorbed into a geographic response? 43 forces are not screaming to take responsibility for police in the railway. In terms of a rationale for why the specialism is so valued by the industry and the passengers and the nearly 3 billion people who use it annually, I think there is a case to say that it has not just emerged out of a want for some enthusiasts. There is a real need for police in the railway in a different way. Liam? Thanks very much, convener. It is following on some of the exchanges, I think, on the back of all of Mondale's questions. We have focused very much on the impact of the BTP and the complexities of what the Government is proposing to do under the legislation, but it strikes me—and it has been mentioned many times—that the state that Police Scotland is in in its own progression. I wonder what the response is going to be within Police Scotland to the concessions that are given in order to address the concerns that are quite rightly and legitimately raised by those representing BTPs on behalf of their members. The more that is conceded, whether it is in terms of pensions, whether it is in terms of conditions, whether it is in terms of ring fencing numbers, against the backdrop of an on-going review where all of that is off the table for Police Scotland and that what you end up doing is folding BTP officers into an organisation where, right from the get-go, there is a degree of conflict and a casting an eye over the treatment of some component parts of Police Scotland compared to those that are currently in the force at the moment. I suppose that there is more a question for ACC Higgins, but it does strike me that because we are focusing on the issues of BTPs, we are rather losing sight of some of the well-documented issues that confront Police Scotland at the moment and are reflected in some of the statistics around morale, etc. I think that the important distinction to make is that Police Scotland would be paid by the rail providers for a service. It would be a contract between us and the rail providers, so we would be legally and lawfully obliged to maintain those officer numbers. In terms of the pain conditions, absolutely, Mr MacArthur, it is a really valid point. However, when Police Scotland was formed on 1 April 2013, we brought together eight legacy forces into other organisations. The terms of conditions that are applied have not yet been resolved, so we have a number of officers who retain legacy terms of conditions that are not applied to other officers doing the exact same job. For example, dog handlers, depending on what part of the country they are, depends on what allowance you receive based on your legacy arrangements. To change that, we would need to go to PNB to do so. For the life of Police Scotland thus far, we have that unusual situation where we have officers across the country who have slightly different pain conditions based on what their legacy force arrangements were. There is a comparison with what would happen with BTP officers transferring in. I entirely understand that. Against the backdrop of a revenue deficit that seems to be ballooning at the moment—I think that the last figure is about 27 million, as far as I understand it—will there not be pressure on Police Scotland to look at those areas where revenue is coming in, i.e. from rail operators, and say, in order to continue to maintain those numbers, we are going to have to hike the cost of what is charged to rail operators in order to deliver the commitment around numbers in terms of the form of BTP policing. Even if you maintain the numbers, it will come at a consequence, given the position that you are currently in at the moment. Is there not also a risk that the stakeholder pays for the BTP service just now, if they are not satisfied, they could walk? Is that a right assessment? I am not aware of the intricacies of the contract arrangements. I believe that the rail operator is required to fund, if that is correct. All of the franchise agreement that they have to pay for the policing requirement. Is that capped? How is that arrived? There is negotiation on cost and there is quite a challenge around budgets. I know that that is a significant concern of the industry, that any additional cost for new pension arrangements or to boost and bolster the legacy rights will be a charge back to the operators, which they say, why is that beneficial to us? We are paying even more for what we have currently got, arguably, with a worse level of service. That is the short-hand of it. Do they have any options in that case, or do they just have to accept the highest costs? Charges can be defrayed to them, but again, it is not without challenge. It is quite a complex set of financial arrangements to do that. Thank you, convener. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for your contribution so far. Just two quick questions, first of all to ACC Higgins. I just wondered if you could elaborate further on your response to Douglas Ross earlier on the operational benefits of a specialist railway policing service with direct access to local specialists and national resources at Police Scotland. Secondly, with regard to Mr Townsend and Mr Fuller's exchange earlier on pensions arrangements, I wondered if there was an open-mindedness around the SPA becoming a participating employer in the current scheme, particularly for existing members. If you could reveal more about any discussions around any creation of a new scheme, if that is envisaged as something that is required, I presume that that would be a divine contribution scheme, but if there is any further detail that you can give, I appreciate that that