Keeping Scotland Safe and Strong - A Consultation on Reforming Police and Fire and Rescue Services in Scotland: Analysis of Consultation Responses

11. NEW ARRANGEMENTS FOR GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Question 16: What are your views on the composition of the Board of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the specific skills, experience and expertise required for it to perform its roles effectively?

Summary of proposals in the consultation document:

• The Board of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service will require a range and mix of skills, experience and expertise to deliver its responsibilities.
• The responsibilities of the Board will not be confined to "national issues". It would also be responsible for ensuring that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is effective at a local level and that local plans were being delivered.

11.1 62 respondents from the following respondent categories addressed this question.

Respondent category	Number of respondents	Respondent category	Number of respondents
Pol Force		LA	24
PB		Vol	2
Pol Org	1	CPP	4
FRS	4	NHS
FB	4	Oth	12
Fire Org	6	Individuals	5

Note: Abbreviations used in the above table are described in Table 1.

Size of Board

11.2 An emerging theme was that clarity is needed on the proposed size of the Board, as no indication of this had been given in the consultation document. Of the 12 respondents who made explicit recommendations for the size of Board, all proposed at least 11 members. A typical comment was:

"…concerned that the interests of 32 local authorities cannot be effectively managed by a small Board" (LA).

Suggestions were made for size of Board ranging from 11 to 32 members (representing each local authority). Most suggestions were for between 13 and 20 members.

Elected members on the Board

11.3 35 respondents specifically recommended that locally elected councillors form part of the Board. 16 respondents suggested that locally elected councillors comprise at least half of membership. Reasons given for promoting locally elected membership included:

• Need to incorporate and harness relevant expertise and experience built up by locally elected members.
• Particularly important to involve elected members in the "bedding in" phase when continuity of expertise is valuable.
• Brings to the Board knowledge of diverse geographic communities.
• Roots the service in local government.
• Will help the Board to build meaningful relationships with local committees.
• Avoids the perception of an appointed "quango" reporting to the Scottish Parliament.

11.4 2 respondents (Oth, Ind) considered that there should be no, or very limited, places on the Board for serving councillors, with their expertise seen as applicable at local area rather than national level.

Representation

11.5 Many respondents recommended that the Board represent experience from a range of domains. 8 respondents from a range of sectors advocated a balance of experience from urban, rural and remote areas. 5 respondents (LAs and CPPs) urged that the community/voluntary sector be represented on the Board. Other domains nominated for representation by fewer than 5 respondents were: judiciary; academia; lay people; trade unions; national government; both genders; local partnerships; and each existing Fire and Rescue Service.

Skills required of Board members

11.6 One respondent (LA) remarked that given the relatively small size of the Board, it will be essential to ensure that it encompasses a wide range of skills. Respondents identified 12 different skill sets which they considered should be required of Board members. The 5 most commonly mentioned were: knowledge of fire and rescue services; previous direct experience of working in emergency services; knowledge of local government; financial/business skills; strategic thinking; and expertise in the scrutiny of public services. Other skills mentioned by only one or 2 respondents included: ICT skills; experience of organisational management; political skills; appreciation of partnership working; and knowledge of specialist services such as urban search and rescue.

11.7 2 respondents requested that appropriate training be provided for Board members.

Question 17: Do you think a number of appointments to the Board should be reserved for serving councillors nominated by COSLA? Or that Ministers should simply ensure that the individuals appointed to the Board include those with experience and knowledge of local government?

Summary of proposals in the consultation document:

• Appointment of members of the Board by Scottish Ministers through the formal public appointment process.
• Alternatively, appointment by Ministers of a number of serving councillors, nominated by COSLA, to represent the collective voice of local government on the Board.

11.8 48 respondents from the following respondent categories addressed this question.

Respondent category	Number of respondents	Respondent category	Number of respondents
Pol Force		LA	21
PB		Vol	1
Pol Org	1	CPP	3
FRS	3	NHS
FB	4	Oth	7
Fire Org	5	Individuals	3

Note: Abbreviations used in the above table are described in Table 1.

Nominations by COSLA

11.9 31 respondents (15 of them local authorities) of the 48 explicitly supported the proposal that a number of appointments to the Board should be reserved for serving councillors nominated by COSLA. Only 2 respondents (FB and Oth) recommended that nominations should not be made through COSLA in the first instance.

11.10 Nominations by COSLA were seen as having the benefits of: commanding public confidence; reflecting geographical and socio-economic diversity; linking with local government; accountability; and achieving a political balance.

Use of the public appointment process

11.11 4 respondents considered that there would be no need for COSLA nominees to go through the public appointment process. Another view (LA), however, was that a number of COSLA nominated councillors should be put into the appointment process in order to ensure security clearance, gender and regional balance.

Appointments by Ministers

11.12 3 respondents were clear in their view that Ministers should not appoint members of the Board. They considered that such practice may call into question the Board's independence, and could give rise to political imbalance in representation.

Other suggestions for appointments

11.13 Suggestions were made for other approaches to appointments to the Board. These were: nominations by Fire and Rescue Authorities/Joint Boards (4 respondents); nominations by local councils (3 respondents); by "a democratically, open and accountable process" (FRS); or possibly by Parliament (Oth).

Question 18: What are your views on the roles and responsibilities for governance and accountability set out?

