Item 2 is our final evidence session on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, who is accompanied by four Scottish Government officials. Liz Sadler is head of the policy and legislation unit; Nick Bland is head of the police reform unit; Lorna Gibbs is head of the fire and rescue reform unit; and Kevin Gibson is from the legal directorate.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to the committee about the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. I will make some general comments before I take questions.
I shall take Rod Campbell’s question first. As we have a long agenda today, it would be very useful if members could ask short, sharp questions.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. Some individuals have suggested that there would be merit in delaying the timetable for reform. What is your view on that? In particular, what is your view on the merits of the early appointment of the chief officers?
There are two issues there. On the bill, I think it is appropriate that we have a start date, and we have specified 1 April 2013. As with anything, one has to set a date. We are clearly on course and on target and I do not see any merit in delay. If something untoward were to happen, we have fallback procedures, but at present it is important that we stick to that date. We have always made it quite clear that although some things will change and although that is the start date for a single service, many other things will take some time, and we will allow those to be operated out by the chief constable and the Scottish police authority. The start date should remain April 2013, and we are on course to achieve that.
On the question of how much parliamentary scrutiny there should be of the new set-up, we heard from the Auditor General for Scotland in particular, as well as from representatives of the Fire Brigades union, that they thought that there was a need for an increased role for the Parliament. What is your view on that?
I think that I agree. A variety of suggestions have been made, including by Graeme Pearson. We take the view that it is not for the Government to decide how the Parliament should carry out its scrutiny role, but we accept that the Parliament has a particular role to play. We think that there is good merit in such matters being considered, but fundamentally it is for the Parliament to work that out. We have made provision for representations to be made and for the documents that would be laid before the Justice Committee. That is the Government’s direction of travel. As I say, we accept the merits of the argument but think that it is for the Parliament to work out the detail.
You talk about parliamentary oversight of the governance of the police service, in particular, but also of the fire service. From your experience and knowledge of discussions on such matters, do you have any notion of how that would work out in practice?
Our experience and knowledge were gained from our international conference—although it would be fair to say that some of the international comparators do not have the same level of parliamentary scrutiny—and from visiting Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has particular issues relating to the divide, but it was felt that there was merit in the approach that has been adopted there. In discussions, especially with Chief Constable Smith and other officers, it was felt that the involvement of the Justice Committee would be beneficial because of the breadth of its work, which covers all aspects of justice. Policing does not exist in isolation—it interacts with health, social work, prisons and so on—and those who serve on the Justice Committee are more likely to have a broader understanding of wider justice issues.
You sound as if you would welcome amendments on the matter.
It would be fair to say that we are happy to look at the issue. We do not think that it is for the Government to decide how the Parliament constructs itself. We have taken the view that there are aspects of what happens down south with the Metropolitan Police in London that we may not want to replicate, and that we would be better to have the breadth that exists elsewhere. However, we are happy to listen to what the committee and others have to say. We are open to discussing the matter, because we accept the principle that Mr Pearson and others have put forward that, with single services—both police and fire—it is important that there should be parliamentary involvement and scrutiny, and that it might be best for the Parliament to decide on the shape of that scrutiny. We accept the logic and the merit of that position, and we are open to discussion.
I think that you would also accept that the move towards a single service involves a fundamental change in the relationship between Government, the police and the public, which is why it is so important that we ensure that proper democratic oversight and governance are delivered from the outset.
Absolutely. We accept that, which is why we are happy to enter into discussion.
I would like to ask you about some of the fundamentals of the reform proposals. You will be familiar with the evidence that the committee has heard and the submissions that it has received. I will refer to three of those submissions.
We have been considering the matter for several years. When we went into the election, some parties had formed the view that we should have a single service. It would be fair to say that my party said that the status quo was not tenable, but that a single service model and a regional model—which would have been much more local authority based—were both possible. After further consideration, we have come down in favour of the single service model, which is also supported by some of, if not all, the parties that are represented on the committee. We felt that the best way to proceed was the way in which we have been proceeding.