detail might not yet be available, but I am certainly interested to hear what stage any discussions are at around pensions. I guess that the answer to your question, Mr Macpherson, is firstly its volume. There is a significant amount of specialist assets spread across the entirety of Scotland, whether that be dog officers, firearms, public order officers, crime scene examiners, where perhaps just now BTPs do not have the resource and it would take several hours for them to get there, whereas Police Scotland can provide that assistance. There is also the aspect of some of the specialisms that we currently have, which BTPs do have, but they are not based in Scotland. Again, just to re-emphasise my point, we have an excellent working relationship with British Transport Police. We happily will deploy resources as requested, but I think that the difference would be rather than waiting for the request to come in. Should that occur, then it would be more done on a more routine basis, putting additional assets into the real way of state. I think that that is absolutely right, and if we need to work in collaboration on something of that significance, we would. It is not specialist skills that is behind the heart of what BTP gives the industry. It is our specialist knowledge of things that cause disruption, delay and impact. Dealing with crime is policing. We all do that, and we draw on the skills we need, and at times of the most extreme need, we all pull together to do that. What is different in policing the railways, though, is understanding the incident and where it impacts much, much further along the line. That is what the industry treasures, the fact that we can assess that quickly, we can risk assess it with some precision, and we can return the service quickly. That is where we add true value to the industry and the economy and the ability of those franchises to operate. If we put more cost on those, that could bring into question the viability of them to deliver the service that is actually treasured. I can answer quite quickly. We have not been a part of any pensions discussions at this stage. I am aware that there has been contact made with RPMI, which is the pensions management that look after all the pensions for the VTP officers. However, as a federation, we have not been partied to that, so I could not tell you where that was and whether they were being looked at as a participating employer or not. If I could put some clarity on that as well, I will refer to the BTP programme board, which has representation from British Transport Police Authority and the Police Authority. We have been looking at legislative matters primarily thus far, but in the summer, we set up six work streams. One of those work streams will absolutely focus on pensions in terms of conditions, so the work is under way, and I am quite sure that you will be contacted very soon. It is clear that the opportunity to become a participating employer in the current scheme is still available, as things stand. I think that, to be more specific, Mr McPherson, there is an open mind in relation to this, and what you are referring to as a possibility of admitted body status, which sometimes happens in pension schemes, and that will be looked at. I cannot give you an answer to it just at the moment because the work is to be undertaken, but yes, absolutely considering the options. My mind is just really a very small point on the earlier comments made in relation to Police Scotland, and I suppose to challenge that on what, particularly in relation to the word crisis that was used, it is important to reflect that. That might not be the view of the committee, and it certainly is not my view, since Police Scotland was setting up the face of many challenges, and I believe that they have faced them head on. I am confident that whatever the decision of the Parliament is in relation to the matter that Police Scotland will be more than capable to implement that. Do you have a question on that? No, as I said, sorry. Just to put it on the record, so noted. I think that that has been a really worthwhile discussion. I feel that flowing discussion raised a lot of very important points about legislation, which is going to be very important and will be scrutinised very fully, which we hope the Justice Committee will be scrutinising. With that, I thank the witnesses very much for their attendance today, and we suspend briefly to allow a room rearrangement for the next panel. Seven evidence sessions for the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service Inquiry. Mary Fee, I think that you have got a brief comment. Thank you, convener. Prior to this session, I thought that it would be useful to make members of the committee aware that I convene the cross-party group on families affected by imprisonment, and as such, I work very closely with Nancy Laux and families outside. While it is not a registrable interest, I thought that it would be prudent to mention it prior to this session. It is my pleasure to welcome the witnesses to the committee's evidence session. This is our second week of taking evidence on the inquiry, and with us today is Liz Dahl, chief executive of CERCO, Stephen Farrow, lead organiser for Community Scotland—is that right—for organiser for Scotland community? Which way round? Anyway, good. Professor Nancy Laux, chief executive of family outside, and Audrey Howard from Social Work Scotland. A particular thank you to Audrey for stepping in at a very short notice. It is very important that we do here for Social Work Scotland, and the committee is very grateful to you for doing that. Without any further ado, can I