Good morning and welcome to the 12th meeting of the Public Order and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee in 2017. Can I at the start ask everybody to switch off their electronic devices or at least switch them to silence so that they don't interfere with the proceedings of the committee? Item 1 on the agenda is to agree to take items 4 and 5 in private. Is that agreed? Thank you very much. Item 2 is the committee will now take further oral evidence on the Auditor General's 2015-16 Audit of the Scottish Police Authority. We are, of course, focusing on the issues of governance and transparency, and I welcome to the committee this morning Derek Penman, the Magistrate's chief inspector of Constabulary in Scotland, Brian Barber and Moe Alley, former board members of the SPA, David Hume, George Graham and Ian White, current board members of the SPA. A number of witnesses are going to make brief opening statements. Let me emphasise the brief.  If you can stick to that, that would be very helpful indeed. On that basis, I invite Derek Penman to go first and to provide us with the statement to the committee. I thank the committee for its invitation to give evidence at this morning's session and for the opportunity to support the committee's scrutiny of the Scottish Police Authority in light of the section 22 report that was submitted by the Auditor General. As the committee is already aware, I have committed to a statutory inspection of the Scottish Police Authority as part of my scrutiny plan for 2017 and 2018. On 9 December, I wrote to the chair of the SPA advising him of the inspection and confirming that it would provide an opportunity to review the authority's new governance arrangements as well as provide a wider review of the authority, the work of its officers and the services that it provides. I had initially planned to conduct the inspection over the next eight months, effectively building evidence to support an assessment of the overall state effectiveness and efficiency of the SPA and had intended publishing my report around January in 2018. However, following the evidence given by the SPA at this committee and the Justice Subcommittee in Precinct, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has requested that I bring forward an element of my inspection. This relates to issues around openness and transparency in the way that the SPA conducts its business, specifically in terms of the authority's decision to hold committee meetings in private and restrict the publication of meeting papers. I am also aware that the committee has the evidence from the SPA over its handling of the resignation of board member Moialae, and I am aware that members have raised questions, particularly in compliance with on-board a guide for members on statutory boards. I had been made aware of the circumstances surrounding Moialae's resignation in December 2016, and I have already made a public commitment to consider any relevant concerns that were raised from that during my planned inspection. However, as a result of the requests from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and in response to the recent parliamentary scrutiny by the committee, I have agreed to bring forward a review of openness and transparency in the way that the SPA conducts its business. A specific report will be prepared in respect of that review, highlighting our findings and any recommendations or other areas for improvement that might be identified. I would not ordinarily pre-empt my review or my recommendations, but it would probably be fair to say—perhaps it is helpful for the committee—that it would be unlikely that I would not be making a recommendation to the chair of the police authority that the board meeting and the committee meetings should revert to being held in public, and that papers should be circulated in advance of the meeting. I thought that it might be helpful for the committee to understand that that is the likely outcome for the work that we have been doing so far, and it might indeed be helpful for the chair to consider that position in advance of our report being published. The review that we are doing is now narrow, but it will complement our scheduled and more comprehensive statutory inspection of authority during 2017-18, and that will include a wider assessment specifically of leadership and governance within the authority. I have drawn up a reference for the review, but I have decided not to publish it until after this morning's committee meeting. I think that that provides an opportunity to include any relevant issues or concerns raised by members in the morning session that should benefit from further examination by HMICS. I can give more detail around the approach that we are taking, but I am conscious that you have time constraints, but it would be my intention to publish our terms of reference later today or tomorrow. Thank you very much, Mr Pinman. Your comments are very welcome indeed. Could I invite Brian Barber to give a statement now? Thank you, chair. Thank you for inviting me to give evidence today. I left the SPA 18 months ago, and until my alley's resignation, I had made no public comment about the SPA. Placing is enormously important, and I was privileged to be part of it. I think that police officers and staff do an amazing job in very difficult circumstances and often are great danger to themselves. However, policing costs over £1 billion a year, and it needs and deserves strong oversight. It saddens me that the SPA has become the story because of what seems to desire to keep things private. Nobody and nothing appears able to cause ripples, but this approach just causes bigger problems later. The SPA has been the story for months, but despite that, the board has remained silent as it often is passive and only taking action or speaking up when forced rather than leading the debate. Why has the board remained publicly silent on the treatment of my alley, on the HMICS letter and criticism from this committee, negative comment in parliament and negative comment from the media? Parliament created the SPA and when it passed the Police and Fire Reform Act, it authorised the SPA to hold the chief constable to account for the performance of policing. Perhaps Parliament should now appoint SPA members and, in turn, the SPA should be accountable to Parliament. Whatever the outcome, the SPA should operate in a transparent manner, consistent with good governance, as mandated in section 2 of the act. Then it can go back to supporting police in the job that they do and holding the chief constable to account for the way that Scotland is policed. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Barber. Could I now invite George Graham to give us a statement, please? Good morning, convener. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Many thanks for the opportunity to say a few words this morning. I did get your warning and it will be as brief as possible, so I've rewritten my hour and a half that I had prepared. Convener, transparency and openness is undoubtedly a focus of today and I want to give you all a sense of why we as SPA board members took the decisions that we did around public and private business. I just say that, as a board, we know it is and we are committed to every key policing issue and every key policing decision being addressed in public at the appropriate point. I think that my own view is that it is wrong to see this as a Scottish Police Authority choosing which issues to have in public and which issues to have in private. It's more complex than that. It is a question of when and not if an issue enters the public domain, but it's not just the issue, it's the debate around it and when that enters the public domain. The aim of the governance changes was to focus committee attention on issues that matter rather than getting bogged down in extraneous and often unnecessary detail at open board meetings. In our committees, a refocus and early discussion engagement was to add more value to the full board's subsequent public scrutiny and public decision making. Taking this, committee business and private was aimed at getting early visibility for the Scottish Police Authority on the challenges and complexity of emerging policing issues so that all options could be explored and tested. We knew in taking that decision that different opinions existed and that the decision would indeed have its critics. We took the decision with the awareness of the range of views of other stakeholders, including Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. All our members acknowledged and debated that there were both potential benefits and challenges in adopting the revised approach, but we took the view that there is a balance to be struck in terms of transparency and effective governance. This is not in our view a black and white issue, but it's one of judgment and balance. Central to our decision was agreement on the need for an ongoing review of the revised approach. We made that decision in December to review their approach in order to weigh the benefits against any drawbacks and we committed to do that within six months. A good board also needs to be responsive and accept that the public and civic voice has strengthened on that particular issue. I want to reassure you today that we are listening and we are ready to adapt to our approach. Thank you and we all look forward to contributing further today. Thank you very much, Mr Graham. There is much in Andrew Flanagan's evidence to this committee to take issue with, but even if his account is to be believed, it raises fundamental corporate governance issues. He knew my views on the governance framework, but told you he didn't expect me to voice them in public. Should a chair suppress respectful open debate? He wrote of the value of being seen to be a united board. Where then can alternative views be discussed, only in private? That seems to be not a good option. Andrew told you here that dissent is okay, but his letter to me talked about sharing public disagreement and how that was a resigning matter. Why should members who have accepted collective responsibility resign? That's not what the Government's on-board guidance says. Do SPA members now feel constrained about expressing their views in public? Surely that's not good for governance. The chair claims his concern was that I didn't communicate my intentions in advance. Should board members enter meetings with their minds made up and their position pre-shared, clearly that would turn board meetings into theatre and board members into actors? My removal from committees was in my view straightforward punishment for speaking out. On-board says that members must participate in committees and equally that the chair should lead by example. I ask you what kind of an example was that? One of the key questions is, has Andrew Flanagan observed the nine principles of public life in Scotland? They include openness, honesty, leadership, respect and integrity. Was withholding Derek Penman's letter from the board an act of integrity? On-board says that it's important that nothing you do or say as a board member tarnishes in any way the reputation of the board. Have Andrew Flanagan's recent actions damaged the SPA? News reports some five months after the event talk about hemorrhaging confidence in the beleaguered and battled control freak chair of a Kremlin-style crisis hit secret society board. Now none of those are my words, in fact some of them are your words. The chair's style shapes board culture. Did the board request to see the HMICS letter? Did they ask why it hadn't been shared? Was there any discussion of why the chair believed I should resign? Has any member questioned Andrew over any of his evidence to this committee? On-board says members should not hesitate to challenge the chair if you believe that a decision is wrong, therefore did they believe the decisions were right? Before members approved the governance framework, they were aware of key stakeholders' concerns. One, they discussed Audit Scotland's report, which said that SPA board and committee papers were sometimes insufficiently transparent, they were only issued on the day of the meeting, and some papers taken in private could be heard in public. Audit Scotland questioned whether the SPA demonstrated high standards of corporate governance at all times, including openness and transparency in decision making. Two, board members knew that the internal auditors had also questioned whether the proposals complied with best practice. Three, they knew that at least one local authority had raised issues and concerns. And four, colleagues knew that the Police and Fire Reform Act, the legislation that created us, said a nice state. The authority must ensure that its proceedings, and those of its committees and subcommittees, are held in public, and must try to carry out its functions in a way that is proportionate, accountable and transparent, and that is consistent with any principle of good governance that appears to constitute best practice. Finally, to summarise in a few bullet points, the decision on private committees and last-minute publication of papers was contrary to statute and against the spirit of public service accountability. Government guidance and stakeholders' concerns were ignored by the board and the chief executive. The chair was wrong in trying to suppress information and debate. He was wrong in punishing me for taking a principled stance in public, consistent with my well-known private view. The board appears to have failed to challenge. Three months after the initial decision, the board still felt no need to revise it. Finally, the ensuing reputational damage has diminished public confidence in an important public body. Policing has to operate within the law and to earn the confidence of the public, and so, too, does it oversight body. Thank you very much to all the witnesses for at least attempting to keep within time. I will now move across to my colleagues and invite Monica Lennon to start the questioning. Thank you, convener, and good morning to all our witnesses this morning. George Graham, in your opening statement towards the end, described what are good features or are good qualities in a board, including being responsive and listening to criticism. Do you believe that you have been part of a good board? Yes, thank you for that question. Since Andrew Flanagan took over in November 2015, all I can describe is changing the atmosphere in a board where we have become much more engaged. There is a clearer sense of purpose around what we are trying to do. We have been addressing a particular issue around information flow and our own credibility with senior police colleagues. If we are to govern the police service effectively, I think that we have to understand what they are about. I think that Andrew Flanagan's governance review, which was