The next item on the agenda is an evidence session on recent developments, with a focus on the recent announcements on changes to governance arrangements and SPA senior staff.
Mr Emery, you must be feeling kind of battered and bruised with the recent developments.
Not at all.
I want to get the timeline clear in my mind. When did you know that Andrea Quinn was not going to apply for the permanent chief executive post?
Let me backtrack a moment. When the SPA was formed back in November, we had no leadership at an executive level. At the time, Andrea Quinn was the chief executive of the Scottish Police Services Authority and I prevailed upon her goodness to come across and work with the SPA on an interim basis. Her substantive role as chief executive of the SPSA ended on 31 March.
When did you know that Ms Quinn was not going to complete her role as interim chief executive and that she was going to resign rather precipitately?
She has not resigned. She is still there and will be there until September.
But you have intimated that we will need another interim chief executive.
Yes, because you cannot hold people from getting on with their lives for an infinite amount of time. When Ms Quinn told me in February that she did not want to continue, I agreed with her a date in September for leaving the organisation.
Was any part of her reasoning related to the redesignation and the changes in governance?
None at all.
When was the need for the changes to governance identified? You have come before us on many occasions and told us that things were being resolved. The cabinet secretary told Parliament in March that everything was hunky-dory and that we were all getting worried about tittle-tattle. When exactly did the changes start to take effect?
We have been discussing the issue with our partners for the past few weeks. When we set up the SPA, our initial priority was to ensure that there was a smooth transition and that the merger of 10 organisations took place smoothly. If you had asked anyone in the street, they would not have noticed the change. The police are to be congratulated on doing that.
I do not want to hog the discussion, but I have one final question. I would be interested in hearing the chief constable’s views. We have been told that SPA members considered and agreed the next-phase governance approach as the foundation for the strategic policy direction and the new governance. When did they agree that?
They agreed that formally yesterday at the board meeting.
Yes, but we were told about it in advance of that. Indeed, we were told about it in your SPA statement, which we received last week. When was that agreed before the board meeting?
A team was put together that was comprised of executive members of the SPA and the board of the SPA. As I have said previously, they have worked through the new arrangements over the past two or three—maybe four—weeks. That work was presented to the board at large yesterday and it was agreed.
We have had three interim senior officials working for a period of time. Why did the SPA not move to appoint a permanent chief executive officer when you knew as far back as February that Andrea Quinn would be leaving? Questions will be asked about morale in the SPA if three senior officials in important posts feel that they could not stay on even long enough for permanent positions to be created.
Andrea Quinn’s decision was a personal one that she made. The decision was not given to her; it was a decision that she made for herself and I see no conflict going forward. The timescales have moved on a bit. However, in February—
With respect, Mr Emery, you knew about her decision in February and we are now in June.
Yes.
Why did you not start to make moves to appoint someone to a permanent position in February? We are in the worst of all possible scenarios with these interim appointments, and there is to be yet another interim appointment.
We made moves in March and started to draw up a role profile, which we then submitted to the Scottish Government, with the indication that we needed from the Government an analysis of the pay and conditions for that position. As we moved forward, we obviously concentrated on ensuring that we had a smooth transition, so that role was not the centre of our focus—the smooth transition to a single police force was the single focus. However, we then started to think that, as things had gone okay, we needed to consider our role going forward and to take more of a reform role. Therefore, that role profile will change a bit.
I really doubt whether anyone would consider it a smooth transition to have two interim chief executives and then a permanent one. I do not think that I have heard a convincing explanation of why moves were not made to appoint a permanent chief executive and why it was not possible to persuade the two directors who have resigned to stay on long enough to allow a permanent appointment to be made.
There is no one in the SPA who is other than an interim employee. Of the two people to whom you refer, one was on a short-term six-month contract that expires now and the other was on a consultancy contract, which we renewed for six months at the beginning of the year, and that person has chosen not to continue. So those two people were contractors and we fully expected them to leave the business. That will not have a negative impact, because we have other people we will put in to fill the roles.
Knowing that they were going to leave the business, do you believe that that was the very best governance that could have been achieved in that time?
Yes, I do.
I beg to differ.
I just do not understand why people would resign when they have a fixed-term contract that is expiring.
They have not resigned; they are completing their contract and leaving at the end.
So they are not resigning.
No, they have not resigned.
First, it would be small-minded not to acknowledge that, in your correspondence to the committee, you intimate that you are taking a new policy direction. I am grateful for that and, given all the comments that I have made over the past 18 months about the situation, I think that common sense has prevailed. You were also good enough to acknowledge the various partners who played a part in deciding that the new direction should be achieved. Do you think that your experience at the sub-committee and the Justice Committee has helped to educate that position and, along with the other comments that you have received, to suggest a way forward?
Our approach right from the beginning has been to put in place the best governance that we could. All the organisations that we have put in place and all the agreements that we have reached with the Police Service of Scotland with regard to schemes of delegation, schemes of activities and so on had a recognition in them that we would need to change. There were agreements for transfer of personnel between the two organisations. We now believe that it is time to move on to be a much more scrutinising policy and strategy organisation than a delivery organisation. If you remember—in fact, I doubt that you would ever forget—we had two roles in the beginning: a maintenance role and a governance role. What we are basically saying is that the maintenance role will pass back to the Police Service of Scotland.
My question was about your time at the sub-committee and the Justice Committee: did that assist you in removing the clouds from the way forward and seeing the direction?
We take cognisance of all our partners. You are all very influential and knowledgeable people, so you are—
It is just that you missed us out in your earlier presentation of how you learned.
