Official Report 418KB pdf
Our next item of business is an oral evidence session with members of the Scottish Government’s bill team for the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. The committee has been appointed as a secondary committee for consideration of the bill at stage 1. The focus of our consideration is to examine the policy aspects of the bill that are most relevant to our remit and to report on those issues to the Justice Committee, which is the lead committee for consideration of the bill.
Thank you very much, convener, for inviting us to the committee to give evidence on the bill. My responsibilities are for the overall reform of both the police and the fire and rescue services, including the proposals in the bill and those outwith it.
I thought that it would be helpful to provide the committee with a brief overview of the bill and, specifically, the provisions in it that relate to local accountability and the wider links with local authorities. My comments supplement the submission that we provided the committee with last week.
Thank you very much.
The bill provides for the local commander to be designated under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 to participate in community planning in the local authority area. The Scottish fire and rescue service will also have a duty to do that. The local senior officer will be the designated officer. The local commander and the local senior officer will therefore have a key role in agreeing a local plan with the local authority for the provision of their services. They will have a statutory duty to prepare a local plan in partnership with the local authority, which will have responsibilities for monitoring and advising on the local plan.
Do we expect the local commanders to go to local authority meetings to answer councillors’ questions directly?
Absolutely. The bill leaves the arrangements for that open. Policing is different in different parts of Scotland, so we think that the mechanisms for how the relationship works should be left to local discretion, but we certainly envisage that the local senior officer and the local commander will appear before the local authority. The local authority could decide to use its current community planning arrangements or it could set up a police and fire committee. Indeed, it could have that as a committee of the full council. It is entirely up to the local authority how to work in partnership to establish what best meets local needs.
Would there be a local commander for each local authority?
The bill provides that the chief constable and the chief officer must designate a local commander and local senior officer for each local authority area in Scotland. If it were considered appropriate, a local commander could work with more than one local authority, but there must be a designated person for each local authority.
So as things stand, there could be 32 local commanders.
Yes.
Currently, the position of local commander is quite powerful. Would the local commanders as envisaged in the 32 local authorities have the same powers?
They will have the same powers and responsibilities locally, but their position in the police or fire and rescue service might be different, depending on the extent of those powers, so we have not specified the rank or grading of those posts. There are already divisional commanders but they vary in their rank and grading. We would expect that to be worked out between the services and the councils.
I will follow that up on a practical level. I am still a local councillor in Fife and we have a pretty good relationship with the police. For example, at ward level we work with constables and sergeants; at area committee level, we work with chief inspectors; and at Fife Council, we work with the chief constable of Fife. The relationship works pretty well within a matrix structure. There is also community engagement with community councils and other interested people, which works pretty well. I am satisfied with the reorganisation of the police into a national service, but I want to maintain those local links because that is the issue that people ask me about. They are all in favour of saving money and streamlining the service at the top level, but they are concerned about what happens at the lower levels.
Yes. We think that the local links are pretty good in most places. Probably the thing that has been said most consistently to us when we have consulted on the proposals is that we should not break those links but try to make them stronger. In Fife and in Dumfries and Galloway, where there is already coterminosity between the council, the police and the fire and rescue service, those links work most like how we think they will work in the future. However, that is not generally the position in Scotland. In most of Scotland, the services are overseen by the joint boards of a number of councils. The effect of the proposals will be to take the joint board out of the equation and put the council in direct contact with the police and fire and rescue services.
Ms Sadler said that it will be up to each local authority to decide whether the commander and chief officer will report to the community planning partnership, to a committee of the council or even to the full council. If local authorities chose still to have joint arrangements, would that be possible under the legislation?
Yes, it would be possible for local authorities to come together and organise in that way. We would expect the local authorities, the police and the fire and rescue service to work in partnership to determine the best way of delivering that.
Twenty-five local authorities want to participate in the pathfinder projects. Most of them want their own arrangements, but at least two neighbouring local authorities of a similar size want to try a combined arrangement. The three island authorities are also thinking about a combined arrangement. There is a diversity of ambition and we are quite happy to see how those different arrangements work out. The bottom line is that each council will be entitled to make its own arrangements if it wants to do that. It will be a matter of consensus and voluntary co-operation if councils decide to come together.