reported in the spring of 2016, and the many of the recommendations that have been accepted and in which they have been fairly uncontroversial, have really helped us improve. I joined the board in June of 2015, and we are unrecognisably better than we were. We are still learning. We are still a very young and immature board. I think we would wish to stay responsive. I have great respect for Molly and great respect for her views, and she has expressed them pretty effectively this morning and she did that to the board. However, I do not recognise the characterisation of the board as she describes it. My view of the board, I certainly would not be part of a board that was secretive but did not want to engage with stakeholders. I have been in public service for over 32 years as a police officer. I have no access to ground. My pure ambition and passion is for the police service of Scotland to be the very best that it can be. I think that taking the decision to hold board meetings or committee meetings in private, because we hold all our board meetings in public, and all our decisions about everything are now vested in the public meetings of the board, my view and why I elected to support that committee meetings would be in private is because we still do not yet have information flows. We still do not have strong enough relationships with senior police officers in Scotland, but they are improving. I think that we needed some clear space to be able to consider complex and difficult issues. If I could finish on the final point, I know that you want to challenge a few things. I am saying that I would hope that everyone would recognise that if we have got the balance wrong and we need to do more of our committee work in public, then we will do that. However, I hope that this committee and commentators and indeed HMICS in the review which they are about to do recognise that every board needs at least some private space on which to decide and to make some decisions and to freely debate some of the complex issues and difficult issues that policing is going to face over the next 10 years following the consultation around the 2026 strategy. Thank you, Mr Graeme. You mentioned your background in policing, which I am sure is very valuable to the board. Do you have experience of other boards, other appointments? No, I do not. This is the first time that I have sat on a public board. So you do recognise that the board has not been performing well? I recognise that the perception that we have created around holding committee meetings in private has had a much bigger impact than I would have expected, but I am not an experienced public board member. I am a former senior police officer with a passionate ambition to help policing Scotland be the very best it can be. If this is a learning process, this committee process, what we have been through up till now, then I absolutely accept that we can still improve. We can still learn. I suspect that, for all my time on the board, we will still be improving and learning. Thank you. I move on to my Allie. Miss Allie, I have read the letter that Andrew Flanagan sent you in December after you had raised two objections to part of the governance review. Do you think that that letter amounted to bullying? Yes, I believe that it did. A good leader, if he had any concerns, would surely speak to an individual. I think that all of us would do that. To write a letter of that nature, it is hard to find another word to describe what it amounts to. Do you feel quite sad about this experience? Do you feel that you have been driven out? Yes, I do. It has been a horrendous experience. I am quite surprised that, five months after receiving the letter, we are still talking about it. It has been a very difficult thing to live through, particularly being outside of all of this on my own, not having access to materials. I mean, coming here today, I asked for information from the SPA, not private information, but information about meetings that I attended, information that I had previously held. I was denied that. I have been very much pushed to the outside. What has transpired as a result of that letter is exactly what I said would happen. I did seek to have a meeting with Andrew Flanagan very quickly, almost immediately after I received the first working day after I received the letter. I asked for a meeting. For a variety of reasons, that simply did not happen. Thank you. In a previous session, I asked Andrew Flanagan if he recognised that his conduct could be perceived as control freakery. He did not accept that characterisation. In the time that I have been pursuing those questions, it strikes me that the SPA is very much a male-dominated organisation. Do you believe that he would have sent that same letter to a man? No, I do not think that he would. It is interesting that, after I received it, I spoke to Ian White, because he had expressed very similar views to me at that board meeting. The only difference was that he did not ask for his to be minoted. In a way, the minoting is irrelevant because it is live streamed and it is recorded for posterity anyway, but he raised very similar issues. I think his words were, I share many of the concerns that Moy has raised. He pushed on the point that I pushed on about whether it confirmed with best practice. I asked Mr White if he had received a similar letter and he said no, he hadn't. Thank you. Given the letter and what you have just said in terms of feeling bullied, do you think that Andrew Flanagan is fit to continue as chair of the Scottish Police Authority? I am afraid that I do not. I think that he is not fit to continue on any public board because he clearly does not observe public sector values. However, I think that the police authority is in a different league because I think that an oversight body that oversees policing has to set even higher standards of corporate governance and he clearly has not observed those standards. I turn to Brian Barber. You rightly set out in your statement that the SPA has oversight of £1 billion of public spending. Given what Moy Alley has just said, do you believe that Andrew Flanagan is fit to continue in his role? I have no experience of Andrew Flanagan because Andrew joined just after I left, but the story that Moy has given here makes me question his suitability for the role. We have just heard from Moy Alley that you have raised similar concerns as Moy did, but you did not receive a letter on Christmas Eve from Andrew Flanagan or did you receive any letter from Andrew Flanagan? I did not receive any letter from Andrew Flanagan. I suppose that the difference between what Moy did and what I did, if there was one, was that Moy recorded her dissent to the board decision and I did not do that at the meeting. However, I do not know why Andrew took a different approach otherwise, but I suppose that at that meeting I did not record my dissent because I accepted that board colleagues wished to make the decision and I accepted that I could go along with that in the round having questioned and thought assurances around the decision that was being made. Given what has happened to Moy, the consequences of recording dissents have been quite serious. It sounds like she has been hounded out. Would that put you off recording dissents in future? No, it would not put me off recording dissents. I have recorded dissents on a previous public board that I was a member of. We have had votes on the SPA board in the past. What was that, Mr White? That was NHS Lothian. It was some many years ago. Did the chair write to you to give you a telling off? No. Okay. In that case, then, do you agree that Andrew Flanagan has overstepped the mark in sending that letter to Moy Alley? I do not know any of the background of the conversations.  I do not know any of the background of the conversations that Moy and Andrew had prior to the meeting or about those matters individually between themselves. I do not understand that relationship and what was going on. I think that that would be a matter for you to question them. Mr White, with respect, all the correspondence is now in the public domain. I am sure that you have been following the previous sessions of this committee very carefully, at least I hope that you have been. All the facts are out there. Have you not been paying attention? I have, but I do not know if there are other matters out with the correspondence and possibly conversations that might impact on it. So what could possibly justify Andrew Flanagan's letter to Moy Alley? I do not know. I did not write the letter. Okay. When Moy Alley says that she feels bullied because she got a letter and other people did it and other board members are clearly being silent and not prepared to stick up for her, do you think that you are complicit in the way that Andrew Flanagan has treated Moy Alley? The letters and the matter were a matter between them. I have been told that Moy has taken issues up elsewhere and clearly it is coming up here. I would have thought that that was a matter for due process, but in terms of the board decision, the decision had been made and Moy chose to resign. Now, I do not know why Moy chose to resign. I am not part of the private deliberations. If you recall, Andrew Flanagan asked her to consider resigning because she was recording her dissent. Do you recognise that? I do recognise that, but I think that it is still a matter for the individual. Had I been in that position, I do not know how I felt at that time. I do not think that I would have resigned. Do you have any regrets about Moy Alley's resignation or the circumstances that may have surrounded it? I was not close to the circumstances surrounding it. That is fine, but do you recognise that the reputation of the SPA is in crisis? I do not believe that it is in crisis. I believe that we are an improving board and an improving organisation. Do you think that you have the confidence of the public and this Parliament? Well, we still have to continue to improve on public confidence in the organisation, and we are working to do that. The publication of the draft 2026 strategy, the public consultation that is on-going on that and our efforts to improve the working relationship with senior police officers such that we are taking the strategic direction of policing forward in Scotland is the purpose of the board and on all of that we are improving and I expect to see a full strategy published soon that will make for better policing for Scotland. I do not have any more questions for Mr White. Okay, Mr Graham, you wanted to come in, but perhaps all three of you, given your wealth of experience in the public sector, answer this for me. Were you collectively talked through the principles of on-board, and if you were, is your understanding of that that you can dissent in public, that collective responsibility only applies after a decision has been made? Given the circumstances that surround the dispute with Moy Alley, do you have no responsibility for ensuring that the principles of on-board are actually met as board members and the SPA? Mr Graham. Thank you, convener, and, usefully, that question leads into what I wanted to say in relation to Monique. I have great respect for Moy and great respect for her as a board colleague when she was on it. I will, convener, and I absolutely respect the position that she finds herself in and her perception on it. I have no difficulty with that at all. I do not feel qualified, as Ian has described. I do not feel qualified in the detail of what is taking place there, but I can certainly tell you that the on-board guidance was given to me at my induction. I have an understanding of at least a basic understanding of how collective responsibility should work, and I absolutely would dissent from anything. I would give my opinion and I absolutely agree with Moy that going into a public board meeting, I am not entirely sure all the time of where I will eventually end up on any given issue. It may be that, during the debate, I change views—that is entirely the product of a sensible and functional board in my view—that, during the board meeting, you may form a view and you may dissent from the general purpose. I also understand that, if I do dissent and I cannot live with what the board eventually decides collectively, I have quite simply a choice to make about whether I can continue the board. I think that I understand that. What I am slightly concerned about is the picture being painted of Andrew Flanagan as the chair, which is in the singular situation in which Moy outlines very eloquently. I can absolutely understand that perception, but my experience of him as a chair—and I feel duty-bound to say this—is not as any kind of control freak. It is somebody who wants to engage with other members. It is somebody who wants to bring in people's views and dissent. He is someone who has said to us repeatedly in public boards, please get out what your views are. I just want to make sure that we have a balanced view about how Andrew Flanagan is chairing the board. We have, in fact, a letter before us that indicates something quite different to what you have just told the committee. I would be interested in whether you think that letter, given what you have said about on-board, is actually appropriate. I will give you a chance to answer that and bring Mr Human after. I do not feel particularly well-qualified seeing the letter. It is not the way that we would want to. I would have hoped that, if I had dissented in public, that any chair or any of my colleagues on the board would challenge me verbally and say, listen, what is going on? Let's have a discussion about that. That is how I would like to do business. That is how I have experienced business before, not necessarily with Andrew. I cannot say a great deal about the letter, but I respect Moy's position on it. I understand why she feels the way she does. Mr Human. With regard to the events that we are talking about and on-board, I fully understand on-board that I received a copy when it was published. My interpretation of on-board is the same as the one that you outlined. With regard to the other issues, I regret very much that Moy left the board. She was very useful and an active member in terms of her contributions. The quality of her contributions were all very good, so I regret that. With regard to some of the previous questioning and the role of the board around that, I was aware that, quite rightly, Moy had raised her issues of concern formally through agreed processes. I think that there are issues in there that could be teased out perhaps on some of the issues that have been raised—the interpretation of on-board and so on—that resulted in the process that took place in January and February of this year that was outside the SPA. I think that, because I knew that that process was under way, I felt that that would bring a resolution to the matter, which