“Police call management— An initial review”
Item 6 is consideration of the full reply from Robert Gordon on the police call management report. Do members have any questions or comments?
I declare an interest—I am on the Lothian and Borders Police board.
My question is about police response times for non-emergency calls and relates to response 7, which is about three pages from the end of the reply—the pages are not numbered. It is stated that the Government intends
"to include measures for non-emergency calls in the 2009/10"
version of the "Scottish Policing Performance Framework". That is fine, but I remember saying that it would be good to get some information—perhaps broken down by force—a bit sooner so that the public can find out about police response times to non-emergencies, which are certainly a big issue in my community. Is any work being done to obtain such information a bit more quickly? If national information cannot be provided until 2009-10, perhaps information on local forces' response times could be provided before then.
I ask Miranda Alcock whether we have any information on that.
Miranda Alcock (Audit Scotland):
I am not aware that any force will report such information this year. Each force would have to be asked for it by the joint board or the relevant local authority committee.
There is an issue around achieving a consistent approach to call grading and determining what constitutes a non-emergency response, and work is being done at the moment to try to develop a consistent approach to grading non-emergency calls. The top priority is clear, but what we are trying to measure are the other priorities. Although the police now have data that allow them to know when, following a call, officers arrive at an incident, it is a question of how the call originally came in and how it was graded, so there is still some systems work to be done. Although the police are monitoring the matter, they still need to work out exactly what the response times constitute.
If you are asking about individual forces, it would be up to local police boards or local authority committees to investigate that in more detail.
Convener, we might want to press that button a wee bit more firmly, so that we can provide the public with statistics on how long it takes the police to respond to non-emergency situations in the community. I am constantly approached about that issue by people in my constituency, but we do not have a handle on it at all. I would like to move the matter along with a bit more pace.
When the committee considered the review, there was quite a lot of interest from members in a single non-emergency number. That issue is covered in pages 2 and 3 of Robert Gordon's reply. There is a lot in his response about the 101 number, but that is not the same point, because that number is for people who want to report antisocial behaviour and matters of community safety. We felt that there was a lot of merit in having a separate three-digit number for general police contact, which would take a lot of pressure off the 999 system.
Robert Gordon's reply on that is interesting. He says that, although there are merits in the proposal, it cannot be set up in Scotland alone because the Office of Communications says that it would only work across the United Kingdom. Given that the Scottish ministers are always telling us how anxious they are to engage with their counterparts down south, perhaps we could encourage Kenny MacAskill to speak kindly to the Home Secretary—or justice secretary, or whatever she is called now—in Westminster. There is a serious issue, and if it needs to be tackled across the UK, that is exactly the sort of positive step that we could take in Scotland to try to push it forward.
I strongly support that suggestion. As I remember the evidence, it was not the most dynamic that the committee has ever received—lethargic was the word that I was going to use, but I think that I had better not. That also comes through in the reply, which explains why the Scottish Government cannot introduce a separate number rather than picking up on the potential. Albeit that I am not the greatest fan of the minister concerned, he is a bit more energetic than his officials. We should try what Murdo Fraser proposes. It would be really good.
The statistics show that 87 per cent of calls to the police are non-emergency calls. If we could establish a UK non-emergency number, we could get those calls rerouted to the appropriate department. With modern technology advancing so quickly, it must be possible to do that. I know some people down in the other part of the United Kingdom and could encourage them to get involved.
Jacqui Smith is still the Home Secretary; the justice secretary has different responsibilities.
We can ask the minister about potential progress.
My problem is that, throughout, the response gives us reasons, as George Foulkes has just said, for not doing something because of the various complexities involved.
Robert Gordon admits:
"The bulk of calls (87%) received by police are non-999 calls and … only between 29% and 51% of 999 calls are actually emergencies."
My spirits rose when I read what the response goes on to say:
"So improving handling of the majority of calls received by the police is desirable and the setting up of a SNEN has attractions."
However, the next paragraph goes completely the other way and gives reasons for not doing that, stating that:
"an effective SNEN would need to involve many agencies beyond the 8 Scottish police forces. It would need to link into the systems of 32 local authorities"
and the various other agencies that the response mentions.