open up this session to questions from members? Who is going to be first? Oh, this is unusual. We are not all—oh, Douglas, go for it. Thank you. I first of all thank you all for your submissions. I ask Liz Dahl about the comment that you made about, as an organisation, that you have developed a specific service to promote greater use of restriction of liberty orders against women who face custodial sentences. Could you tell us a little bit more about that? It is a new service that we have got in Lanarkshire, so it can be working—it can be working with it. Our intention is to go to court with the women so that they get a non-custodial sentence, rather than a custodial sentence, and it is working very effectively to date. Sorry, could you explain how it works? Are you speaking on their behalf for— I mean, we provide a family support service, so the women could be referred to as through the community pay back order system. It is for women who are not managing their community sentence and we provide a service with the whole family to help them to manage their community service to stop them having a custodial sentence. We have particular interests because, by default, very often people, for very good reasons, sometimes it could be that the times are not suitable for child managing, if there is a choice between the two, then women will sometimes offer the children default on their community pay back, and the only solution seems to be there or sanction seems to be there—a custodial sentence. That would, in effect, bridge that gap. I had a question for Steve Farrell. Just about the role of technology and how it could be used to a greater extent. I know that you did not put in a written submission, but one of the other written submissions certainly expressed a view that we can be doing more to save money, to save the hassle of transporting prisoners and people on demand. Could you maybe give us your views on that? Where are our members concerned, particularly in the escort services that escort the prisoners from the borders right up to the islands in Scotland? There are a lot of wasted resources and wasted trips in terms of transit trips. You have also got the risk factor because, within the prison sector, risk is apparent every day of the week. Many would argue, particularly with those longer-term prisoners, that, although they are within the prison walls, the risk is less and it becomes more greater the minute they come into an escort vehicle and start travelling on Scotland's roads. We would like to see for both those services, both within the prison service in terms of the risk element and for the escort members, who represent a system of resources, a greater kudos in terms of video link to courts from prisons directly. If you look at some of the pre-general sentences, we have prisoners who are leaving prison at 8 o'clock in the morning. They are no returning to HMP at 8 o'clock in the morning to have passed five, six o'clock at night. We have had two officers sat with them in a court all day and they come back and sometimes there has not even been seen because of the court business on that day. That is a complete waste of time and resources for all stakeholders concerned. The barrier is a financial one because there are systems in place that we can use it. It is used to a limited extent in the islands, and it could be used far more. However, why do you think that in this day and age we are still transporting prisoners so far for what are often very short times in the actual court? It is a good question, Douglas. I generally believe that, and I noted from some of the written evidence from others that the word silo and working in silo was mentioned. I think that there needs to be a more collective collaborative approach in terms of all stakeholders, because I think that there are many good ideas out there and there are many good ideas working in silo, but it is about time and talking about this issue and the subject matter that we need to come together in terms of unions, prison stakeholders, community-based stakeholders and experts in the field and have a more collaborative approach, the most joined-up approach in terms of how we move this forward. You are right that the facilities are there, but whether they have been used to the maximum potential is a different argument. The message is a more holistic approach. Perhaps the use of technology more, which Douglas talked on? For your member's point of view, definitely. Could you elaborate on the technology that you are thinking of and how that would work? For instance, as Douglas quite rightly said, there are facilities in place in some prisons just now whereby there is a direct link to some courts from the prison itself. It simply means that the officer would escort the prisoner from their residential area, go down to the visits area where the video links are held and, effectively, they would be there in court and known person from the prison itself. That would help in terms of the resource issue that Douglas spoke about earlier, most definitely. My question is really to Audrey. It is a kind of a two-prong question. I am just going to ask you all at once. It is about experience within the justice system. If you could just maybe outline what you feel the experience of people you work with going through the justice system, accuse people, and what you experience and how you liaise with criminal justice officials, et cetera, as social workers? As that has been pointed out, I am a last-minute stand-in, so I have not really had the opportunity to consult widely with my social work Scotland colleagues. However, I will be drawn largely on my own experience