So we will have complete and utter independence for councils—apart from Fife Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council—to decide on the matter, rather than the current arrangement whereby a small number of councillors go to a board.
Yes.
You mentioned some of the councils that are part of the pathfinder projects and said that different options were being considered. When will those options be made public, so that we can look at what councils are proposing?
We have expressions of interest from those councils now and we are collating them. There may be one or two late expressions of interest, but we hope to get everyone up and running in April. There is no sensitivity or confidentiality about our information and we will be able to make it available pretty soon. In fact, if the committee wants more information about that before it makes its report to the Justice Committee, I am sure that we can arrange to provide it. We can write to you after the meeting, if that would be useful.
That would be useful; the sooner, the better would be helpful for our inquiry.
Can I take you back to the consultation? There were 219 respondents, the vast majority of whom were not in favour of having a single police force. How many of those respondents were local authorities? How many local authorities were and how many were not in favour of having a single police force?
I am not sure whether we have the analysis by local authority with us, but we can easily produce it. The majority of those in the February to May consultation who expressed an opinion about structure did not favour having a single police service. However, a good number of respondents did not express an opinion about structure, so it would not be true to say that a majority of respondents opposed having a single police service.
Perhaps you can give us an analysis later of the comments.
They do not have any powers in relation to local plans just now. Local policing plans are often worked out between divisional commanders and councils where such arrangements are well developed. As we noted earlier, I am pretty sure that in Fife and Dumfries and Galloway there is a plan that is agreed with the council that is the unitary authority for that. However, the position is variable and voluntary in the rest of the country. This will be the first time that the police will be obliged to prepare a local policing plan for agreement with the council; there will a similar position for fire and rescue. The statutory obligation is an obligation.
That is helpful, but perhaps I can phrase my question in another way. The councils will have the power to monitor and advise on local plans. How does that differ from the overall powers that local authorities have just now over the direction of the police or over decision making within the police and fire and rescue services?
Other than in Fife, and Dumfries and Galloway, which we keep coming back to, local authorities can exercise that power only through the joint board. Twelve local authorities come together to agree Strathclyde’s plan, and five councils come together to agree the Lothian and Borders plan. However, that will be done through the joint board and not through the council as such; it will be done through the council’s representatives on the joint board.
Do funding decisions not rest in part just now with local authorities? It is my understanding that, under the bill, the Scottish Government will solely be responsible for the funding of the services. Is that the case?
At present, about two thirds of police funding is provided by the Scottish Government and the other third is provided by the 32 local authorities so, in effect, the funding is assembled from 33 places. The proposal is that all the funding for the police will come directly from the Scottish Government. In fire and rescue, most of the funding comes through councils and joint boards from the local government settlement, although there is some national funding for national assets and so on. Again, we propose that all the funding for the Scottish fire and rescue service will come from the Scottish Government.
So the decision-making power to which I referred is not in the bill and will be taken away from local authorities. That raises a concern—although it is not for the bill team, as you only advise on the bill—because with funding come power and influence.
The bill proposes that the Scottish ministers will make the appointments. They will be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland, so they will be public appointments in that sense.
Under the bill, the Government will fund both services and will appoint the new Scottish police authority’s chair and all its members. Is that the case?
That is correct.
At the moment, local authority funding involves a requisition by police and fire boards in all areas other than Fife, and Dumfries and Galloway. Has a local authority ever refused to pay the requisition?
I have never heard of a local authority refusing to pay the requisition, although negotiations can take place about the amount of the requisition.
No local authority in the country has used its power through resources to try to stop the requisitioned amount being given to a police or fire and rescue board.
I am not privy to discussions about requisitions, but I have not heard of a local authority that has refused to meet the requisition.
I return to the democracy aspect. Small numbers of members of each local authority serve on boards, other than in Fife and in Dumfries and Galloway. In making their submissions, were councils aware of the proposal to democratise the police service further to local authority level, or was that not originally proposed?
The consultation that was mentioned, to which councils responded, was not explicit about that issue—it made a general case for reform in principle and talked about the direction of reform. The more detailed proposals were set out in the second consultation document. Individual councils have reacted pretty positively to the idea that they will have more access to police and fire services and that more members will be involved in oversight of police and fire services.
So it is fair to say that, since the proposals were announced, councils have become much more positive about the nationwide services.
