Policing (Correspondence)
Item 3 is consideration of correspondence from the Scottish Police Authority on the “codicil” to which it referred in its earlier correspondence on responsibility for human resources and finance. Members will remember that we asked the SPA for a copy of the full document or exchange of correspondence that comprises the codicil. The SPA has provided a copy of correspondence from the Scottish Government and its response to that letter, both dated 17 January. Do members have comments?
Where do we start?
At the beginning, and we finish at the end. There might be a middle.
May I come in after other members have commented?
My first, brief comment is that it has taken an awful long time to get to where we are, and I do not know why. Members might want to expand on that.
It is a bit of a damp squib, at the end of the day, and I cannot understand the reticence.
The language that is used by committee members and the people from whom we seek information is terribly important. We need to see more willingness. I note that Mr Emery wrote:
“I am a little disappointed that the Committee does not feel able to meet with the wider membership of the SPA board.”
I think that the committee is more than a little disappointed by the dealings thus far.
I am sure that we will have good relations, but it is important that there is a flow of information and that when the committee requests information our staff are not required to undertake the protracted business that they had to undertake in this instance, on what was a fairly modest request.
Yes, and we were simply saying to the SPA board, “You are no different from any other board.” We simply do not have individual boards in front of us to present their case, whatever that case is. We are not using a different process with the SPA and it must not take how we operate personally.
We have had more or less identical legislation on the police service and the fire and rescue service, and it seems odd that our only real problems so far have been to do with the proposals for the new police service.
This is perhaps just my view but, from anecdotal evidence, it seems that whereas the fire and rescue service has two senior people, one from a local authority background and one from a fire and rescue background, who are working away together quite well without problems, the police service has someone from a private business background talking to a police officer, and there are difficulties. Maybe there is something to do with the cultures that is proving difficult; I do not know. It will be interesting to consider how effective the arrangements that lead to the first day of operation have been overall, for both services.
The approaches are not quite identical, although we might say that they are broadly identical. We know that the SPA has statutory duties and responsibilities in relation to certain staff. However, I take your point that there might be a cultural issue in relation to how local government liaises with the police and how someone from the commercial sector does. I do not want to personalise this; I am talking about the commercial attitude, which is fair enough, but in the context of liaising with the police.
This is Graeme Pearson’s moment.
Thank you. It is extremely regrettable that it has taken such a time to obtain the detail of the codicil, as it has been described. I do not think that the initial response from the chair of the Scottish Police Authority gave us the full colour of the relationships between the authority, the service and the Government, which was later exposed in the letters in the appendices to paper 4, particularly those between Vic Emery and Paul Johnston.
I read the following description of the proposed arrangement from the civil servant:
“the proposed arrangement is unbalanced, confusing and would place the Police Service of Scotland in a unique and invidious position.”
That is almost an angry term from a civil servant. The response from Vic Emery, which does not seem to me to be engaging and warm, stresses
“the length of our consideration”
and states that the proposals
“are neither modest nor insignificant.”
Towards the end, he mentions “difficult decisions” that the board faces, and states:
“the Board’s reservoir of patience with the protracted nature of resolving this kind of issue is already running low.”
That does not augur well.
I hope that, the Justice Committee having rehearsed these matters, the authority and its chair, the chief constable, the civil servants and the cabinet secretary will now put their minds to the business of the future and the putting in place of a police service that creates safe communities for Scotland. This seems to me to be a playground spat.
I think that I used a metaphor about a football being taken away in the playground by one party or the other.
I think that you are quite right. I do not think that the committee foresaw this kind of public adjustment going on. I am sure that these matters go on—goodness me; there is that word “matters”. I am sure that these instances happen in other circumstances, but they are not usually played out in public. Obviously, there had to be some adjustment between the parties, but the regrettable thing is that it was played out in the press. Once that happens, people get themselves dug into positions and it is sometimes difficult for them to get out again.
That said, I am delighted that we have got this far. The creation of the sub-committee, which is moving its way through the various parliamentary technicalities, should give focus to the partnership—let us call it that—between the parties.
Roddy Campbell wants to comment.
I must admit that I found the letter from Mr Emery somewhat intemperate, and I found the final paragraph, and certainly the final sentence, somewhat ironic.
Yes. I just read it again.
Let us leave it at that. It seems that a healing process is going on. Let us not open up wounds again. I am glad that we have got this far. I thank the committee for pursuing the issue, and we will continue to pursue the most important thing, which is to have a good single police service in Scotland.