but also at our authorities partner in North Strathclyde community justice authority, so I am aware of my colleagues' issues within North Strathclyde. I am also conscious that Social Work Scotland did not provide a written submission to the inquiry, so I have come with some thoughts that I would want to put forward. There are really around three areas. They are about diversion from prosecution. They are about bail and remand, and they are about community justice. In terms of diversion from prosecution, this is really our opportunity to keep people out of the system that do not really need to be in the system. That can be about the seriousness of the volume of the refining or what, indeed, has triggered the refining in the first place. I really see that if we want to be ambitious in terms of taking community justice agenda forward, that early intervention diversion is a pretty critical feature of that. However, the use of diversion varies across the country and, certainly within my own local authority, has been in steady decline over decades. From my own perspective, I would suggest that that is largely to do with the direct measures that are available to police and procurator ffiscals, and to move away from the local procurator ffiscal marking of papers to the centralised system that happens. Direct measures are in the main financial penalties that are imposed. I am conscious that one of our local GPs, Sam McEwen, has made a submission that speaks to his frustrations about having people appear at the GP court with financial penalties that they have not paid and, in some instances, they do not have the money to pay it, and they have clocked up a number of financial penalties. There is also the issue about them getting access to services that have addressed some of their issues. If you can get in early enough in terms of your supports, when people's motivation is high after an incident, you will probably get the best chance to try to move people on. As I say, there is a bit of concern in my part about the use of diversion. The other thing about diversion, as I say, is that it has the opportunity to provide person-centred support to people. There is a concern with direct measures. That kind of financial penalty is maybe excluding people from that support. The other thing that I said about diversion was the structural arrangements of the procurator fiscal service. Centralised marking has resulted in a loss of local knowledge about diversion schemes. Previously, decisions around marking would be informed by that local knowledge. The ffiscals at mark papers now do not know about local schemes. I think that it is fair that they do not, if they are in a centralised point. They have also not built up confidence about the robustness of those schemes, if they do not have that kind of local knowledge. I am not necessarily advocating here that we go back to that. I am just saying that that is a problem and it needs to be addressed. We are looking within our own local authorities part of the community justice agenda how we might try and address that in terms of the information that goes in police reports to ffiscals. It is part of an early intervention diversion strategy that we are looking at with our partners in North Strathclyde. I think that there is a need to put on our thinking caps about how we solve it, but we need to recognise that that is a problem having papers marked away from a local base. When did that start happening? As I said, I can only really reflect on my own authority since 2000. It is a steady decline. The centralised marking process? With the centralised marking process, I could not put a time frame on that. Is it years or months? No, years. The other thing is about bail and remand. It probably taps into the G4S comments about people going across the country. You will be aware of the impact of remand in terms of how that can disrupt people's access to treatment, their housing, benefits, family relationships, etc. Most people who get remand do not end up with a custodial sentence, so there is an imperative on the justice system and justice partners to try to make sure that bail information and bail supervision services are available to courts as an alternative to remanding people. One of the critical issues in relation to the efficiency and effectiveness of bail is about the communication from the PF service to court social work. We need to know who is in custody and we get the custody list from G4S first thing in the morning, not a problem, but we do not know who the Fiscal's opposing bail on and why. It is not enough to know that bail is going to be opposed. You need to know why, because if it is about issues to do with accommodation, we can try and seek alternative accommodation. If it is about the fact that somebody has been on a court order already and there is a view about whether they are already on a community disposal committee sentence, why something must be going wrong for them to be at court again. If we know what the issues are, we can provide the information. We are not advocates for bail or bail it, but we are providing information to make sure that the best decision is made. To be honest, I think that that decision really has to be around risk, rather than people's social circumstances or difficulties around that, meaning that they end up being remanded opposed to getting bail. We can provide that information and support and we can provide the supervision on bail if we can get in with sufficient time. There are instances where I know prior to coming here, I sat with my bail information worker talking about the custody court should be heard at 12. We can be sitting