So far, 25 of the 32 councils have expressed an interest, with maybe more to come. Many seem to be enthusiastic about this; in fact, some have started this work before the pathfinders have even begun.
The proposed changes will have implications; indeed, in response to Margaret Mitchell, you outlined the financial implications. However, I want to ask about staffing. After the single police force and single fire board are created, there will still be local variations in employment agreements. If liabilities arise from this move, who will pick up the cost—the local authorities, the Scottish Government or the fire and police boards?
On the day the new services are established, all employed staff and officers will be entitled to transfer on their terms and conditions of service. In the run-up to reform, the existing police and fire services will still have to live within their resources and, after reform, there is likely to be some rationalisation of staffing. The Government expects that to be achieved through voluntary redundancies, the cost of which will be borne by the current joint boards in advance of reform and by the new services after reform. The financial memorandum and the outline business case for the reform programme take account of the cost of such redundancies.
Do those costs include any potential equal pay claims on transfer of employment?
Once the staff have transferred to the new services, it will be up to those services to look at people’s terms and conditions and the extent to which they need to harmonise any differences. Again, the outline business case sets out some estimated costs—I think that the figure is £2.9 million—to allow the police to bring terms and conditions of service into line.
Can you confirm that the Scottish Government’s no compulsory redundancy policy will apply to the people who are shifted into the new service?
The business case has been prepared on the basis that there will be no need for compulsory redundancies.
I have two other questions. First, when you were asked earlier whether each of the 32 authorities would have a local commander, you said yes. Will the pathfinder projects involving two or three local authorities working together have a single commander?
On the question about the pathfinders, we have said that every council can have its own local commander if it wants. Indeed, from the expressions of interest that we have received about the pathfinders, it seems that that is what most councils want. However, a couple want to try to share a local commander and, in one case, three want to share. That approach will be trialled and, if that is the way they want to go, they can go that way. However, if at the trial’s conclusion they decide that they want their own local commander, they will be entitled to take that route. In fact, the bill makes that clear.
What about local accountability?
I am sorry—I thought that I had answered that. I am happy to elaborate, but I do not quite understand the question.
Will there be local accountability for the business of the local commander or the police or fire board?
The bill sets out the duties of the local commander and local senior officer, which include reporting to the council, agreeing a plan with the council, participating in community planning and a range of other such duties. That is how the services will account locally.
What are the estimated savings? Has that figure been put together yet?
Yes—it has been put together over a period of several years, actually. As the financial memorandum sets out, we estimate that, when the reform programme is complete, we will save £101 million a year in cash from policing and £25 million a year in cash from fire and rescue. It is a five-year programme, so the figure will build up over time. The crucial step in enabling the change is to create the single structures.
Have the set-up costs, such as the costs of rebranding and rebadging, been taken into account in those figures?
Those figures are the annual recurring net savings after costs, or once the reform is complete. There will be one-off costs in the creation of the new structures in the next couple of years. Those have been accounted for and provision was made for them in the spending review that has just been carried out.
Is it the case that somebody who is currently a community police officer could in theory apply for and become a local commander?
If he or she is qualified and has the right rank for the position, I am sure that that is the case.
Is there a stipulation on what rank someone must be to apply for the position?
We have not stipulated a rank for that. We expect the services to sort that out with the councils. Whatever the rank is, the officers who are eligible to apply for the position will be able to do so. However, that is a matter for the police and fire and rescue services to sort out.
So there is no stipulation in the bill about what rank people must be to apply to be a local commander.
Convener, I think that we are going up the wrong path, because the appointment of local commanders, whatever rank is involved—from inspector up to chief superintendent—will be an operational matter for the chief constable, as is the case under the current set-up. We are getting into realms that the bill does not touch on, because operational matters will still lie entirely within the remit of the chief constable. I think that that is correct, but perhaps Mr Smith can confirm it.
That is correct. As we discussed, there is potential variability in the responsibilities of local commanders, depending on the area that is involved. That is why we have not attempted to specify a rank in the bill. We expect the services to work that out with the councils.
That answers that question, but will you elaborate on the positions of assistant and deputy chief constables? How do they fit in and what role is envisaged for them?