is the aim that Moy had at the time. Thank you very much, convener. My first question is to the other board members. In evidence, Mr Barber said that the board had been passive only speaking up when forced and relation to current media coverage had remained silent. My two questions are, one, has anyone asked you not to comment on any of the media coverage surrounding the work of this committee and the resignation of Moy? Two, if that is not the case, why have you remained silent? Iain White first on that question. We work collectively as a board, Mr Thomson. We come to decisions and we support those decisions as in the on-board guidance. At that point, it is not for us individually to make public comments on things, but we may be asked to represent the board in making public comments on the views of the board. Therefore, where I approached by a journalist or others for public comment, I would refer that first to our press office, who would arrange for an appropriate corporate view to be given. That is as standard with public boards of the type that the SPA is. In response to your first question, no one has asked me not to comment if it was double negative's work, so I have not been asked not to say anything. I do not feel particularly qualified to comment in a public arena on a matter that took place between two members of the board, the chair and Moy. In fact, I think that I may well do more damage if I try to, so that is why I have not. No, nobody has instructed me or guided me in making comments or otherwise. I revert to the point that I made previously that, quite rightly, I know that Moy is here and I do not want to speak for her, but my impression was that she took advice on what she should do to resolve her concerns about that letter. She followed that advice to the letter and that process was on-going. At the end of that process, she decided to resign. I do not feel really that I should be sitting and trying a parallel process to investigate that matter if there are issues about how that matter was dealt with, then they need to be dealt with, but the fact is that she followed that advice that she was given as far as I understand fully, and that process went through and then she took her decision at the end of that process, and that was exactly the right thing to do up to that point, although I say again that I felt that it was a matter of huge regret that she decided to resign from the board. I have obviously heard board members express their unqualified comment on the letter, but, in evidence, Moy Alley stated this morning that that letter was straightforward punishment for speaking out. It is quite clear from the evidence as well this morning that there may have been a culture of bullying, particularly in this instance. With this going on, does this not inhibit board members from being able to express an opinion that is different, from being able to challenge openly, to express a different view, to record dissent? Has none of that deterred any member from being able to speak openly? I should indicate to the committee that I have previously dissented on two occasions and had my dissent recorded on the same issue of governance, and that was in June 2015. I can give you my absolute assurance that I feel in no way inhibited. I have been in the public service for 35 years. At this stage in my career, I have no intention of being pushed around on matters that I feel are wrong or inappropriate. As the chair of the audit committee, I think that it is vitally important that I uphold these standards. That dissent was minted, is that correct? It was minted. Can I have a copy here? Did you receive a letter from the board chair about your dissent being minted? No, I didn't. No, you didn't. No, I didn't. Can I just note for the record that, in the paperwork supplied to us by the Scottish Police Authority, I cannot find evidence of you dissenting? I am not suggesting that you are telling us anything that is untrue. I am simply observing that, in the paperwork supplied to us, I cannot find a note of your dissent. Can I give you my reassurance that I was never mislead or I give false claim to the committee? I have somewhere in this pile a copy of the minute from June 2015 and I can share it with the board. That would be very helpful. That would be very helpful. Thank you. Ross. And just to George and Ian, if you think that this issue is impacted on your own ability to challenge. Yes, thank you for the question. Throughout my policing career, I have experienced some very challenging places where I have felt inhibited through a number of reasons. I certainly don't feel that way on the board. In fact, all I would say about our experience on the board is colleagues round the table actually encourage you to share your views and to help us understand why we think a certain way. So my experience of it in the nearly two years I have been on the board has been pretty productive and positive in that people want to get your views. For my part, I encourage all of us to share David's genuine regret that Moise is not with us anymore. She did add a really strong element of challenge and different thinking, which I really appreciated. So I would like to think that it will be perfect. All human endeavours aren't, but I would like to think that on the board we do try and encourage different views wherever possible. That is the only value that we can really add and I certainly don't feel inhibited by recent events in saying what I think. I have similar views to my two colleagues. In fact, if it comes to it, I have had recent conversations with the chair and other colleagues about how we can ensure that we show our challenge openly and in public sessions because the nature of them means that they can become a little stilted at times. We often end up asking questions of Police Scotland officers who are there. We probably need to do a bit more of the debate about what we as a board feel about the evidence that they are giving us and the information that we are assessing before coming to a decision. We have been encouraged by the chair and by discussions amongst ourselves to do more of that, so I do not feel inhibited. In fact, if anything, we are looking to be more open about those decisions as we move forward. Thank you very much. I have a question for Moe, which is given your whole experience and given that we need people with experience on boards like the SPA. Do you think that that has the potential to dissuade the people we need, the talented people that we need to actually take up roles on boards at the SPA? I think it does. I think it raises a couple of issues. We have heard that dissent has been expressed previously. I can confirm that David's count is correct. In fact, both David and Brian went further than me. They did not just ask for their dissent to be noted, but they voted against a proposal, so they went further than me and they received no letters, so just to clarify that. But yes, I do think that it has an effect. I have been doing a great deal of work in my own time recently around improving diversity on boards. I am from a minority ethnic background myself, and I have been doing a lot of work with minority ethnic women, because I think that Nicola Sturgeon's commitment to 50-50 should not just be about gender but about ethnicity as well. I have been doing a lot of work to promote that, but recently I have found it very difficult to advise people to join boards because I am a very experienced board member. I have sat on public boards, a large number of public boards for nearly 20 years now, but my recent experience has been so surprising and so traumatic that it is not something that I would immediately recommend. Sorry, I have lost the thread of your question. Oh, it was whether I would recommend, but just to clarify, there was one point where you said that I talked about a culture of bullying. Just to clarify, I do not think there is a culture of bullying in the SPA. In response to Monica Lennon's question, did I feel bullied? Yes, because my treatment was different to the treatment of other people. Now, you can come up with your own conclusions as to why that was, but I think it was very much focused at me, and clearly colleagues have not had the same experience in the same situation. However, it certainly would make me think twice about—I think I would always express dissent because I take being a board member seriously, but I would feel quite anxious about doing that, and that should not be the way that board members feel. To ask Mr Graham—again, I have heard you say that I am qualified to talk about the contents of the letter. My question would be, should a similar dispute occur, given that members have said that they would be quite confident to record their dissent, that they would be quite confident to challenge? Could the situation have been handled more appropriately, and what would be the most appropriate way for the board chair to handle such an issue? Yes, thank you. Clearly, I do not know the detail of the conversations that are to place quite rightly, and Moi and I have kept the process fairly confidential, other than the documentation that has been provided to everybody now. I have no sight on it. My earnest wish around all of this would be that, if I was to dissent in such a way and I was to receive a letter like that, my view would be that we should have a face-to-face conversation, a discussion about it. If Moi had come to me, I would have earnestly tried to persuade her to stay with us on the board and not resign. However, I do not know the detail of that. I cannot speak for how she feels. She does that eloquently enough, and I understand why she feels that way. However, if the situation was to arise, I think that my approach should be to confront it head-on, sit down and talk it through. However, I do not know what happened in that particular instance. I will take guidance from you. I will listen to the answer, as well, as some of the challenge around the chair is not being fit to continue. You might recall that, at our last meeting, we took evidence from Andrew Flanagan that I asked him about his thoughts on his own position, of which he thought he was happy and fit to continue. I asked the same of Paul Johnson, who agreed. In fact, Paul Johnson said that he is subject to regular performance reviews and the responsibility falls to him and that he would not conduct a review in public, but on-going performance reviews are undertaken by him. I can understand that we cannot have those reviews in public, but there must be a framework or guidelines that we could maybe ask them to make public and available to this committee, which I think might be quite helpful. We can certainly consider that. However, as you know, the Justice Sub-Committee is taking forward work on this in the next week, and it may be something that they properly pick up rather than it being for this committee. Any further questions, Mr Tom? No. My last question is to Mr Penman, which is on his inspection, which we will specifically consider leadership and governance. You also said that if there was anything else that we thought might benefit. Will you specifically be looking at the treatment of Moiali and understandings of on-board guidance as part of that? Absolutely. In terms of reference, I would intend to do that. For me, the letter raises two issues. The first, as the convener has highlighted, is about the shared understanding of on-board guidance, the concept of collective responsibility and dissent. That was the role of the chair to encourage debate in there. Those are areas that we will look at. I think that there are some issues around perhaps the interpretation of cabinet responsibility, which is things happening in private and are then played out united, as opposed to collective responsibility and on-board guidance, which clearly allows for that. In order to do that, we will be working with Audit Scotland, and we would intend to look at the induction that members have received. We also intend to interview the chair, all members and some senior officers of the SPA to check their understanding and application of on-board guidance and to offer judgment on that within our report. Obviously, in today's evidence, we also look at the consistency of that across decisions that I have been taking recently. The second issue for me is also around the authority of the chair, effectively, to take action with members and where that authority is drawn from. On-board guidance talks would come from either legislation or the standing orders of the authority. We have asked for the standing orders of the authority to understand what are the proper processes to be followed in relation to a situation in which the chair is effectively in dispute with a member and how that would be played out. Again, we will offer a commentary and a judgment of that in our report. In fact, Derek has just covered exactly the ground that I was going to cover. On-board guidance is quite, if not silent, on dispute resolution. I think that it is to be welcomed that the HMICS review will extend into this area and, hopefully, promote clarity in that area. The other area that there is uncertainty about is the escalation of that. Again, some comment from HMICS on how the formal process of resolution is carried out and to what effect I think will be helpful as well. If the judgment was wrong in the first instance, no amount of dispute resolution is going to get you through that. Would that be fair? No, I do not think that that would be fair in every case. I understand the point that you are making and I would not demur totally from it, but I do not think that that is a general rule. Obviously, there is the initial issue that gives rise to any dispute. However, how we deal with that once that has happened is critical. In this case, it was critical. When I saw the draft terms of reference from HMICS, I absolutely welcomed that addition to the remit. Thank you, convener, and good morning everybody. I am a relatively new member of the committee, but I served on the committee a number of years ago, and colleagues are pretty well so far covering the historical journey that we have made to this point. I am interested, I think, as a new member, in focusing on what is happening now, here and now, in trying to get some kind of sense of assurance, reassurance from everyone around the table about the current quality and arrangements for scrutiny. Do you think that correct and proper and thorough scrutiny arrangements are in place at the moment? Does the board member think currently that the SPA is doing a good job or a better job at holding Police Scotland to account? I feel that that is the key question that the public will be wanting to receive some assurance of at the moment, and obviously through Mr Penman's review. Thank you for that. The larger review will look in great detail around the leadership and governance and