Well, I learn every day about this and that.
Excellent.
So we are grateful for any support that you will give us.
Okay. Putting to the side our unhappy past year, in the documentation there is an acknowledgement that, going forward, you need transparency from Police Scotland in giving you access to information and access to people to get that information so that you can properly hold the service to account.
Transparency and openness have been a key issue in all the discussions that we have had on the next phase of governance. You will need to ask the chief constable himself—
I am going to.
I have not heard the chief constable demur from that one bit.
I am asking whether you are confident that you will be able to exercise that oversight.
I have great confidence in the chief constable and the Police Service of Scotland.
So do I, but do you have great confidence that you will be able to exercise governance and oversight?
I see no reason why I should not.
Thank you.
Yes.
That is all I need.
What I am hearing now is what the Justice Committee thought was in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill and subsequent act of Parliament when we started: that the SPA has a scrutiny and oversight role, and maintenance and operation are with the police. Like Graeme Pearson, I am delighted that we have got there. The committee was rather cross that we were portrayed as people who had not scrutinised the bill properly. Obviously, we had done so. Where we are now is where we ought to have been from the start.
I did not have the scrutinising role that the Justice Committee had, but I watched from afar and completely agree with the convener on that front.
Over the next two months, our next target is to get approval for the way that we wish to proceed and the organisation that we want to do that. Our target is to present that to the board at the August meeting. A working group that involves all our partners to decide how that is best done will therefore continue. In the meantime, an advertisement has gone out internally and externally for an interim chief executive, as we recognise the point that you have made well: that sometimes appointments take some time to get in place. We expect a six-month turnaround, which is why we need someone to fill in after Andrea Quinn leaves.
I do not have a difficulty with having two interim people. I saw that happen in the past, when somebody had to move on elsewhere for good reasons. However, I am trying to get my head round why it would take until August to get agreement on what the role should be. Obviously, your board took a decision yesterday, and I think that everybody would agree that that is a good thing, but if I were in your position, I would move a little swiftly to get the agreements that are required so that you can start to find the right person or people to take on the jobs on a permanent basis.
I have handed that to my human resources department to look after for me. As far as I am aware, we have gone to interim agencies to assist us in putting an interim director in place. As far as the long term is concerned, we have not taken that step yet for the permanent structure, because we need to define the role and the salary that will be attached to it.
Maybe I am being a little bit daft but, yesterday, the board defined its role so, surely, the definition of the chief executive’s role is to head up the roles that the board defined yesterday. I cannot see why it would take so long to put that definition in place.
Because we need to work on what the SPA requires to enable it to do an effective and efficient best-value scrutiny of the police. We need to decide what size and shape of audit function and what sort of financial and HR analysis we need to have, what strategy documents we need to approve and how we approve policy that the Police Service of Scotland develops. We need to flesh all that out and say how many people we need to do that.
I understand what you say about dealing with all the matters with which you need to deal, but I am concerned with the definition of the role. I have been on recruitment panels that have recruited chief executives, directors and chief constables. In my mind, it is possible to come up with a definition of a job quite quickly. Anyway, the key thing is not the definition of the role but the capability and adaptability of the folk who are in front of you before you make the decision on whether to award the job. I really cannot get my head round why it would take so long to define the role.
We will do it as quickly as possible, but there is a process to go through. We have a specification of the job. Deciding whether we have the right person to do the job involves writing a personal profile as well as an overall profile. I am teaching you how to suck eggs here and I do not mean to. We will do it as quickly as possible.
I take it that the reason is that what the SPA will do has changed.
The SPA will now be focused more on the governance, scrutiny and policy role.
That is why we have had the delay in making permanent appointments.
Yes.
Roderick Campbell has a question.
No, that was my question, convener.
I am so sorry. I thought that it was where Kevin Stewart was going to go.
Chief constable, you must be relieved that we finally have clarity and more single-mindedness on the matter. To look forward, the staff whom you already have in place were taken on under a twin-track type of appointment. Do there need to be any changes? How do you run and shape your organisation now that it has overall control of recruitment?
I do not feel that changes are needed because, other than the police officers, the people whom I took on, particularly the director of finance and the director of HR—and now the director of ICT—are experienced. The finance and HR directors held those posts in Strathclyde Police and have huge experience.
I am happy to acknowledge that the operational transition has been smooth, but I am with Margaret Mitchell in that we cannot call the kind of turmoil that we have seen over the past six months a successful transition.
If I may say so, you asked me to look forward. I am looking at the public’s attitude. The job for the authority and for us is to deliver a policing service. That has been done.
I am reassured that you are saying that there will be no further staffing upheaval. You feel that you can move straight on.
Absolutely.
That is helpful.
Chief constable, you have been fortunate enough to sit on the sidelines as Vic Emery has gone through a bit of a torrid time with the questioning thus far. There have been reservations on the policing side about the arrangements with the SPA. Are you satisfied that the arrangements that are now in place allow you to exercise your responsibilities effectively and that there are no structural and organisational impediments to moving forward with Police Scotland?
Almost on principle, I want to resist saying a simple yes but, from everything that I have seen, we have been involved in a wholly positive development. We were not principal players because it is a decision for the SPA, not Police Scotland, to take. However, we have been consulted.
That is useful.
There are no further questions. I thank Vic Emery and Chief Constable House very much for giving evidence. I feel that the Justice Committee has been vindicated, if I can be forgiven for saying that once again. I look forward to happy developments.
In that case, we will take evidence from the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the relevant deputy chief constable.