at 5 to 12. We still do not know who is going to oppose bail and the circumstances. I do not believe for a minute that that is not about people not wanting to be part. I think that it is about pressures in the system and potentially resourcing, and I am sure that fiscal colleagues could speak to that. I can only tell you what the outcome of that is for us at the other end, where we are waiting for that information. In some instances, we are not able to provide bail information or put a bail supervision case forward, because we do not know why someone has not bailed opposed. Does the other panelist want to comment on that particular aspect, the information from the fiscals about bail custody, what is going to happen, the issues for perhaps remanding that person or looking at it? I think that remanding issues are the length of time it takes from arrest to prosecution, communication and the lack of use of technology. I have an experience just last year of going myself as a witness on a child assault. I was called to court three times, so I spent three days, well, three and a half days in court. The first two, we were sent home after lunch, and so that was myself, another manager from the next door organisation, and two police officers, all that time wasted and all that cost, where if we had been sent an email saying, it's not going to go ahead today. Communication issues. Sorry, Rona, I'll let you finish off here. That's really helpful, Audrey. Is anything else you want to add? Community justice and that whole community justice agenda. I think that it's a really exciting agenda and it's an opportunity to place communities at the heart of what we do in terms of developing services that best meet their needs. There's two performance indicators that I think that the fiscals are critical to in helping us with. They're about planning and delivering services in a more strategic and collaborative way and about the access to services. The fiscal is the gatekeeper of the people who come into the system and progress through it or get diverted away. I think that there's a real challenge for them in terms of their capacity to engage in that agenda. There are a national service and there's 32 local authorities, and how they are going to have that dialogue with us about how best to support us with those outcomes. It will be challenging for them. They're certainly up for that. There's been an email correspondence with them to all of the 32 local authorities about wanting to engage in that conversation and wanting to see how they can come up to a fit that best suits that being a national service with 32 local authorities, but they will be critical just because they have that kind of gatekeeping role. There's a lot of issues raised there and perhaps Mendo will put them up in their questioning. Could we go on to Mari? For the evidence that you submitted, it was really to circle and to families outside. It was just in relation to a couple of points that you made in your evidence submissions, but I think that one thing is definitely clear. The issues that you talk about have heard similar situations, such as technology communication and all the same things seem to be coming up time and time again. It might have been in family outside your evidence when you talk about even just simple things such as the use of plain English in speaking to people, which I think is such an important point. In terms of the evidence that was submitted by circle, you talked about the introduction of the child and family impact statements. However, there isn't any experience of them being operational. I was just really wondering when they were introduced and what you think the potential impact of them could be. Child and family impact assessments have not actually been introduced yet. It's something that they have been recommended certainly within submission from Together Scotland and ourselves and the Children's Commissioner. That was recommended under the universal periodic review to the UN Human Rights Commission and was accepted by the UK Government as a whole, but was not actually implemented in any way. One of your colleagues actually ran a private members bill consultation on this and had received tremendous support for the use of child and family impact assessments. They were introduced in a slightly watered-down fashion through the Criminal Justice Act in January 2016. That's obviously now on hold because it referred to sharing of information with a named person. Because that system is not yet up and running, we still don't have that system in place. It's a real lost opportunity and I referred to that in my written evidence as well. It's a common theme of communication and working in silos that families are not consulted in any way. They are not included in the process of decision making leading up to a prosecution or sentence. That's a real problem because the impact even of a remand into custody is enormous, so potentially enormous on families. That's not part of the discussion. It's not something that the Fiscal Service actually inquires about in making those decisions as far as we're aware. The families that we work with certainly have had very little experience with fiscals at all unless they've been called as a witness. It's a continuing frustration because the impact can be severe on housing, on income, on mental health. Certainly children don't distinguish between a remand and custody and a sentence to custody, so it's something that we're very concerned about. Just to follow up on that as well, you mentioned in the submission the framework for support to families is affected by the criminal justice system and how