other aspects of the authority, and that would allow us to effectively provide judgment on that. I am conscious of the evidence that the chair gave to the committee, which I think he himself recognised that there was still some room for improvement, and the improvement still has to be done. I would share that view, but I would also share the view that Mr Graham has put forward around that there has been some improvement within the board. The chair has brought out his review. There was much to be commended in that review in terms of protocols and how the governance of the group would meet. The chair has also improved the relationships with Police Scotland quite significantly. That has manifested itself in the joint work to produce a 2026 strategy, so there are positive signs around that, and new members have been recruited. However, it is also clear that the authority must have the confidence of the public, and there is reassurance that it has to be ready quite quickly in relation to that, and hopefully the review that we do will be able to do that. I would like to say something about the Police and Fire Reform Act and the responsibilities that it places on the police authority. Very often, we focus on the notion of scrutiny and holding to account. It is a very important part of what the police authority does, but it is not everything. I keep reminding anyone who is willing to listen that our responsibilities are first and foremost to maintain the police service in Scotland, but also to champion or promote policing principles across Scotland—in other words, to be a supporter and an encourager, as well as a challenger. Some of that, I think, the vast majority of the scrutiny and the challenging in supporting can be done in public, but an awful lot of the relationships that you need to be able to do that effectively in public need to be formed in private. I go back to what I said at the outset, that I think that there needs to be a balance. I would suggest that we have maybe tilted the balance in favour of the developing relationships and not enough about the perceptions of how the authority is performing its duty, and we may need to redress that. In fact, I am pretty sure that we do need to redress that and do more of our challenging, scrutinising and supporting in public. However, I think that, not only in 2026 but in some of the work that we are doing in the performance framework to get a clearer understanding of what really is police performance and not just crime figures to get a better understanding of how localism should work and how local police can respond to and engage with local communities. I think that getting under the skin of that is better. How the new command and control processes are going to work now that we are going from what was eight control rooms across Scotland into three in a national inquiry unit. How all of that knits together and properly serves the public needs to be demonstrated and demonstrated over the next few years. I think that we do that best by understanding how the police service works and then properly scrutinising and encouraging in public. Mr Sheim, did you want to? I did. Thank you very much. I think that the whole issue of scrutiny is absolutely critical to what we do. As George said and as the axe says, we are there to support policing, but that scrutiny is a key part of what we do. The remarks that I wanted to make refer to the pre-existing situation before December, because I think that it is my view that the previous committee system was not working efficiently or effectively. I had criticised that from a number of perspectives, so I welcomed the governance review. For me, coming from a local authority background, I thought that the chair's proposals were interesting because, in a local authority context, they mirrored the changes that the Macintosh review brought in in the early 2000s, where local authority committees were done away with and replaced in most of Scotland at that time with an executive scrutiny model. My interest in that area was to see whether that would improve the scrutiny, reduce the waste and the ineffectiveness of a very expensive committee system that was in place. The selling point for me at that stage was that it was agreed that we would have a six-month review period, and I wanted to place myself in that position to carry out the review of the six months. I knew at that stage that HMICS was going to conduct a review, and I felt that that represented potentially something that we should look at as a way of improving scrutiny, increasing effectiveness and carrying out a thorough review on the basis of the evidence that we collected. Around that, through a discussion that I had with Moe that we negotiated for an internal audit review to be carried out in the second quarter of the year, we knew that HMICS were intending to carry out a review getting into the late summer early autumn of the year. We were beginning to build an appreciation of the interest that Audit Scotland had in governance and transparency. It seemed to me at that stage that, given that the previous system was not working and that we needed to improve the effectiveness of our scrutiny, it represented something to carry out and collect evidence about to review and ensure that we could set a standard against a known standard for good governance and openness and transparency. That was the pathway that I thought we were embarked on in December, and I hope that, with the reviews that I am convinced, we will get through to that stage with the assistance of the other external agencies. Can I say as well that a lot of the issues that Moe and Brian raised do not need to wait for a review to have some of those issues addressed. Could you possibly tell us of some of the issues that they raised and that have been raised over the past weeks and months? Where have those kinds of issues been addressed and where have those improvements taken place within the current arrangements? I would hate to think convener that we are just sitting and waiting for the review to solve everything. Sometimes, these are interpersonal relationships that can improve by working together and discussing and resolving things, and we do not need to wait for a formal review, so where have some of the issues that have been raised by our colleagues here been dealt with currently by the board and where have the improvements taken place? It was my intention to say that everything is put on hold until these reviews. I was talking about the new form of governance, which I felt required some evidence to be pulled together and for those issues to be scrutinised within a relatively short period. However, I agree with comments that other people have made at the end of the table about the continuing improvements that have been over the past year in the way that the board is operating, in the way that it is scrutinising and in the way that it is being responsible for the budget that we have. If you take the oversight of the budget, which is over £1 billion, we are in a much better position now in terms of having a proper cost base and understanding of that budget now than we have been previously. Going forward, there is a much greater understanding and unanimity of the board around the challenge of transformation that is facing policing. That has all been happening on a month-by-month basis over the past year or so. I wonder if I could ask Mr White to come in on that as well. That will be my last question, but supposing that some other issue arises along the same lines that Moai has raised, you guys are still on the board. What is the nature of relationship to try and prevent circumstances like that happening again? I guess that we will never be able to repair the damage that Moai and perhaps Brian Fuel have been carried out. If something were to happen again like this in the current board and in the current set-up, how would you deal with it now? That is what I am trying to get a sense of. Could this happen again or are there arrangements improving and better in place now to try and deal with this better? The difficulty that I have about that question is that this situation was so unusual compared with our normal discussions in a sense that our members' meetings—I know that you have had some dialogue with the chief executive about the nature of our members' meetings—are there to allow a lot of that discursive space to be available to us. I would say that a lot of that has been used for us to come to agreement on what approach we want to take with Police Scotland and others about how we challenge and how we bring matters forward. It is also by including Police Scotland from time to time at appropriate times in more private discussions allowed us to get them to a place where they are providing us appropriate information, where there is a shared understanding of the information that we need to do our job and how that can be taken forward. We have seen through the development of the 2026 strategy and through our development of a longer-term financial plan to bring the SPA and Police Scotland back into balance a much better understanding of those things. I suppose that it shows up in some of the public papers where you will start. We hope to see much better business cases put forward for change and an agreed approach where we encourage Police Scotland to work with us and the public to come forward with what they need from policing, to work to the police priorities, to set an agenda that we agree on, and the holding to account bit becomes about us holding them to account for delivering that. You mentioned the holding to account at the start. It is about holding them to account for delivering an agreed strategy and the performance that sits behind that. I thank you, convener. I have to give other colleagues a chance. Before I turn to Colin Beattie, could I raise something with David Hume? My understanding of the Macintosh model is that committees in local government were removed and replaced by this executive scrutiny model. Is it not the case that committees continue within SPA but are simply in private now? That is a good point. That is true. It is analogous in the sense that although in local government my experience of it was that the committees were removed with the exception of education and certain aspects of regulation and so on, nonetheless working groups continued so that policy options could be explored and by their nature they were conducted in private. They weren't public meetings and were taken forward. I stand my concern that the committees, as described previously, still remain, albeit that they may have been restructured and called something else. No, the analogy still holds the thing, convener, with respect. I am not sure. I am going to bring in Colin Beattie now. So, Hume, on this, the key and critical thing that gave me some reassurance about this, when we made that decision and we should be reviewing it, was that we agreed that any decision making processes would be taken at the full board in public with oversight of webcasting. Let me ask you about that reassurance, because I understand that a review was undertaken by the chief executive of whether your processes were transparent, how you compared yourselves with other bodies and he came back and reported to the board that you were the best or amongst the best. Do you believe that to be true now? Did you believe him at the time, given your experience of public sector? I asked him in public for his view and I was given a reassurance. I believe that it is correct in terms of how many as possible of our decisions are taken in public. Okay, so heavily caveated then. Well, I have challenged and we've heard, we've talked this morning about whether there has been challenge. I have challenged in a number of places and sometimes it seems to be minuteed, sometimes not, but I have challenged some of the assertions through the governance review about what went on, what was conducted in public and private. The minute suggests that the view, maybe not of all of you, but that's not recorded, but the view of the chief executive expressed to the board is that you were amongst the best. So I just let that rest there. Colin Beattie. Thank you, convener. Mr Barber, it's sometime now, of course, since you left the board, but you were there during a fairly critical period when the board was initially set up. Is that correct during the first year or so? During that time, did committees meet in private during that period? As a principal, during that time, committees met in public, but there were also private sessions and the default position that I certainly, as chair of the audit committee at the time, tried to encourage was things should be public unless there was a good reason for them to be in private. I was somewhat surprised at the governance review because David Hume, who, as you know, was one person who publicly dissented on a vote at a meeting that we attended, was also a proponent for a default position of everything should be in public unless there's a documented rationale for being in private. Thank you. You've made a couple of sessions here, which are obviously of great concern. One is about, effectively, political intervention and about items disappearing from agendas. Obviously, this committee works on the basis of evidence. Do you have any evidence of this happening? In terms of interference, if I go back to the very early days of setting up Police Scotland, the chief constable and the SPA agreed at a meeting in the Beardmoor of Allocation and Division of Responsibilities. That agreement was put in writing, made in a private session between SPA and Police Scotland, and was subsequently unwound. It was unwound because of Government intervention. Now, when I see Government there, it's political stoke Government officials, but certainly I would hope that colleagues here could confirm that what we decided was changed within a number of months. In terms of items disappearing from agenda, my recollection is that, round about December 2014, we were asked to share draft agendas with the Government, as against just sharing the proposed agenda when it had been finalised. During that first year or so, there was a considerable amount of issues within SPA and Police Scotland. Would you have expected the Government to become involved in that? I would expect the Government as a key stakeholder to be wanting things to work to the best. I wouldn't have expected intervention that almost gave direction, but without being a direction that had come in front of Parliament. Can I ask the other board members whether they have any evidence on this? Thank you for the question. I declare an interest in the example that Brian Brown has given. I was at HMICS at the time when those challenges were taking place. You could describe this as Government interference, HMICS interference, you could describe it in a number of different ways. The