What does Robert Gordon mean by the term "link into"? He is really saying that, because we have so many non-linked emergency services, introducing a single non-emergency number in Scotland is simply not possible. Of course, the lack of links between many services is the whole problem. Why are the services not intercontactable? Surely providing staff to connect some of them up would be an important first step. After all, once a start is made, it can be extended.
What bothers me is that no action will be taken because of the belief that all the services cannot be linked up. However, the response has got it the wrong way round. It is coming at the issue from the point of view of the authorities and their problems instead of considering it from the perspective of ordinary law-abiding citizens who, when they find themselves victims of crime and try to contact the appropriate authority either to get something done or simply to alert someone, find that they cannot do so.
As I said, my spirits were raised initially, but then dashed. The message is that, because the whole issue is so complex, nothing much can be done. However, the general public wants something to be done, and a start should be made. The Government is looking at the issue the wrong way round.
Certainly the committee's general view is that we should follow up the issues raised in the review.
I agree whole-heartedly with everything that has been said. I would have thought that Scotland was an ideal size for rolling out a pilot project.
I was substituting on the committee when the matter was first raised and I am pleased that it has been taken further. The very full description of the work of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland contained in Robert Gordon's letter certainly gives me more insight into what it does. It appears that that independent body carries out some of the same work as is carried out by chief constables, who are represented by ACPOS as well as having their own group that advises the Government. I am not saying that we do not need ACPOS, but I am concerned about duplicity—I am sorry; I realise that that is not the right word. The question, in any case, is whether we really need ACPOS to be doing the work of chief constables. Who are ACPOS's board of directors and how are they appointed?
Before you answer that, Auditor General, I wonder whether you can also address a broader issue. Given that it comprises all the chief constables, has ready access to ministers and influences policy and legislation as they go through the Parliament, ACPOS is potentially one of the most influential police bodies in Scotland. Its views are listened to in debates on the allocation of funding and the deployment of resources. However, it is also a company limited by guarantee and is led by a board of directors and its membership. That brings me back to Sandra White's questions. To whom is it accountable? How do we hold ACPOS to account for its role in policing in Scotland? How do we follow the public pound in its use of money and allocation of resources?
The set-up is strange. I do not dispute for a moment the need for a body that brings together chief constables but we, on behalf of the Parliament and the general public, are trying to hold organisations to account for how they use resources. We know that chief constables are ostensibly held to account through the boards, but the same cannot be said for ACPOS. Will you comment on that wider issue as well as on Sandra White's specific comments?
In our report, we commented on the fact that the role played by ACPOS seemed to be critical to policing strategy in Scotland. The creation of ACPOS as a company limited by guarantee is a comparatively recent development, but at the time of the review we were not entirely clear about how it fitted into the overall accountability framework for policing in Scotland. That point was made in our report. The response from Robert Gordon is helpful in that it describes more fully than we have seen anywhere else the role that ACPOS is now playing more formally.
I do not recall seeing a reference to a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and ACPOS before reading the letter. That is useful information for us to have. At the very least, we would suggest that the new arrangements require time to bed down, but there are concerns about Parliament being wholly assured about the accountability framework that is now operating.
As members will fully appreciate, Audit Scotland does not audit companies. Neither the Accounts Commission nor the Auditor General has direct powers to commission such an audit. Therefore, there are issues that we need to monitor through our work on the Scottish Government and the audit of police boards and authorities.
That is an interesting point. If you cannot monitor such a private company, who does? We are now operating on the basis of a memorandum of understanding that will set out agreed strategic directions for policing in Scotland, which is significant. The letter says that ACPOS
"will publish a strategic plan each year"
and
"will address recommendations made in HMIC reports that are directed to ACPOS."
That means that HM inspectorate of constabulary reports will be directed to a private company, which has significant implications. If Audit Scotland is unable to examine those issues, perhaps we need to ask some further questions on behalf of the Parliament.
As I said earlier, this is the first I have known about exactly what goes on. Mr Black mentioned the role that ACPOS is now playing, and you used the word "now", convener. Did ACPOS always play its current role, or is it only now that it is much more open and transparent—if not accountable? It is not a member of the tripartite arrangement, which is monitored by the Scottish ministers. It is a private company, but if it is receiving any public funds, surely it must be accountable to the public.
My other question was about how people are appointed to the board of directors.
This is a developing area, and those are pertinent questions that could best be answered by the accountable officer.
Okay, there is further work to be done on this area.