Do you accept the point that has been made by COSLA, Unison and others that the fact that there will be a single force does not require it to be a national force—in other words, the single force could operate in a local government context, with a combined board, as it were? Do you further accept that that model has advantages over the model that you have brought forward?
Those suggestions have come in at a late stage. We have formulated a method that ties in a significant public body and which strikes a balance between democratic scrutiny and the requisite skills and talents that we feel are necessary to assist the chief constable and the chief fire officer in their jobs.
One advantage of such a scheme would be in relation to VAT. In a recent letter to Unison that I have seen, a Treasury minister was clear that the Scottish Government was aware from the outset of what the limitations were on VAT exemption in the event of the creation of a national body that is no longer, in any respect, part of the local government sector. That is a difference from the position south of the border, where the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 included a provision on VAT exemption to favour the new commissioners of police.
First of all, the VAT situation applies in relation to the Scottish Police Services Authority. That method was set up by a Government of which you were a member, not me. We have been and still are involved in negotiations with the Treasury. We do not feel that the door is closed. Negotiations are on-going between it and my colleagues in the finance department.
In the structure that you have created, is there a role for local government on the national boards of the new services?
Yes. We have already said that, if the board has 11 members, four of them should be local authority representatives. I have discussed the matter with COSLA and we are genuinely open to discussions about the make-up of the board. That said, given that it will probably be the biggest and most important board in Scotland—and will, indeed, be bigger than the health boards with regard to budget and, in many cases, staff—it is important to ensure that those who serve on it have the skills and talent to assist the chief constable and the authority that will hold the chief constable to account and to deal with certain matters. We think that our approach will secure the best possible array of talent from local authorities and provide democratic accountability and representation on the board; equally, it will ensure that those who serve on the board have the ability to be on the board.
I have a final, short question, convener.
Please make it very short. There is a big queue behind you.
Indeed.
That provision replicates the provision in the Police Act 1967, which allows the police authority to employ on a contract basis as well as directly.
Does it reflect any intention or expectation of taking a different approach to such matters?
Not at all.
Following on from Lewis Macdonald’s question about the make-up of the board, I want to ask about the size of the board itself. Although the majority of witnesses have said that the issue is one of quality rather than quantity, reservations have been expressed about the proposal that the board have seven to 11 members. Might there be any scope or leeway to increase that number?
I welcome all comments and advice on the issue. We plumped for a board of 11 on the basis of the Auditor General’s comments about the boards of the top FTSE companies. One would need the wisdom of Solomon to stipulate that the board should have nine, 10, 11, 12 or 13 members, and we are happy to take advice on the matter.
How do you intend to reflect those factors in the board membership? Are you suggesting a quota of some sort?
Not at all. However, if whoever is in charge of selecting and clearing ministerial appointments does not balance the numbers, they will leave themselves open to appropriate criticism. It is a pivotal issue that must be examined.
If it is recommended that the board be slightly increased, will you welcome an increase in the representation of locally elected people?
I am not persuaded that the majority of the board should be local authority members but logic would dictate that, if the board were to be increased beyond the proposed figure, the proposed local authority representation of four members would also be increased. I am happy to take on board the committee’s advice and thoughts, and I assure members that I am not being dogmatic or drawing a line in the sand. As I have said, we based the proposal of an 11-member board on the Auditor General’s comments; many successful companies have fewer board members, although some have more. Much of this comes down to having the flexibility to address issues.
I have another question on the fire and rescue service, convener, but do you want me to ask that later?
Alison McInnes has a question on the size of the board. After she asks it, I will let you back in.
Given the size of the board, will the members be full time or part time? Have you considered a salary yet for those roles?
The board members will not be full time. Obviously, there will be a full-time chief executive, but we do not expect the chair or the board members to be full time. Their roles will involve more than simply a couple of hours every month or so. It will be one of the most prestigious boards on which to serve and it will be one of the most important in our country. However, we expect that the board members will be part time to allow those who have a variety of other roles to give their commitment to the board.
And the salary?
We have not given any consideration to that, but we will look at how it ties in.