reality was that it is similar to what is happening just now. HMICS is taking a position on certain things and will make recommendations. I certainly had a different view as HMICS about governance responsibilities and made that fairly clear in the early days of Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority, which caused, again, some discussions, debates and a change of track. I think that most of this is well documented and particularly understood as part of the history of the SPA's development. You could describe it as interference if you like. I do not see it as that, I see it as legitimate stakeholders, including myself, within the HMICS organisation at that time, making a view known about how governance should and could work. It was about the proper division of responsibilities between Government, Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland and who had responsibility for what, which is now documented in the terms of governance. Do any of the other board members have any evidence on items disappearing from agendas? I have no evidence of that and, certainly, if I had been aware of that kind of interference, then I would not have accepted it. I have absolutely no evidence of that. I think that the SPA, particularly in the early days, had a complex process of negotiation with a whole range of stakeholders, and you would expect that. However, in any relationship and public administration of that sort, there are lines that you do not cross and, if they are crossed, then there are actions that you can take to raise concerns. I have no evidence of that and I have no recollection of anybody raising serious concerns at that time. I assume that you are just continuing on the governance. My understanding is that you are due to complete the SPA's own review of governance in June? Yes. How is that going to fit in with Mr Penman's inspection? You might have noted a note of hesitancy in my voice before I said yes. As we are developing that and as the other reviews are becoming clear, we will be undertaking a review within that period, but it will go beyond that period. Once I knew that the HMICS were going to carry out a review that we had committed to a six-month review period, I thought from my past experience and good audit practice that when you are facing a serious audit, the essential thing is to carry out your own audit to look at where you are strong and where you are weak and develop an improvement plan so that the audit team coming in has a basis for taking that and using it as it sees fit and develop. That was certainly my hope and intention at the time. That is still my hope and intention. We will carry out and collect evidence up to that period. There will be a report at our board in June, but I think that it will go beyond that, because I think that related to something that the convener asked about where we sit alongside other bodies. What I want to do is to go beyond us to get to a standard where we can benchmark ourselves against an international standard of good governance that has been articulated, and we will be doing that with consultation with HMICS and Audit Scotland. There will be a report at the June board, but this work is going to go beyond that, I think, into the ultimate least. I am in the question of your inspection. What powers do you have? If you find that there are problems, you are dissatisfied with some aspects. I will obviously bring that out in your report. What powers do you have to enforce that? I have powers under statute, which effectifies me to do anything that I consider necessary to experience. It is quite a high-level power in terms of going in to look and seeking information from that. I have the power to make recommendations to the chief constable and to the chair of the police authority, and under statute they have an obligation to have regard to my recommendations from there. I cannot direct them to follow the recommendations, but if I consider that them not following them would have an effect on efficiency or effectiveness, I can report to the cabinet secretary or Scottish ministers and Scottish ministers can direct the authority. What do witnesses think about these powers? Are they sufficient? Is it sufficient to ensure that SBA does come out of this a stronger, better organisation? I would say that, but I think that we would be very foolhardy to ignore recommendations of an HMICS inspection. If the thoroughness and professionalism with which these inspections are done, if it comes up with recommendations, I would be very surprised if we got to a position where we had to be directed by anyone. I think that we would recognise the sense in the review and the recommendations, and I think that other board members might have a view of the wish to express, but I would certainly be wanting to fulfil the terms of the recommendations. I really wanted to respond to the comment about being foolhardy in ignoring HMICS recommendations. I believe that HMICS did right to the board before this decision was taken, albeit that we didn't know that he'd written, but we were certainly aware of the concerns that he had. They were ignored, so I'm not entirely sure that those two... I know there's a difference in a formal recommendation and a strong expression of feeling, advice, however you want to term it, and actually I think we're only in a situation that we're in now because the views of HMICS and other stakeholders was ignored, and I think that was foolhardy. Ms Fairman, you're probably aware of that letter that you sent to the chair. Would you have expected that to be seen by the board? I think I've actually explicit in the letter where I said that it was written solely for the purpose of making members aware of the concerns that I had ahead of the decision that we're making on the Thursday, I think I wrote on the Friday, so I did have an expectation at least that it would be shared by members. Members would be aware of that. Members of the board, of course, did not receive it. No, but it would be fair to say that I have meetings with HMICS.  I wouldn't say that there were recommendations when I... I think it would be foolhardy, and I repeat that expression. It would be foolhardy to ignore a recommendation following a thorough review from HMICS. It is a very different proposition, because a number of stakeholders have different views, which we tried to find a balance on. My distinction is that I was fully aware of Mr Penman's views on the holding of public and private. I hope that I may be proven wrong, but I hope that, following the thoroughness of the review, there is at least some recognition that the board and the authority still have the capacity to have at least some of its meetings in private, because I still hold the view that that is very important, that we have that capacity. Can I ask the point, Mr Hewman, whether they were similarly aware of these concerns, in spite of not seeing a letter? Yes. Can I say absolutely that I went into that meeting fully aware of the concerns of HMICS, had the benefit of George informing the meeting of these concerns, Moy similarly informed the meeting, and had the benefit of a conversation with HMICS about those matters. To ask if we are full hard day, I would say no. I think that we would have been full hard day if we had made a permanent decision to move to a new arrangement in December, and I would not have supported it on that basis, because that was the basis of my previous descent. I felt that, by giving ourselves a six-month review, it allowed us to address some of the issues that were absolutely clamant at that time, and it gave ourselves the chance to collect evidence, because at that stage I felt that the discussion about the plusses and minuses with regard to the new governance system were being made on the basis of opinion, and I wanted to collect some evidence so that we had a proper basis for making that decision to address some of the issues that we had. Are you saying that your review was actually resulting from the concerns from the inspector? No, I would not say that, but they were not dissociated with it. It was part of the agreement in December to move forward that there would be a six-month review, and on the basis of, as I indicated previously, we were aware of the concerns that HMICS had expressed, and we were also aware at that time that a full review would be carried out by HMICS. That while board members were aware of HMICS's concerns, it is very important to note that they were not aware, as a result of either the chair or the chief executive informing the board, that they were aware, because a number of us, I think, interestingly, actually the four of us around this table, came across Derek in various meetings, and Derek shared his views with us, and we then raised those with the board. I think that you'll see that from the minutes. Nowhere did the chair or the chief executive share the concerns of HMICS with the board, and I would expect the chief executive to advise the board and the chair to lead the board, and that information did not come from either of those two. The other point about having an evidence base before changing things is that, actually, the board should have had that evidence base before deciding to move from public to private meetings, and the evidence base was not there, so if having an evidence base is important, then surely that applies as much to the December meeting as well. Alex Neil. I start with Mr Barber. Mr Barber, in your written submission, you say in relation to the selection of a new chief constable that your real worry was that interested parties identify a preferred candidate and try to influence the selection criteria accordingly. Can you be more specific? It was a general fear of mine, and I was sharing my thoughts. That memo was written to the chair on the day I left the SPA. I hadn't yet met him, so it was a hero of my thoughts on moving forward, things that were good about the board and things that needed to be changed. In that, I was expressing concern that we had had regular intervention, and it was a legitimate worry of mine that people may be wanting to fit the criteria to the person, rather than the board being absolutely clear of the criteria for the right chief constable, and then going through the interview process and seeing who matched the criteria. Were those people referring to members of the board? No, those people who are referring to were again external influence out with the board. I think that the board were right. What are you talking about? I'm talking particularly about government and in government, both the political side and the official side. So, were you talking about the civil service? Civil service, and potentially if the cabinet secretary had expressed an interest, but I wasn't privy to that kind of discussion. Did you have any evidence of that? No, that's why I was expressing that it was a worry. I wasn't saying I've got evidence to say it's happening. I was being open with the chair and saying that it's a concern of mine. Right, but I think that to be fair in your submission you should have made it clear that you didn't have any evidence, it was just a feeling. That's why I took an extract of my email to the chair and that's a verbatim extract from my email and it was my real worry, not I've seen evidence, I was very specific. Were obviously worries publicly concerned should be evidence-backed? Oh, indeed, yes.  Can you give us an indication of what information it was, who refused it and why? Yes, first to clarify it was not publicly available but it was readily available to the SPA, in other words it wouldn't be onerous for them to produce it. I mean it wasn't marked private and confidential. I don't know, it was of private meetings but there were meetings that I attended, so I wasn't asking them for information that I would not have and I'll give you examples. I wanted the October, November and December audit committee minutes for example. I wanted the minutes of the member's meetings received extracts here but I actually wanted the full minutes of those. I wanted earlier drafts because one in particular has changed very significantly. I had two earlier drafts and they're very different to the one that you had. So it's really for me to get the complete picture. The reason I was given for being refused them was that it was very important to have a level playing field and for everybody to have the same information and I said that I understood that. I was perfectly happy for everybody to have that and in fact my concern was that there wasn't a level playing field because my colleagues here have that information. I used to have it because I had an SPA blackberry in an iPad and the information's there but because I no longer have that I was the one who didn't have it and they do have it and yet the argument about a level playing field was being used to deny me information that I was then told that if my colleagues asked for it I would be given it but they wouldn't ask for it because they have it. So it was a complete catch 22 and as late as six o'clock last night I received a further email saying that some of the information would be made available to me under a subject access request which I'd had to make but obviously they have 40 days in which to comply with that so which is no use for me for today's meeting. So level playing field suggests they saw this as a bit of a bun fight between you and the other board members presumably? I think they they their feeling is that I'm on the outside and therefore I no longer have the same rights as my former colleagues to information that I previously held and that clearly is not a whether you want to call it a bun fight or whatever but certainly I am at a disadvantage compared if you look at I've got this and my colleagues have files of information. And who refused this? The chief executive refused it. Yes, I did go via Scottish Government because on a previous occasion when I'd asked for information it was shredded after I made the request so on this occasion I went via Paul Johnstone. Tell me about that you made an earlier request for information. Not to do with this committee but my only other occasion when I asked the SPA for information they the chief executive wrote to me I can produce the email I'm happy to do so saying that it had been securely disposed of. After you'd made the request? After I'd made the request yes. So what was this information? This was information I mean this is the I stress it's the previous chair but the same chief executive but I had asked for information where I the chair had said that I was a one-trick diversity pony and was that the previous chairman? The previous chair and I he said it isn't me saying that it's HMICS and I said that I didn't believe that that was the case and I didn't believe that HMICS would use that terminology and I wanted to see the information and he said that I couldn't