that had been signed up to by the CGAs and the community planning partnerships. I was wondering who you talked about, the Crown Office Procure Fiscal Service and the implementation of that framework. It's just how they're made to buy into that system if you see what I mean and understand that it has been signed up to, but how can you envisage that working and what needs to be done to ensure that it does happen? There are two main points. One is about training and making sure that there's an awareness of what the impact on families is and what their role is in supporting those families. Again, it's making sure that the wider impact of a decision that they make is taken into account, and that includes the impact on the families left behind. It's a very similar question to the one that you've just been asked, that Mary asked that I wanted to raise. In the previous evidence sessions, we've heard a lot about the lack of communication and the lack of support both before court and during the court process and after the court process and the impact that delays have. Of course, there's a different perspective at play with our witnesses this morning in relation to families, because whether you're a victim of a crime or a perpetrator of a crime doesn't affect an individual, it affects a whole family. While the move to child and family impact assessments would perhaps help to plug that gap, if you like, there are still small practical things that could be done just now. I wonder what you think practically could be done to help and support families. Is it just simply including them in the line of communication, offering them support, or is there something else that could practically be done to include them? It's a huge part of it, and that would be a good first step, because that would help to identify what the issues affecting the families might be. There's also a very real recognition that, no matter what information you have about the family, there will be people who need to be remanded in custody or need to be sentenced to custody. That's fair enough. It's also recognising that there is an impact of community-based decisions as well, but it's then taking the next step and saying, okay, this person has been remanded in custody, therefore, what support do the families need, rather than just accepting that as a decision and moving on. It's again making sure that there's follow-through there in some way that these families are receiving support. What would be the best place to do, though? That is a very good question, whether that's something that's referred to social work, or whether that's something that the physicals have a role in themselves, whether there's even just flagging up that there is support in the communities available from organisations such as ourselves, such as Circle. There is scope for support out there. It's just recognising that the families often don't have that information, even about what support is available, let alone any receipt of support. I suppose that we also have to be realistic in recognising that children and family social work teams, the tariff wouldn't be high enough for their involvement, so it would be down to organisations such as ourselves that are there to provide family support services. To take Audrey back to the reference that she made earlier to evidence from Sam McEwen about the impact of direct measures, it's in the written evidence, but it might be helpful to have that in oral evidence as well. I understand that the cumulative impact of direct measures can often end up leaving an individual in a position where they are unable to make payment, whereas if they have been dealt with in a different way at the outset, perhaps in a way that we have seen as a little bit more burdensome, the measure would be more effective and more appropriate. I think that it depends on the individual. If you or somebody with, for example, an alcohol issue and pick up a chronic condition or something that is not a one-off, you pick up a number of financial fixed penalties for being drunken and capable or various other activities related to your alcohol use and you don't have the income to pay for it and you have an addiction that is what your money is going into. Direct measures do nothing, it doesn't come anywhere near that. If you are an individual who has a job, goes out on an eye and it's a one-off instead, a direct measure is probably the most appropriate thing.  There are not other issues there, but for certain individuals in their circumstances, direct measures come nowhere close to solving the problem. If you end up repeat offending over a short period of time, you accumulate a series of fines that you don't pay and end up getting remitted to the JP Court. I had mentioned that we were in our CG area through the community justice agenda looking at early intervention and diversion strategies. I think that we have to help our fiscal colleagues here because I think that it is a structural issue rather than anything else. We are thinking that if we can work with police colleagues and agree a strategy with police colleagues, that might be about some training for community officers and beat officers. If you are seeing those issues, we have the schemes, it would be helpful in your remarks section in the police report that goes to the fiscal to be highlighting those things. Then you are almost not relying on that local knowledge that you are not going to get a centralised marking system, but you are going to have given a clear steer from the local police where you think that this case needs to go. It is the decision of the fiscal, but the fiscal has information to make that. I