We are looking at a salary that would fit within the banding for that size of public body. It is a band 1 body, to be technical about it, so we are looking at probably £300 per day for members and £450 per day for the chair.
If you want to apply, Ms McInnes, you know how much the salary is now.
It is not a bad rate at all.
You are probably barred from the board, being a member of the committee—it is an either/or.
I have a brief point on the fire and rescue service. There must clearly be a balance between being far too prescriptive and being far too vague about the service’s functions. The Fire Brigades Union in particular believes that the new service has an opportunity to broaden its functions and be more inclusive in its work. Is there merit in what the FBU suggests? I thought that it made a good case at the committee.
We think that we have got the correct balance. Even in my lifetime, the fire and rescue service has gone from being about fire to being much more about rescue. A fire officer is more likely to cut you out of a vehicle than to pull you out of a burning house. The Government recognises that, whether we are talking about dealing with floods or other situations, the nature of the fire and rescue service has changed. That is why we have sought to ensure that we do not restrict its range of functions. There is a danger that if it goes too far in that regard, the service will become too specific. We think that we have the appropriate balance, but we are happy to discuss that. Lorna Gibbs might wish to comment further.
The service’s functions were last reviewed by the Parliament in the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005. We have not been persuaded that anything has changed significantly enough in the intervening period to change what is in the legislation. That said, in addition to the legislation there is the fire and rescue framework, which we are consulting on at the moment. That document is much more flexible and easier to change, so our preference would be to have more detail on the Government’s priorities in the framework, which is a document that comes before Parliament. That would be less rigid than putting something in the bill.
The FBU feels that the 2005 act does not quite cover enough. The FBU gave good examples about flooding on plains and other areas, and I thought that it made a very good case. However, you are reiterating that the detail perhaps should not be in the bill but in the framework.
We think that the detail is more for the framework.
Okay.
We can give an absolute assurance that we recognise that the nature of the job is evolving because of the nature of what we do as a society. For example, 50 years ago there would have been no anticipation of the kind of chemical transportation that we do now. We think that it is important to have the flexibility to allow those who serve in the FRS to do what they think is required. We think that flexibility and related matters are covered by the bill. We do not want to box ourselves in with regard to what the FRS does by putting in a particular line in a particular statute. We believe that we have the right balance, but we are happy to reflect on that.
We have heard evidence that police officers are filling civilian staff roles at the moment. Given that police officers are paid significantly more than civilian staff, is that an efficient use of resources?
That is not my understanding, nor is it the understanding of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Police officers are employed in a variety of roles and are not all front-line officers. Indeed, I was late in arriving at the Parliament today because I was with community police officers at Castleview primary school’s citizenship day as they tied in with those who look after the park. The Scottish Government will not go in the direction that the Winsor review pursued in dividing the police family. Police officers have to do back-office jobs, just as they have to do jobs that are not always what you might view as front-line jobs but which are nonetheless important. We do not accept the suggestion that police officers are doing jobs that are routinely dealt with by civilian staff.
That is interesting, as we have heard in evidence that that is happening in many police forces throughout Scotland. The Government introduced 1,000 additional police officers while 2,000 backroom staff were being made redundant. Given the fact that we have heard evidence that police officers are doing civilian jobs, have you not just replaced civilian staff with higher-salaried staff called police officers? Is it not disingenuous, at best, to call those 1,000 extra officers police officers, and could that not be misleading to the public?
No. Our position is that the additional officers serve in a variety of ways. We have sought to put them into communities, and there are other officers who do the jobs in the back office. I am aware from my constituency involvement that there is an issue about redundancies among police custody support officers at the St Leonard’s police station in Edinburgh. When I challenged the chief constable about that I was told that, although that was the case, a police constable is more flexible than someone who does nothing when nobody is in the police cell, which is frequently the case between 10 o’clock and 5 o’clock. I was told that a police constable can be redeployed and that there is, therefore, a significant difference in salary. That is a matter for the chief constable, both now and in the future, and I will not interfere in it.