Summary of proposals in the consultation document:

• Chief Officer to lead and manage the Service.
• Chief Officer to produce and publish an annual plan and budget for the delivery of the Service's strategic plan based upon integrated risk management planning.
• Local councils to formally comment on the local plan.
• Local councils to monitor and scrutinise performance against the local plan.
• Local Senior Officer to have significant delegated authority in the local council area and be responsible for developing and delivering a local plan.

11.14 64 respondents from the following respondent categories addressed this question.

Respondent category	Number of respondents	Respondent category	Number of respondents
Pol Force		LA	24
PB		Vol	2
Pol Org	1	CPP	6
FRS	4	NHS
FB	4	Oth	11
Fire Org	6	Individuals	6

Note: Abbreviations used in the above table are described in Table 1.

11.15 Overall the proposals were given a cautious welcome, in particular the intention for greater involvement of elected members in planning local arrangements for fire and rescue, but this was balanced by numerous requests for more detail and greater clarity on relationships, lines of accountability and delegated responsibilities.

Local accountability

11.16 The lines of accountability between the local council, the proposed Local Senior Officer (LSO) and the Chief Officer were perceived by many to be confusing. Questions were raised as to whether the LSO will be responsible to local councils or to the Chief Officer and Board. One respondent (Oth) considered that the proposed roles appeared to strike a balance between local accountability and decision-making whilst ensuring national oversight, but others questioned how this would work in practice. For example:

"We have difficulty in accepting that the Local Senior Officer can be "accountable" for the services delivered in that area if decisions relating to the level of service which can be provided are made centrally" (FB).

"Delegating authority to the LSO is welcome, but their ability to deliver against local priorities and expectations within a centrally developed policy and budget arrangement will create a difficult and constant tension" (Fire Org).

11.17 Further confusion was created by the perceived inconsistencies in paragraphs 9.14 and 9.17 in which local councils were stated as having the right to "formally comment on the local plan" (9.14), yet be enabled to "shape local priorities and objectives" (9.17). Paragraph 9.18 was also cited as adding to the confusion by proposing that the LSO prepare the plan "for the agreement of the Council".

Local committees and partnerships

11.18 12 respondents explicitly welcomed the proposals for alignment of the LSO with community planning arrangements and the suggestion that existing or new local committees facilitate the relationship between the council and the LSO. Calls were made for clarity on the communication mechanisms between local committees and the National Board with 15 respondents (LAs and CPPs) recommending that post reform arrangements for the involvement of local committees, including the communication channels with the Chief Officer and National Board should be framed in legislation.

11.19 3 respondents urged that some responsibility for the setting and deployment of local budgets should remain at local level. According to one:

"This would significantly strengthen accountability and make community engagement more meaningful" (FRS).

Local Senior Officer (LSO)

11.20 More detailed information was requested on the proposed role and lines of accountability of the LSO. The role was perceived to have the potential to enhance local autonomy and promote partnership working, but concern was raised over the LSOs' degree of delegated responsibility, for example, in relation to control over local budgets. 2 respondents (LA, Pol Org) asked for clarification on what the "significant delegated authority" of the LSO comprised. Another (Oth) cautioned that the LSO should not be swamped by administration and reporting responsibilities.

11.21 2 respondents (both local authorities) suggested that local accountability could be strengthened by involving elected members in the selection and appointment of LSOs. 7 respondents from a range of sectors asked for further guidance on the potential for flexibility in local arrangements including sharing LSOs with other councils, and having more than one plan in cases where a council area is geographically large and diverse.

11.22 3 respondents called for the development of a mechanism for resolving differences in views between local government and LSOs. Another (Vol) asked for information on proposed sanctions if the LSO fails to produce plans on time and with the involvement of all local stakeholders.

11.23 11 respondents, from a range of sectors, raised as potentially problematic the issue of variation in rank of LSOs. A recurring comment was that the LSO rank must be commensurate with the level of responsibilities of the role. One view (FB) was that all LSOs should be of equal rank so that large areas are not given a stronger voice in resource decisions than smaller or rural areas.

Chief Officer

11.24 Omissions to the role proposed were perceived as:

• responsibility for mainstreaming equality and diversity approaches (5 respondents)
• responsibility for managing major incidents (4 respondents).

Scottish Parliament

11.25 One respondent (Oth) remarked that further clarification is required on the proposed role of the Parliament.

Local Authority monitoring and scrutinising complaints

11.26 Whilst one respondent (CPP) welcomed the proposed role for local councils in monitoring and scrutinising complaints, another (LA) did not see this role as appropriate for the council. One respondent (Oth) asked for more information on how this will operate in practice, and in particular how the proposal sat in relation to the scrutiny arrangements contained in Section 11 of the consultation document.

Potential omissions

11.27 Potential omissions from the consultation document were suggested as:

• role for local people and communities to have their voices heard
• arbitration process should local and national arrangements conflict
• role for accountable officer.

11.28 Summary

• There was general agreement that the Board of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service should comprise more than 11 members to ensure representation of a wide range of skills and geographical diversity.
• There was much support for the proposal that a number of appointments to the Board should be reserved for serving councillors nominated by COSLA.
• Many respondents welcomed the proposed intention to enhance local accountability under the reforms, but a common view was that the arrangements outlined appeared unclear and confusing.
• Lines of accountability between the local council, LSO and Chief Officer were perceived by many to need clarification.
• Clarity was requested on the communication mechanisms between local committees and the Board with support for framing the involvement of local committees in statute.
• A common view held by respondents answering this question was that the LSO rank should be commensurate with the level of responsibilities of the role, with variation in rank across LSOs identified as potentially problematic.