think that that is one way of resolving it, but I have met Sam to talk about community payback orders, etc. I know his frustration just about the number of people in front of his court. As a result, issues to do with their addiction might have benefit sanctions because they have not turned up for their appointments, because the issue that needs to be addressed could be their mental health, because it is people with chaotic or vulnerable individuals. Did it measure this? The vast majority of people caught up with our community justice system are living in poverty, who have mental health problems and addiction problems, and we are not talking about the minority, we are talking about the majority. If I could take you on to the issue of diversion from prosecution, what we heard in previous evidence from the Barn Association in particular was a kind of rigidity in the system, where, as soon as any case had a particular element to it, the option for any discretion to take on board specific circumstances of that case were immediately limited. Individuals undertaking that decision perhaps did not necessarily have the confidence or experience to explore the raft of options available, including diversions away from prosecution. Is that something that mirrors your experience of how the system is working at the moment? If so, are there ways that you would envisage being able to perhaps improve that situation? It exists in both sides. I think that it exists in the fiscal service and I think that it exists for criminal justice social work in terms of we will do the assessments of people in terms of suitability for diversion and whether we provide the service directly or pass that on to third sector colleagues. I think that there is around certain categories of offence and domestic violence as one of them, where people are rightly so in some regard quite hesitant about diversion. There has been a practice that really is that it is prosecution that we should be sending a clear message that domestic violence is not acceptable behaviour and needs to be prosecuted through the court. However, we know that it is a complex problem and you will have people at the periphery of that who do not have entrenched attitudes to do with power and control, but it can be about individual circumstances that have given rise to that. You can have, as we have had witnesses of two damaged people in a relationship in terms of the systems that they have come through in a relationship and disturbances almost daily, if not weekly, and how you intervene in that to sort that out. It is a complicated area and I think that it is about the confidence of people and feeling I suppose that there is the support to do that because, as I said previously, it is the same for sexual crimes as well. I mean, talking again about your really low level stuff, that people have always, you know, that the kind of practice and I understand what has driven that practice has been about prosecution. You know, the default position has been about prosecution, but we all know that when you have those black and white kind of situations, there are people, you know, at the edges there who this really isn't appropriate to have them drag through the court system. With all that complexity, is there something that you think that would improve situations, even if it doesn't resolve all those areas where it's perhaps less black and white, but may nudge us towards a situation where fewer of those cases have been done? I mean, I'm certainly saying to my social work staff, no, no, we have to move away from a position where we're thinking about automatically returning papers to the fiscal service to say, we're not going to assess this person. We need to look at things in a case by case. That's our bread and butter assessment. We need to look at it and we need to see if there's something that we can offer in that situation. I think for Fiscal's, I know that there are Lord Advocate guidelines that they get around certain sort of offences and, as I say, there will be presumptions about what happens in those cases, but I do think that there is a bit about empowering people to use the skills that they have in terms of making decisions for pfs about the risks here and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. My point is following up from the exchange between Audrey and Liam, which I thought was very useful. The domestic violence agenda is very big at the moment, as you'll be aware. The Government's committee is really tackling the issue, and you'll have seen that with recent legislation. With that in mind, it is following up some of the points that we've been discussing, but it's more specifically to do with programmes. What programmes can be offered for offenders who have committed domestic violence acts and what different stages can be brought in, including how it could be done at a diversion level? I can only speak from my experience in Inverclyde. For North Strathclyde, we don't have the Caledonian programme, which is a Government-funded programme for perpetrators of domestic violence, male perpetrators of domestic violence. I understand that it is currently being evaluated, and I don't know what the intention will be from that, whether there will be a roll-out. It is certainly quite frustrating being in a position where we are sitting in Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, West Dunbartonshire, with some of the highest rates of domestic violence, and we don't have access to that programme. I think that that's a challenge. I have very dedicated staff who do their best to come up with individual programmes for people on, and I'm talking about on