In these tight financial times, I am sure that you more than anyone appreciate that an appropriate balance must be struck between civilian staff performing a task on a lower salary and the scenario that you just painted, in which Lothian and Borders Police are being a bit flexible and the chief constable is putting police constables into roles that were previously carried out by civilian staff. Are you going to give chief constables a clear indication of how they should balance civilian staff and police officers, given the financial constraints?
The decision that was taken by the chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police was perfectly sensible given the cost constraints on his force. It is much better that, when there is nobody to guard or watch at the St Leonard’s police station, a police officer goes out and does something to make our communities safer. I do not wish to be disparaging about police custody support officers, but they could not do that. They are employed as police custody support officers and, when there is nobody in custody, there is nothing for them to do. Although the decision that has been taken by the chief constable is regrettable for the constituents whom I met, it is perfectly understandable in the circumstances, as it maximises the use of a police officer.
I have one last question, convener.
Before you ask it, Graeme Pearson has a supplementary question on the same issue.
There is a real problem here, cabinet secretary. Last week, you acknowledged that about 1,000 support staff jobs had gone in the past 18 months. It would be challenging to imagine that all those 1,000 people could be missing from the service with nobody fulfilling their functions. Many of them must have been engaged in essential work and, if they are no longer there, police officers will necessarily have to do that work.
Those are fundamentally matters for the budget and, if people oppose the budget that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth has allocated to the justice department and onwards to the police, that is a matter for them.
I will allow two more questions on support staff, not because I do not think that the issue is important, but because we are discussing the bill and I want to get back to it. I know it has consequences for staffing. We will take a question each from Humza Yousaf and Lewis Macdonald, and then we will move back to Jenny Marra on staffing.
Kevin Smith from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland said that, in all his experience, he had never seen police officers directly fill the function of support staff. Calum Steele also rebuffed that suggestion. The cabinet secretary says that staffing decisions should remain in the ambit of the chief constable’s power over operational matters. How can he assure us that that power will not be compromised by the bill’s references to ministerial direction?
The power of ministerial direction does not allow me to interfere with operational matters, because it refers to the Scottish police authority. It is for the chief constable, who will be accountable to the board, to decide how resources will be balanced between police constables and support staff.
We have discussed the current position. There are proposals, contingent on the bill, for substantial savings over 15 years. Once you have dealt with duplication at chief officer level, will any savings not inevitably fall on police officers and support staff? If there is a VAT liability, will that not increase further the number of police staff posts that will be lost and require constables to, as you say, spend time in the custody suite rather than out on the street?
No, it will not do that because the outline business case was predicated on there being no VAT exemption. We still negotiate hopefully with the Treasury on that and continue to argue that there is a manifest injustice, as the PSNI and security services are exempted.
Thank you. We will move on. Jenny Marra has a second question, then we will have questions from David McLetchie, Alison McInnes, Graeme Pearson and John Finnie.
I will follow up on the cabinet secretary’s comments on the situation that is being played out south of the border. The bill provides that staff may be
Yes. Those will be matters for the police authority as the employer, but there will be no back-door privatisation.
Okay, so the provision about
I will ask Liz Sadler to comment, but I recall that her evidence was that such a provision has been in place since 1967. I was alive then, unlike Ms Marra, and my memory is that there was a Labour Government at the time. Perhaps Liz Sadler can enlighten us.
There always needs to be some flexibility for particular short-term projects. For example, there could be a research project or other work that needs to be done on a short-term basis, so there is a requirement to enable the police authority to employ staff on such contracts. However, there is no intention that that is to be the norm for the employment of staff.
There are scenarios in which things cannot be dealt with in-house. We see that in relation to the technical wizardry that is now available. It is often necessary to put the information technology stuff out to IT people. It is one thing to train up a police officer, but it is quite another if one is starting from scratch. We have seen difficulties in the police with personal digital assistants and various other matters.
You are saying that some of the IT services will be outsourced.
No, I am not saying that at all. I have given you a scenario and explained that, as some things are complicated, it is better to have the flexibility to hire in the best possible advice. We can do that in a whole array of areas—not just in IT, but in accounts, finance or procurement. There are areas in which we need to take advice from the best possible people to do the work.
