It is important to have a buffer. When Parliament discussed the bill that became the 2012 act, it was clear about its intention to maintain separation, particularly between ministers and policing. In practice, that separation does not meaningfully happen. It is interesting that, as far as I can see, there has been a deafening silence from the Government in response to the Auditor General’s remarks.
As the vice-chair has just indicated, the proposal, as I understand it, is for the justice secretary to convene a round table so that the various bodies can discuss how all this might work better. Having spent two years as chair drilling deep into the system, looking at how it is supposed to work and trying to get different bits of it to work together, and having studied closely all that had gone before, I think that the system is not working as intended. There are all sorts of overlaps, duplications and gaps.
The recent HMICS report calls into question all sorts of fundamental issues. It says that the
“implementation of the role of Chair and its associated responsibilities, remains subject to interpretation”,
and that there are “anomalous relationships” and a
“lack of clear locus for the SPA”
in relation to reserved matters. The report raises lots of questions and makes different suggestions about the relationship with local government. It also says:
“There is a lack of clarity as to the continuing role and remit of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing”.
The report also again raises fundamental questions about where the accountable officer function should sit. Alex Neil suggested that it should sit with the chief constable, which, interestingly, is what the previous Auditor General recommended back in 2012. The report also notes that there are still questions about where the forensic service sits, which is a fundamental question.
I do not have all the answers to those questions, but what I do know is that, after seven years, they are still being asked. It is only right and proper that the issues are looked at more holistically. Something like £10 million a year is spent on the three bodies that are covered by the 2012 act: the SPA, the PIRC and HMICS. The Government has a sponsor division with, I think, 40-plus people, and I do not know what the exact cost of that is.
Whether we look at the issue from the point of view of the cost to the public purse or from the point of view of an effective system of governance and accountability, it is unquestionably the case that there is no clarity. I know that a valiant effort is being made and that all sorts of work has been and is being done to try to get clarity on those issues. However, such clarity has not emerged in seven years of internal discussions within the system. As I said, there are examples of other pieces of work that have been done that are commendable in taking a step back—which I think is the phrase that the Auditor General used—and looking at the system as a whole, but I think that there should be a bit of public visibility, accountability and engagement around that.
08:45