The bill provides that the Scottish police authority must appoint a chief constable and one or more deputy chief constables and one or more assistant chief constables. The appointment of the chief constable is subject to ministerial agreement. The appointment of deputies and assistants will be a matter for the board to decide, in consultation with the chief constable. The composition and roles of the senior command team will be a matter for the chief constable to work out in association with the Scottish police authority. What the deputies and assistants do will depend on the way in which the service decides to organise that team. Ministers do not want to specify their exact roles in legislation.
Is there any provision in the bill for resolution in the event of a conflict between national and local priorities?
We do not expect conflict between national and local priorities, but the bill sets out ways of resolving that in the planning requirements at the various tiers. For example, Scottish ministers can set strategic priorities for policing or fire and rescue services, but they must consult local authorities before doing so. The Scottish police authority and the Scottish fire and rescue service must prepare strategic plans for policing and fire and rescue, and they must consult local authorities before doing so. Those bodies will have explicit duties to maintain and improve local policing and local fire and rescue. The local plans that are prepared in each locality need to be consistent with and take account of the strategic plans and so on. Finally, the local commanders and local senior officers will both be part of a national structure, but they will also be accountable for performance locally and will provide a mechanism for resolving any issues of priority.
There have been some concerns about the business cases. Some people have said that they are subjective and partial. Has any attempt been made to have an independent review of the findings, or were the findings merely put straight into the policy memorandum?
Both outline business cases were based on work that was carried out by the services themselves. In policing, particularly, it was a police-led team that came up with the various proposals for a structure. We shared drafts of the OBCs in the early summer of last year and then published final versions in September. We think that we fairly appraised the different options that were before ministers at the time, the three structural options being a single service, a regional structure and the status quo with increased collaboration. There is no doubt that the OBCs reflect ministers’ judgment that the structures most likely to achieve the aims of reform are single services. Ministers have been clear in defending that decision, not only through the OBCs, but through the bill and by other means. Ultimately, it was for the Government to decide on which structure to bring before Parliament in a bill, and that is the view that the Government took.
So, to answer the question, the findings were put straight into the policy memorandum.
The policy memorandum describes what is in the bill. The outline business cases set out the financial analysis and other kinds of analysis that supported the reform process. The material from the outline business cases did not find its way into the policy memorandum. The bill was drafted to create a single service, which was the conclusion that came out of the outline business cases.
Did the conclusions go straight into the financial memorandum, then?
I am sorry if I misunderstood your question. Yes, much of the material in the financial memorandum is based on the analysis in the two outline business cases.
Going back to the issue of priorities and the resolution of conflict between local and national priorities, am I right in saying that there is no remedy for such conflict under the current set-up? A regional priority in Grampian might not be a local priority in, say, Aberdeen. Am I right in saying that, at the moment, there is nothing to deal with that?
At the moment, there is nothing to deal with conflicts involving national and local priorities. You are right to say that we have a mechanism that could generate regional priorities. However, in discussion with councils and others in the run-up to the bill, we could not find good examples of regional priorities—Strathclyde priorities, Lothian and Borders priorities or Grampian priorities—although we found plenty of examples of local priorities. We know that there are certain national priorities, whether those are big national issues such as counterterrorism or things that are nationally important because they are local priorities everywhere. That is why the bill provides for the expression of national and local priorities, and we think that it provides mechanisms for getting those in the same place so that they are not dealt with separately.
So, in the bill there are mechanisms to deal with local priorities, whereas those mechanisms did not exist previously.
Exactly.
I have a question for Ms Sadler. If the joint boards leave any usable reserves, will they come to local authorities or will they be distributed to the new police and fire authorities?
As national bodies, the Scottish police authority and the Scottish fire and rescue service will not be able to utilise reserves. Officials are currently working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on how best to utilise the existing resources or how to distribute them fairly.
If a local authority decided that it had a particular priority that it wanted to see in the local plan and it wanted to contribute funds towards addressing that priority, could it do so?
Yes, it could. Councils do that now. Some councils pay for additional police officers or other local initiatives, and they will certainly be able to do that after the changes are made.
There are no further questions. I thank Christie Smith and his team for their evidence. We will take oral evidence on the bill from key stakeholders on the afternoon of Tuesday 21 February, and we look forward to hearing more about the bill then. Thank you for your evidence today.
Previous
Petition