Thank you, cabinet secretary.
There are mumblings about IT, but I am sure that both Graeme Pearson and John Finnie were techie wizards when they were in the police service.
I hope so, too. Good afternoon. Sorry—I mean good morning, everyone. It is not that late. I am losing track.
That was not a good start.
It was not.
As Councillor Watters said, there is no suggestion that the funding is about to be pulled. As you say, the funding is put in by local authorities because they see a particular need. They have discussed the issue with the police and that is how we see the arrangements continuing. It would be for the local authority to discuss the issue with the police and for councillors to account to their own electorate if the officers were removed.
Indeed, but there was a suggestion that the additional officers might be pulled. That is apparent in COSLA’s additional submission, which states that Councillor Watters
It would make no difference to the employment of the officers but it would make a difference to their deployment, because it would clearly be for the local commander and the chief constable to decide where the officers are deployed. The specific reason that they are currently deployed where they are is that the local authority has thought it essential to have them there. The chief constable has clearly thought that they are not necessarily essential, but they are willing to have them put there.
Indeed, but does that mean that the present establishment number will be maintained, irrespective of whether the councils that currently give the additional funding continue to do so? Is that what you are saying?
We have made it clear that we will maintain the figure of 17,234. We believe that that is essential. It is clearly for the chief constable to deploy officers and it will be for the chief constable and local commander to negotiate with local authorities.
That sounds to me to be a positive incentive for the councils not to continue the funding into next year, because the officers will be employed come what may.
Nick Bland might want to comment.
We would expect the arrangements that are currently in place to continue in the new single service.
Yes, but how do you know that that money is additional to the funding for the force in a particular area? At present you know, because the budget is based on the police board of which the council is part. Unless there is a budget with some kind of localised base, how do you know that the extra money is extra, and that it is not just filling a gap that has arisen as a result of deployment elsewhere? How can you be confident that that is the case?
One of the benefits of a single service is that, in any local area, the local commander can draw on that wider service and bring in specialist expertise when and where it is needed. A local authority area not only has a dedicated set of officers, but can draw on wider resources, specialist expertise, assets and equipment when such things are required.
In my discussions with COSLA, it was at pains—understandably—to ensure that local authorities would know what the baseline was on 1 April 2013. We will have that in place, so that we know where each authority is and what is specifically funded.
Let us hope that the councils see it that way.
Cabinet secretary, you said that you believed that the bill would improve links with local authorities and communities. Many of us—not least COSLA—disagree with that.
I think that matters are clear. We are trying to build a pyramid structure with a firm base. We will reflect on what comes out of the pathfinders; there are 16 of those already, and more local authorities wish to come on board.
That goes to the heart of the matter. You say that the chief constable will determine how resources will be deployed, so we might have more dialogue at local level, but there will be less accountability and less ability to direct those resources. COSLA has called from the most senior level for a right of response and for the bill to be amended to include a definition of the relationship between the chief constable and local authorities. Will you consider that?
I am happy to consider that. I do not necessarily think that the inclusion of such a definition is necessary, but I will not prejudge the issue. We will see what emerges from the pathfinders. Areas such as Orkney and the Scottish Borders are working closely with their local commanders and they see the benefits in that. We are seeking not only vertical but horizontal benefits. Part of the issue is how we will engage with the other services that are necessary to keep our communities safe. We are using the pathfinders to see how things work out. It is not only about the vertical police-silo level, but about how we mix the police in with other agencies to ensure that we get the best possible system.
That is why chief constables are best placed to be part of the local authority family. It is about horizontal integration.
At the end of the day, we want to see what works. That is why we are doing the pathfinders. Not everything is dealt with at local authority level. That is why health boards are structured in a variety of ways; in my experience, we in Parliament have changed the number of health boards in Scotland. We must ensure that we get the best possible system of integration.
You have said that there is quite a lot that we still need to sort out, yet you are determined to have all of this in place by 1 April next year. Is it time to draw breath?