have it so I made a formal request. So was this written information? He read from a piece of paper yes. So was it a minute of a meeting or something like that? It was part of the appraisal process so there was a document that he read from that said this and I asked for that information and was on three occasions and was told I couldn't have it so when I made a formal request the chief executive wrote to me and told me that it had been securely disposed of. So who was the author of that disgusting statement? The previous chair. The previous chair. Sorry that has been has that was part of a whole process that has been dealt with. So how was it dealt with? Well I think the outcome of that was that I was not the only person with concerns and other board members had concerns and Scottish Government addressed that issue. How did they address it? The chairs yes thank you. No but it wasn't over that particular issue was it? That was part of that. I think that that's quite serious. If a chief executive of a public body presides over first of all the original phraseology is clearly totally unacceptable for the chief executive if you're saying the chief executive had that destroyed after. Just to clarify he didn't destroy it he wrote to me informing me that it had been destroyed and I asked for information about who and when and why and didn't receive that information but I don't think the chief executive destroyed it but my point was that having previously tried to get information that was important to me and knowing what could happen to it because it had happened and I mean I'm happy to produce the email that says this. Right but just to be clear it was destroyed after you had made the request. Yes that's correct. I think we need to get much more information in that convener because that's totally unacceptable even though it's historic it shows that the chief executive is still the chief executive and if he's prepared to do that there's something very serious in the organisation. That he didn't do my knowledge, he didn't do it but nevertheless he's the accountable officer clearly he should not have happened very clearly should not have happened so it was the chief executive who refused you the information for today's meeting. That's correct yes I wrote to him via Scottish Government because Scottish Government were aware of the previous issue. I spoke to Paul Johnston following this meeting here and explained to him he was aware of what had happened previously and I said given what happened before I actually don't have confidence that I'll be given the information I need and he said well that's fine you can make the request through me so I wrote to him set out the information that I required and he then made the request and some days went by and I hadn't received it and it was very straightforward information and I chased it up and I was told that the chief executive was about to leave the office and he wouldn't be in on the following Monday and I said it was urgent because I was going to be working in London I needed the information to prepare for this and a lot of emails went to and fro and Scottish Government were involved and they spoke to me and they spoke to the chief executive and they were very supportive and helpful but they were unable to secure the information that I needed and all I have is the information that is in the public domain now on this committee's website. I don't have any of the information that I asked for. Can I ask the she-non-executive directors what they're going to do about this? It's clearly unacceptable. Thank you, convener. First, I can assure members that I don't feel like I'm in a bunfight with my ally, she's a former colleague and I very much respect her position. What do you think of that? I don't feel like I'm in a bunfight and I don't feel that I have a whole host of information, I've got my opening statement and that's it but I do respect that yesterday the clerk to this committee put a note out saying, no more information please, there was so much coming in. Mr Graham, can you answer the question what you're going to do about the refusal to give Mawali the information and about the fact that the chief executive didn't appear to that first incident, didn't appear to a rid of the paperwork himself but somebody within the organisation clearly did after a request was made, that's very serious. For an organisation that you've been telling us all morning is running well, full of improvement and everything's above board and open and transparent, it's anything but. I think you make a number of assertions there that I haven't made, I don't think it's running well and everything's above board, I know we can improve and I know we can get better so please. What are you going to do with this? If you'd let me answer please that would be helpful. About this, in relation to the information that Mawali's asked for yesterday, all I can do is research why that was the case, why the situation happened the way it did and see if we can put that right. I don't know why that information was refused, I don't know enough about it but I can undertake here to have a look into that and see the historical issue that I think Mawali has raised. Again, I don't know anything about that but if that is something that Mawali wishes to raise again then of course we would explore that and make sure that that kind of thing didn't happen. It's certainly not the kind of thing that is described in that historical situation, that's not the kind of thing, that's not the way that we in the SBA would like our officials to deal with information requests like that. Clearly that appears to be happening, obviously you've got to find out the other side of the story before you decide what you want to do about it but I need a guarantee from the three non-executives that this just cannot be allowed to happen with no investigation and appropriate action because clearly it breaches every rule, every principle in the book about openness and transparency. Yeah, I can certainly give you that reassurance that we will explore this situation. Yeah, we can happily go back to the chief executive and question why that information hasn't been said. You come back to us and tell us what's happening about it. Yes and I'm sure we can ask the chief executive to provide you with full detail on that. Absolutely, well I think I should bring him back to the committee actually. But convener, if I might say the previous incident that Moe mentioned was my understanding that was subject to a complaints process and there was an outcome to that and I think as Moe has indicated she was I don't know if she's content but she understands the outcome to that and so the matter had been dealt with through a historic process. Let me just address a comment from Mr Graham because I think it's important to do so. The committee requested full minutes. What we were provided with were extracts so if the chief executive and his staff can take the time to simply just extract all the information he can surely take the time to provide information to others. We put a time bar on our information because it's disrespectful to members of the committee to expect at the 11th hour to provide bundles more information that is not urgent. Okay, thank you. Just to add to that, convener, can I ask that we get a copy of all the information that Moe Alley asked for and was refused and secondly can I ask the non-executive directors about I think most Mr White and Mr Hume have confirmed that they had dissented on certain issues at the board meeting as had Moe Alley, but it didn't appear in the minutes. Can I clarify that? My dissent was in relation to a previous discussion about governance, which took place in June 2015 and I sent it at the time and I have now here in front of me the minute from that meeting where there were two decisions and with regard to the first decision, Brian Barber and I are recorded as dissenting and in the second decision I'm showing myself as dissenting. It's not been... My convener, I indicated that I had raised a number of questions at different points but I had not recorded dissent to the decisions that were made. We have not received any of that information. I don't doubt the veracity of what you're telling us but it is the SPHE chief executive who has chosen not to provide us with that information. It's the only conclusion that I can draw. Mr Penman, you wanted to come in then back to Alex Neil. Just briefly to give you an assurance that we will request and we'll review all the minutes unredacted in the extracts from them and query whether they're released publicly but we'll look at that and we'll also include the comments that have been made today in terms of historic inconsistency. I think that's very helpful. Alex Neil? I think that that would be very helpful indeed to mean clearly. Presumably, this wasn't made under a formal FOA, but nevertheless it appeared to be a reasonable request that should have been fulfilled. That this behaviour is part of the problem and the culture of the organisation that it would appear to be which the culture is one of secrecy and non-cooperation with people which is not acceptable. I think that Mr White wanted to come back in. I don't know the details of why the chief executive has put forward certain parts and not others from minutes. All I can tell you is that some of the minutes that I think that my requested were from private meetings and some were from members meetings, there would be amongst the issues discussed sensitive matters that may relate to security issues that could not be released publicly and there may also be financial and commercial discussions in there that would obviously be exempt from FOI because they would be to the detriment of the public service where they released and it may be something to do with that. I don't know, but I would ask that the committee handle any information sensitively for those reasons. Request and not getting first with their excuses as a non-executive director, your role is to challenge and be robust. It seems as though you have made your mind up already. No, I am conscious that some of the things in those meetings may be appropriately held in private even under FOI legislation. I say with all due respect and I hear absolutely what you say, but they are extracts that only deal with governance, nothing else. We requested minutes, had there been a request to redact certain things that were sensitive, I am sure that the committee would have looked at that and considered that as appropriate. There is nothing like that in those minutes. The fact that your dissension and Mr Hume's dissension are not recorded is actually not helpful to the consideration of the committee and I do hope that you will take that back to the SPA. I will clarify yet again, I have said this twice now, that the dissent that Mr Hume was talking about was recorded in a public meeting back in June 2015. I did not record dissent at any point and I have said that twice and I would like to clarify that. I want to focus in on the role of non-executive directors having been a non-executive director of a number of companies myself and obviously you are operating in the public sector. Can I first of all start with the letter from Derek Penman to the chair prior to the December board meeting? Despite the explicit request in the letter, which has been confirmed this morning by Mr Penman that he had made an explicit request to the chair that the letter be circulated to the board for this meeting. Not only was it not circulated, the chief executive was not even informed by the chair at the time of the existence, let alone the contents of the letter. When did you find out about this letter? When did you get to read it? Have you read it? Yes, I have it in front of me. When did you get it? I can't recall, it wasn't at the time. It's a collective amnesia again. No, no, no, it's not. Amnesia must be contagious in the SBA. No, that's not the case. Roughly when did you get it? In recent times. How recent? Well, when was it last week, last month? Did you get it in December, did you get it in January? I don't date that material that I get, but I think it was within the last month. I would say that, as I said earlier, we had a full discussion about the view from H1C. I've heard all that. That's not my question. Can Mr Graham and Mr White tell me when you got this, have you read the letter and when did you get a copy? Yes, I have now read the letter, the full detail of which was apparent to me about two or three weeks ago. Exactly the same for me. I have a copy of it with me, but I hadn't seen it until this issue arose at your committees. So my next question is the obvious one. You are non-executive directors and part of your function is to make sure that the board is above board, transparent, it's all in your remit, it's all in the nine principles referred to earlier. When did you ask the chairman why you hadn't received a copy of the letter from the inspector who had specifically requested that you all get a copy before the December meeting? When have you taken the chair to task for not circulating that letter? Before we answer that, can I just bring us back to the HMICS letter? Because what the HMICS letter says, and I've just confirmed it with HMICS sitting next to me, is that he says that I accept that it will be properly a matter for the board to approve the corporate governance framework. That's fine. My comments are intended to solely inform members ahead of their decisions next week. On the basis of conversations that I had had with Derek, the conversations with both Moy and George, I was fully aware—I went into that meeting fully aware of the views of HMICS. That's not the point, Mr Hume. The point is that the chief inspector asked the chair to circulate the meeting to every board member. It should have been circulated, and if I had been a non-executive director and found out at a much later stage that I didn't receive it and only got it by accident because the chairman got a roasting at this committee, as a non-executive director, you should have been on to the chair to demand that future letters like this, where there's clearly interest and a request for it to be circulated to the board, and if you're not prepared to do that, you're not fit to be a non-executive director. You're there to hold the chair, amongst others, to account. We're quite aware of that. The letter doesn't seem to be the letter. You're making excuses for him. No. Why have you not complained to the chair that this letter was not circulated as requested by the inspector? I mean, one of the things announced in the letter was the new review and inspection by the inspector, indeed. Now, you didn't actually know that formally. I did. No, not formally, you didn't. That was the first. No, he didn't tell you formally. It has to go to the board. You know, if that's a level of scrutiny you're exercising as a non-executive director, personally I find it wholly inadequate. You're supposed to hold the chair to account, and if the chair has not circulated a letter specifically from the inspector who has specifically asked the board to see it, whether or not you already knew the information, every member of the board maybe didn't know all the information. The point is, if the inspector wants it circulated, surely it should be circulated. Surely there's a former inspector, Mr Graham, who would have expected that to happen? Yes, you've made a number of assertions that I think there's a fair bit of relationship informality, which definitely happens, but in hindsight, and I'm sure the chair will have reflected since he described his meeting at the board last week or a four-night ago, we reflected that. I certainly would have appreciated seeing the detail of that letter. So have you now made it clear to the chairman in future that you don't expect a repeat of this? I have not had that conversation. Is it not time you did? It may well be, but... Well, are you going to? Are you going to? I think the most important thing... Are you going to? The most important thing. You can keep asking me that question, but I'd like to give you a full answer to this. Well, yes, I know, and you're going to tell the chairman you don't want it to happen again. I have great respect for how the chair is managing business. I certainly do not want a whole host of issues coming up, but I certainly would have the discussion with him that says that it would have been useful to see a letter that specifically said should have been to the board. So, yes. Mr White. Which bit would you like me to answer? Well, have you complained to the chairman that the letter wasn't circulated as requested? No, I haven't complained to the chairman, but like others here, I was fully aware of the views of HMICS. In a sense, it was already factored into the decision making that we had. Poor. Although I had conversations with all the members and they would be clear of my intention and my views, the letter, which extends to, I think, three pages, went into some nuance and detail around that. There were things in there that I know that I wouldn't have discussed with members, so without wanting to be objectionable around that, there was stuff contained in the letter that was a level of detail that I would not have had the opportunity to explain in conversations in the margins with members. Another part for me was just to clarify our position and correct evidence. When I sent the letter to the SBA, which was the 9th of December, it was also copied to the chief executive. Well, he said in this committee he hadn't seen it. And I'm offering to correct that evidence in terms of our recollection, not recollection of the email that we sent. So having heard what the chief inspector has just said, are you now prepared to go to the chair and say this is totally unacceptable? I mean, I think I've always been prepared to have that discussion, and I think the chair himself will reflect on exactly the information that he discussed with you the fortnight to go, but I've always been prepared to have that discussion. You're not leaving us with a lot of confidence that you're doing the proper job of a non-executive director, I have to say. Yeah, and I think, can I just come back on that? Because I think it's wonderful that you can make such assertions. There is an awful lot of really good things that we do as a board. And the focus on one singular point, or failure, if you want to call it that, or failure to circulate a letter or deliberate judgment on someone's behalf, to focus on that and then to describe the board as inadequate, I think, is a poor characterisation of what we're doing. And I certainly feel quite passionate about policing. I am in this for only one purpose, to help the Police Service of Scotland deliver the very best it can for communities. So to come in here and to hear, because of one particular issue you make an assertion, that we are inadequate as a board, I think, is unfair. Well, just a minute. You're being paid as a non-executive director. You're getting paid by the public as a non-executive director. And I am quite simply disagreeing with your assertion, and I am entitled to do that. Mr Graham. Okay, we're not going to get very far collectively this morning, if we shout at each other.  Equally, I would say to members, there are passions around the table, but let's try and just lower the temperature, but nevertheless, we will still be seeking answers, and we will be robust in our scrutiny, and nothing will stop this committee from doing that. Mr Neil. Can I just make the point that it's not a one-off? Ever since this board was set up, there have been real problems time after time after time. What the chief inspector has just said, I think, has to be taken very seriously by every member of the board. I absolutely appreciate your former service and that you're very committed to the future of the police service, and you've got a very good track record in serving the nation and the police. But in your new role as a non-executive director, part of your function is to make sure that the board is operating efficiently, transparently, holding the chair and others to account the chief constable and others. And the point I'm making is that this is clearly on the fundamental issue of governance, and the governance review has not happened. And I think that in that respect, and solely in that respect I'm making comment, I think that the non-executive members of the board have not fulfilled the function with the robustness that you need to fulfil your function, and I think that you need to be able to say to the chair, don't do that again. I'm not asking for the chair's resignation, or anyone's resignation, or anything like that, because we all have to learn lessons, and as you said yourself, Mr Graham, you're new to the role of a non-executive director. So what I'm saying is that we're paying non-executive directors to hold people to account. On this occasion, clearly, especially in the light of the chief inspector's comments, that did not happen. Your job now is to make sure that there's no repeat and that it happens in future. That's the point I'm making. I'm not trying to, in any way, derive your service or anyone else's service, but I want, I like you, want to see an efficient Scottish police authority holding people to account, and that includes internal account. Clearly, you've heard this morning about people being denied information. You've heard loads of other stories as well. This clearly still, as everybody agrees, a lot more to do to get the Scottish police authority into the position where it needs to be to gain the confidence of this Parliament and the Scottish people. Thank you, convener, and thank you, Mr Neil, for those comments. I respect your position on this particular issue, and I accept that. As you clearly point out, and I accept myself, I am still very much learning in my endeavours. What I would say is that there are a number of tangible examples where I think we have engaged in effective scrutiny. I wouldn't like the committee to have the impression that, just because of this one single issue, it was, that was completely how we behaved. Finally, can I just say that a number of our staff within the SPA who have, I think, been through a fairly turbulent three or four years worked incredibly hard to try and support us as non-executive directors and do an awful lot of good work, and sometimes some of the publicity that comes out, not a fault of this committee because I respect your job to do the scrutiny, but some of the publications that come out definitely affect how they feel about their work, and I would just like to put on record an appreciation for how they are supporting us, but I do expect that we are still learning. I think that we would endorse that appreciation. Can I just say also, as a non-executive director, and I fully understand that there are some details and issues that you couldn't get involved in between the chair and Moale, but given the damage to the perception of the SPA that was done by the way in which Moale's departure from the board was, I think, forced, actually, not just handled but forced, I would have thought it was a non-executive director without necessarily getting into taking sides or anything, but from the point of view of your remit as non-executive directors, I think it was a legitimate case for the non-executive directors at the board meeting to raise the issue of how that had been handled, because there is no doubt irrespective of who was right and who was wrong. There is no doubt at all that it has done over now a period of months significant damage both to the perception and the reputation of the Scottish Police Authority. Again, if I may say so, and I say this trying to be positive, I think you need to be more robust in situations like this and raise with the chairman when that kind of thing happens and get it sorted before it does become a PR disaster, which this has been for the Scottish Police Authority. Liam Kerr. Thank you. I just have a few matters arising from the questioning really. Just turning since we're on the topic to the letter of 9 December, I asked Mr Penman, were you surprised when you learned that the letter hadn't gone to the rest of the board? I didn't chase up to see if it had been distributed as an assumption, I think, that it would have been. So it would be fair to say that I was, because my expectation would be the same. I would also caveat that by saying that it was advice, it wasn't a recommendation, I was putting my views there and I was explicit in the letter that and recognised that it was a matter for the board to approve. But I did have an expectation, at least that members would be aware of my views and some annuances in there to make an informed decision at their board meeting. And Mr Graham, you used to do Mr Penman's job, I think, I'm right in saying. So when you found out that this letter had been tabled in the terms that it was, were you surprised that the letter hadn't been passed on to you? Yes, I would have expected that letter to have been circulated to us yet. Did you raise that surprise expectation with Mr Flanagan or anyone else? I haven't raised it directly, but it has been discussed. I mean, I think, Mr Flanagan gave evidence to this committee not so long ago, I think, it was a fortnight ago. To the effect, his judgment was that we knew what was the content of the letter. I think that that was a reasonable judgment because, as other members have said, I was certainly well aware of Mr Penman's views about holding meetings in private or in public. So I think that's the explanation. You may not find that acceptable, that's the explanation, and I've accepted that. I find it neither acceptable nor unacceptable. I'm just curious. If you say that you were surprised or you expected to receive this and then didn't, just going back to Mr Neil's point, I think that if I was in your shoes, I'd have been expressing some strong views, and it sounds like you're saying to me that that conversation hasn't happened. No, that hasn't happened. I may be wrong in this, you may have a different view in this, but I went into the discussions and debates, which was not just about 15 December. We'd been discussing governance for some time. I went into that discussion and debate and the decision on 15 December to approve the governance review, which included meetings of committees in private. I went into that with the belief that I had a full understanding of various stakeholders' views, including HMICS. I'll put the same question to Mr White and Mr Hume. Having now seen this letter, are you surprised that it wasn't provided to you? I accept you knew, or you say you knew the contents or the tone of it, but are you surprised with hindsight that that wasn't passed on to you? From my own part, I think that the letter should have been passed on. I don't think anybody would dispute that. I didn't see this as a one-off intervention from HMICS. In this debate, I come back to my own decision to support the way going forward in December, which was entirely contingent on the fact that we were going to review it. I had a reasonably clear idea in my mind at that stage of fire that I would want to review what we were doing. I was looking forward to a fairly regular interaction with HMICS as that approach developed. I would just say that, in terms of the points that Mr Neil has raised, right from the earliest point when I became involved in this discussion around governance, I've taken the view that what we need to do is to extend our remit beyond committee meetings and papers to look at things like access to information and how we deal with stakeholders, service users and the public and draw a much wider spectrum. That's still my hope and intention so that when we come back in the autumn with that review carried out, it will go beyond committee meetings and it will extend into issues about how we deal with information, how we deal with correspondence and those issues that we talked about 10 minutes ago about things like the release of information to Moe and so on. We have very little time to make a wider point. I say that with all due respect of course. You must then have a concern that there may be other significant information that is being withheld or do you have that concern? If something like this can be withheld and two out of three, Mr White may have had the same view, express surprise that it had been withheld, do you have a concern that other documents, other significant information is being withheld? Surprise is perhaps a strong word in this regard. I would have expected it to be circulated that it was not, I think, reflects the fact that we had had a year and a bit discussion of governance issues and that the issues raised in the letter were part of those discussions. We were aware that the HMICS had a view on various parts of it and I think that that was reflected in the discussion that we had both at members' meetings and at the public meeting on 15 December. I suppose that I would characterise it as perhaps a one-off error of judgment, a mistake by the chair. He perhaps misread the situation that it should have been passed on. I do not see it as any deliberate attempt to prevent the board members' knowing of other views of stakeholders' views, because we had already had a long discussion of stakeholders' views. The point is that, in terms of reference that will fall today, as I said, one of the things that we will be looking at specifically is the process by which the authority came to the decision around holding meetings in private. That would include legal advice around the legislation that exists. It would include the stakeholder engagement feedback that is received from that as well. We would also have a look to see what advice was taken and what members were cited on in making that decision. We will comment publicly on that. My concern is that there seems to be a very informal arrangement in sharing the HMICS concerns. It is quite legitimate for Derek to raise them with us individually. That was perfectly appropriate, but there is a role for the chair and the chief executive informally sharing those with the board. Ordinarily, I would have very little contact with Derek. In fact, I only had contact with him because I happened to be sitting on a group that he was on and we had conversations on the fringes. I will not speak for Derek, but he wrote a formal letter to inform board members the whole of the board, including people who have not had the sort of contact that those around this table have, which would go for a number of board members. They would not ordinarily have that contact, just as I would not ordinarily have had that contact. For me, the purpose of a formal letter is to formally notify the board of a position. The failure to share that is a concern, because, as I have already said, the representation of Derek's views to the board came not from the chair or the chief executive, but from those of us who happened to have a conversation on the fringes of meetings. That is not an acceptable position. The chair and the chief executive must take the lead in sharing formal advice with the board. If we accept that, going back to the point that Mr Neil raised, did you and the current members feel that you are being given sufficient information to carry out your responsibilities, or might there be a suggestion that, in incidents like this, there is information being withheld such that you are hindered in your ability to sufficiently hold the chair to account? Obviously, we cannot say that there was, because if there was, we were not aware of it. Clearly, in this instance there was. My concern about this particular issue is that the chair's review of governance was the chair's review of governance. Therefore, my concern is that the formal advice that came through from HMICS actually questioned just two areas of that, but they were the two areas that were actually significantly different to the way that we'd been doing things previously. I think there was an incentive not to share that letter, because obviously it questioned those two areas, in fact the two areas that I spoke out on. For me, the concern was not before that point, because I don't think I had concerns before that point, because I assumed that anything that came to the board would be shared with us, but looking back now with the benefit of hindsight, I do wonder whether there was other information that came for the whole board that was not shared with us. I'm not saying that there was, I don't know, but obviously there is now a question mark in my mind that didn't exist previously. Mr White, how do you respond to that? Are you being given the tools to carry out your responsibilities? I believe in large part we are, and where we're not, it's often on day-to-day or business case decisions, and many of those are a matter where we're challenging Police Scotland to give us further information in order to allow us to make appropriate decisions. In terms of this kind of information around governance or something that is going out to a much wider stakeholder group, there is an element where you have to, as a non-executive, rely on the day-to-day work of your officers gathering information together and presenting it to you, and that does seem to happen. We do seem to have views collated in from other bodies, certainly working groups that I've been involved in or work around that. For instance, the scrutiny inquiry that we did into the Police Carriage of Firearms, we had a lot of information gathered in from wider stakeholders, and that was presented to us in a way that we could then collate and bring together and understand in order to go forward to decision making. So I'm not aware of anything being held back from us. If it were regularly happening, then I would imagine that there would be others outside who would be complaining about that because they would feel that we hadn't made decisions in knowledge of the information that they were providing, and I haven't seen any evidence that that's the case. Mr Graham, you want to come in, but can you keep it very brief, if possible, please? Yes, absolutely. I'm not knowing for brevity, but I'll do my best. I'm not referring to the specific issue around HMIC's letter. This is a much more general point. Two years ago, when I first started on the board, it was very challenging to absorb some of the data that was being provided. Police Scotland provided reports, which were almost volumes, because largely we asked for it. We wanted more information and more information, and we were drowning, for want of a better word, in data. Actually, there is a real skill in figuring out what is the real issue here, trying to get to the judgment now, an awful lot of our staff. Indeed, I would guess that the chair and other members involved in this make those judgments on a daily basis. We won't always get that right, but I think overload is sometimes a big problem. I certainly don't have concerns at the moment, although I accept the perception, but I don't have concerns at the moment that anything is withheld. If I've asked for anything, I normally get it, and usually much more than I need. Mr Hym, do you have anything to add to that? In terms of how we take this forward, Brian Barber alluded to a belief that I had that decisions should be taken in public unless there are explicit reasons why they should be taken in private. My experience of the kind of issue that we're dealing with here suggests to me that in looking at this, we need to be looking at how the organisation is structured and the culture within the organisation. That's an issue that in the coming months, as I take forward that broader review of openness and transparency, I'm convinced that you will see in the autumn, when we report on that, as will HMICS, a very strong statement about how information is handled and how it's made available. A quick final question. You mentioned Mr Barber there, if I might come to you briefly, Mr Barber. We were asked earlier about some of the statements you've made about the Scottish Government interference, if I can put it that way. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between your assertions and the current board members. Did you raise any of those assertions in your resignation letter at the time? In not in my resignation letter, I raised the assertions in the email to the chair, which was a welcome, a sort of hello and goodbye to say I'm conscious that we haven't met. Here are my thoughts. I'd be happy to discuss them in the meeting. What I then expected to happen was, as we did, we met. The chair would listen to my views and then go on and have some dialogue with the introductory meetings to other board members and make a decision where my view is representative of a wider held view, or was it just that that was my view and there was nobody else who would substantiate it? I don't know what happened after that. I'll ask you a very blunt question. Why have you waited 18 months to blow the lid on that? The answer to that is that I have been silent. In my introductory mention, I said that I have been silent for 18 months. It was only after the treatment of Moai where I thought the whole issue had bubbled up and I thought it appropriate to say that I did have concerns. Also, the chair had made a comment in the last meeting about the meeting that I had with him, so I wrote to the committee to correct what might have been a misleading impression of that meeting. In relation to Brian's email, if I could offer some reassurance to the committee around the appointment of Chief Constable, I was involved in giving advice around the selection process to that and I certainly have no concerns around the integrity by which that was done in terms of the selection process that was run or the criteria. Just again, just for the benefit of the record and reassurance of members, the selection panel, which included some members here, also included an independent chief executive from a local authority who were there. For the record, it is helpful to say that there were no issues. Even the selection criteria, to me, was a standard selection criteria that would have been used for chief officers. The only potential exception being about not previously having been a chief constable is one, but when you move to a single service in Scotland where there is only one chief constable, you have to then look, I think, flexibly to allow other people within the organisation to come through. As in just, I felt that it was useful to put that on the record just to assure members. Thank you. Can I very quickly just wrap up with a couple of issues? I've got the letter in front of me and I hear what everybody says about their awareness of the issues being raised by Mr Penman. Can I ask, were any of the non-executive directors aware of the fact that he was going to conduct an inspection before he sent the letter on the 9th of December? Yes, I was, because he told me. Was anybody else in the board aware of it? Was it discussed prior to this? It was discussed at the board, I think, both George and Moe made contributions at meetings talking about discussions they had had with HMICS. Prior to the letter of the 9th of December. Can I just clarify in my own words what I said, and I think it's minited too, that I said that my understanding was that HMICS had not formed a view yet about inspection and that's minited, so I did not know. Can I ask, genuinely, if the letter contained information about the inspection, forthcoming inspection, as it did, would you have expected that to be circulated to the board? I'm aware, I can't remember the date, but I'm aware of the chief executive informing us at a member's meeting that HMICS intended to carry out an inspection. Paid in the press, in fact. I mean, that's the title, it's paid in the press and we were informed afterwards. Thank you, I think the relevance is a letter of such import should have been circulated to the board and you accepted that, which is helpful. Again, let me ask you something because I'm slightly confused. You've got board meetings, committee meetings, members meetings. I also see reference to committee chairs meetings. Have I missed any meetings out? Do they have pre-meetings too? Goodness. Board pre-meetings which are private. There are private board meetings which are private. There are public board meetings which are public. There are private committee meetings which are private. There are members meetings which are private. In fact, it's easy to say that the only public meetings are public board meetings, all of the other meetings are private. In percentage terms, would that be as much as 25 per cent in public or am I being over generous? More than 25 per cent of what? Of all meetings. It seems to me on a very regular basis in different committees and with the exception of the board on occasion, the rest are all in private. Would that be a fair reflection? Mr Gray? Yes, convener. We, as non-executive members, are contracted to do no more than five days a month. There are eight public board meetings which are, I would say, we consider them very important and almost a duty parade to use the language that I used to use and so the eight public board meetings must attend. The rest of the meetings, I will attend one or two a month and they are all private. Based on the information that we were given, there are at least 14 private members meetings at which governance was discussed. Do you think that that makes any kind of sense, given the topic under discussion? It's a structure of 14 different meetings. I think that there have been meetings, obviously, to discuss the terms of that governance review and moving it forward to the board. The significant thing is that the decisions are all taken in public unless there's a reason that they have to be taken in private sessions. I think that the problem is that most people would like to know how thinking evolves and for none of those meetings to have anything ministered or published is a very good point. One of the issues that I'll be looking at as I take forward my own deliberations about how we run our meetings is going back to the local government access to information act, which I think provides a very good structure for how meetings should be run and, significantly, on your point, places a requirement on local authorities, in that case, to publish in reports all the background information that led to that decision. In terms of this review period going forward again, I would expect that, unless there's good reason not to, I'll be reflecting on the benefits that can be imported into our structure because there is no local authorities are unique in the sense that there is a piece of legislation that stipulates how meetings should be conducted, when papers should be circulated, the information should be presented. There's no standard note I'm aware of or piece of legislation pertaining to public boards. What I think I'll be looking at is whether we can take the structure of the Access to Information Act and apply it to how we run our business here, so that's absolute clarity, not just at the point of the decision making, but the trail that leads up to that. You would be looking, perhaps, to publish or at least review the fact that papers are sent to stakeholders in advance before they're published on the website. Yes, absolutely. That's helpful to know. One final just tidying up. We understood that, in 2014, HMICS published the terms of reference for its first review of the Scottish Police Authority. Look, though we might, we can't find the final report. Was one produced—I don't know whether to put this to Mr Graham or Mr Penman? The review that we're doing currently is the first review and the terms of reference that we published today from that, so I'm just interested in whether that might be a misprint or it might be referring to something else that we've done that might relate to the forensic science inspection that we have. We'll go check back that we understood that there were terms of reference published, but we will check that information. I thank all the witnesses—it's been a very robust morning—but I thank you for your attendance and for providing information to the committee. I should advise the committee and the public gallery that I will not be taking item 3 on the agenda, which was the section 22 reports on colleges. We will defer consideration of those until next week's meeting purely because we've run out of time and the committee requires some time in private session to consider what we've had today. Thank you very much for attending. We'll now move into private session and I'll have a two-minute break.