court orders before we get to your diversion from prosecution, trying to work with people on an individual basis. We have brought in some advice and guidance on how we might work with people on an individual basis while we wait to see what is happening with regard to the Caledonian programme. Again, I would go back to the issue of staff confidence in working in that area, because there is always a concern that you might make a situation worse, rather than better, because you start to explore with somebody what the challenges are for them in relation to their behaviour. One of the things about the Caledonian programme is that it doesn't just look at perpetrators, it looks at support for the child, support for the victim, so it's that whole system approach, whereas we're looking at, as I say, trying to do stuff with individuals, so I know that there is a staff confidence around how we might do that. I mean, I certainly think that it's going to be one of the things that's picked up by community justice agenda and by our partners about what's the offer here that we're making to perpetrators, to their victims, about how we move forward. I'm sorry, I don't have a better answer than that for you. No, I think that that was a sort of answer that I would have expected, and I think that that covered a wide range of stuff. I should declare, as Mary Fee had done earlier, my register of interests as well. I was a social worker and I'm still registered with the Scottish Social Services Council, so I was working in the justice field until my election in May, and I'd noticed an increase in training towards community-based disposals for domestic violence, and that's increasing, and increasing in caseloads are becoming more and more weighted towards that. It does strike me that different levels of programmes would be a good way forward, and not just for people on community payback orders, where there's a Caledonian programme, and its predecessor, the Change programme, is still being used in south Limarchire and such like. I think that perhaps if there was a way we could look at a smaller programme perhaps in line with the tagging restriction and liberty orders, and I don't wonder what the panel thought about that, and maybe Liz or somebody else. The Caledonian programme actually has to be prosecuted in order to go on it, and you'd want to be avoiding that. Yeah, that's exactly my point. I mean, one of the best programmes that we use with families, an awful lot of the families that we work with aren't ready to go on group work programmes, but we use a programme called Parents Under Pressure and it allows you to include issues such as domestic violence, mental health and addictions, and you work with the whole family using that programme and you do it in the family home. Parents Under Pressure is one of the best programmes that I've found that allows you to work with the individual family to address all the issues that impact on that family. I'm voting the Crown Office's role. Are you looking rather than automatically going to court to be aware of these referrals or this kind of programme that could? What was actually, I probably didn't articulate the question as well as I would have liked, what I was actually looking for the panel's views, if they thought that something like the change programme, the Caledonian programme, could be done on a smaller basis for a shorter period of time, because these are 13, 16-week programmes, and they usually have to have an order in place, whether something like that could be done at an earlier stage for somebody who's maybe not committed a series of offences, something that's not really there at the moment. Is there a issue about the COPF's awareness of that or their ability to consider that as an alternative? No, actually I was wanting the panel's views and whether they thought something like that would be useful as we see the numbers of people convicted of domestic offences increasing, so it was hypothetical. I'm happy to leave it at that, but I think it's been good answer. I just want to state to the committee that the headquarter in my constituency, I'm so grateful to Liz and our team for all that they do in my constituency and beyond. On the point in Circle's evidence, there's a point in Circle's evidence that touches on something that came up quite repeatedly in previous evidence that we've taken about the support that you provide beforehand before the trial process begins on the, particularly around discussing the different roles of professionals and what to expect in the court setting. I just wondered, I know that your evidence will be somewhat anecdotal, but if you could elaborate that on that slightly and maybe highlight any ways that you think that the court service could be more supportive in that area, whether that's around communication or introductions or anything that you think might be advantageous. Is there any of the people who we work with who are victims of crime as well as often the perpetrators of crime? In fact it's the usual case with all the families that we work with, so it's much easier to work with the victim of crime to take them through that process than it is when someone has been charged with their criminal offence unless you can get in early enough. I mean, again, I think it's very much the whole silo thing, the different stakeholders working in silos, and if there could be much better communication between ourselves and the procurator fiscals, you would resolve an awful lot of those issues. Do you think that the support and mentoring that you've provided either to victims or perpetrators throughout that process has made a big impact in terms