No. We see the pathfinders as a way of ensuring that we have a seamless transition at 1 April 2013. We have always said that various matters will be for the chief constable and police authority to work out. It is accepted that it will ultimately be good to have a single payroll and to reduce replication of functions times eight and, in some instances, times nine. It will be for the chief constable and the SPA to work out where those functions should be located, and whether they should follow a unitary or a regional model. We have to ensure that the currently outstanding provision by the police service and fire and rescue service continues to be outstanding as the clock strikes midnight and we head into 1 April 2013. Thereafter, it will be for the chief constable, working with others, to work out what happens.
You talked about the pathfinder projects. Is there a case for the bill being more prescriptive in relation to local arrangements for scrutiny and engagement?
We are happy to consider that. We think that we may have a basis for doing that: it will to some extent depend on the outcome of the pathfinders. We will feed back into that. We have to recognise that things change and flow. Although we are ensuring that the set-up is built around the possibility of 32 local authorities acting individually, I have made it clear to local authorities that if they think that it is better to share with a neighbouring authority, I will not say that they cannot. If they think that that will add to democratic scrutiny and accountability and ensure that we get a better service, I am comfortable with that. We need a legislative base that not only provides for the separation of powers and the building blocks of the pyramid structure, but gives an element of flexibility. If, for example, Stirling and Clackmannan wish to share a police and fire committee, they can do so.
Part of the purpose of the pathfinders, which will run through the coming year, is to inform the development of national guidance on operation of the scrutiny and accountability arrangements. Instead of putting any prescriptions in the bill, we will take what we learn from the pathfinder process and put it into guidance outwith primary legislation.
Can I clarify the timetable in that respect? Will the outcome of the pathfinders not be known until the bill has concluded its passage?
The pathfinders are separate to the bill.
I know that, but there have been a lot of comments about knowing this or that when the outcome of the pathfinders is known. Will you know that outcome after the bill has been passed?
Yes. Local authorities that have come forward to be pathfinders and are working with the services in their local areas will over the coming year develop their arrangements. We will take what we learn from those arrangements to inform the development of national guidance, which will be in place for 1 April 2013.
You are talking about guidance, and not primary legislation.
Yes.
As I have said, the legislation is meant not only to set out the necessary basics but to give flexibility to allow for other matters.
In your response to Alison McInnes, you acknowledged that the operational delivery of services might happen on a unitary or regional basis. If the structure is a regional one, how do you envisage democratic accountability working with regard to regional decisions on roads policing and other such matters?
That is for the police authority to work out; after all, it will hold the chief constable to account. Equally, I have no doubt that the local commander will be made aware by the police authority of any dissatisfaction at local level. However, it is up to the chief constable and those who work for him to deal with such operational issues. It might be best to deal with certain matters more flexibly.
We need to put some flesh on how this is going to work, because it is a major concern for many of us around the table. Will the local commander be able to lay out to and share with the local committee a picture of the financial resources, the personnel and the other forms of support that will be at his or her disposal? Is that part of your plan?
Many local commanders are already allocated budgets. No matter whether we are talking about the police or anyone else, no organisation can work on an entirely centralised budget, and that will be the case when we move to a single service. The size of the budget will be a matter for the local commander to work out in conjunction with the chief constable, but I expect the local commander to discuss it and to interact with others on it. I presume that they will also seek added value from other agencies, which brings us back to the role of the CPP.
What if, after that pen-picture of locally available services is shared with the board, there is disagreement in that forum? You have indicated that a divisional commander could raise with the chief constable any unhappiness at local level, but how will the political and democratic elements work themselves out in the national board? Will there be a channel for making representations or for debating and resolving issues?
Any such issues will have to be dealt with by those who are involved at the time. It will depend on the nature of the problem. The authority can make representations to the commander, who can, in turn, make representations to the chief constable. Equally, it will be possible for the local authority board to make representations to the police authority. It is not up to me to work out how the police authority deals with such matters; we need to leave them to the police authority and the local authority police committee. They will have the opportunity to do so. I have no doubt that they will, that the situation will evolve and that things will work out.
It is important that there be a channel to resolve issues. David McLetchie mentioned the possibility that a local authority might invest resources but be unhappy about whether it was getting value for money and about whether the resources were being used elsewhere. Will there be a democratic way to resolve such matters between the local committee and the national board?
I have no doubt that the local authority would go to the national board.
Let us move on to national oversight—the governance that we spoke about earlier. Would you also welcome the fact that any parliamentary involvement would be proactive, in that rather than responding to reports, there would be a regular meeting of a group within the Parliament to review national strategy and how business was being done on the national board?
That would be best left for Parliament to work out.
I am asking for your opinion.
My opinion is that we should get the balance right between avoiding having an authority like that in metropolitan London, which sits regularly and looks over the shoulder of the police authority and the chief constable, and ensuring that we have an authority that deals with matters that are correctly the remit of Parliament when there is significant concern, and which is equally able to ensure that it is satisfied with how things are going.
You would accept that the philosophy—certainly in Scotland—is that we have policing by consent and that that consent can be offered only knowingly. Although it is a great gift to have people such as you in the justice department, one looks to the future when others might not be so well-meaning. There needs to be some form of governance in such circumstances.
I am missing this flirtation. I had drifted away; I see you smiling at each other.
There is time to come to it.
We do not want to specify what the Parliament must do. There is obviously this committee as well as the remit of the office of the Presiding Officer. As a Government, we think that the Parliament has a clear role. The authority will have a role in holding people to account and in ensuring that matters are dealt with as best they can be. There is a clear role in examining some of the more political aspects, if we can put it that way, of ensuring that we get policing by consent. That is why when issues such as Taser use have been brought to me, I have said that they are operational matters that are best dealt with by the authority or, ultimately, considered by the Parliament.
I am just dwelling on the word “gift”. That does not mean that your amendments will go through on the nod, Graeme, although we will see.
I know that.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. What are your views on the effectiveness of any new local board that might spring up in the coming months in comparison with the current boards? How effective will the new boards be? A number of comments have been made about the accountability of the chief constable, who provides reports to the board, which then holds him to account, and the relative security clearance of certain members. How do you perceive the local aspect of the police boards being continued and how effective could they be?
First, as I said earlier, it will be enhanced. There is a dynamic change. Even in the unitary authorities, people will be going to the council as opposed to the office of the chief constable. It is a little like the fact that I have come here to give evidence today—if you were coming up to my office in St Andrew’s house, that would be vastly different. That would change the dynamic and it is important to consider that.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to ask about two apparent gaps in the bill, and part of the bill on which people have mixed views. The gaps relate to what might be referred to as mutual aid. We heard about the cross-border arrangements for the fire and rescue service from the Chief Fire Officers Association Scotland. It seems that a pragmatic approach is taken that is not necessarily supported by a legislative framework. That was perceived as one gap. The other gap is the bill’s silence on mutual aid arrangements with the British Transport Police. To balance that, there are differing views on the police investigations and review commissioner. You may be familiar with the line of questioning on who would have primacy. It is important that there is public confidence in the arrangement.
The police investigations and review commissioner is a separate issue from the other two.
There are two deficiencies, and there seem to be widely ranging views on the police investigations and review commissioner.
That is fine. I am just separating the questions.
You are right. There are issues to do with cross-border mutual aid and how we would interact with the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and Ministry of Defence police. Obviously, we want to ensure that that assistance continues. Officers require to be assisted, and we welcome the assistance that we receive from the BTP. In my experience, even Northern Constabulary quite often used to welcome assistance by the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.
I also asked about the cross-border fire arrangements and the police investigations and review commissioner.
I will pick up the fire point. The approach is similar to that which is being taken with the police. We are discussing matters with colleagues down south to clarify the position and put beyond any doubt the fact that the new service will be able to have mutual arrangements with colleagues south of the border. Again, that will need to be done through the Scotland Act 1998. We are pursuing that matter positively with officials in the UK Government.
Will that pick up on any concerns about pension arrangements that the FBU perhaps has?
I need to double-check the point about pension arrangements. We can do that and get back to you.
We are happy to do that.
I thank the cabinet secretary for taking questions. I suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave.