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

13. SCRUTINISING THE SCOTTISH FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE - AUDIT, INSPECTION AND COMPLAINTS

Question 20: What are your views on our proposals for inspection and audit?

Summary of the proposal in the consultation document:

• SFRAU to be given an independent, external scrutiny and audit role.

13.1 54 respondents from the following respondent categories addressed this question.

Respondent category	Number of respondents	Respondent category	Number of respondents
Pol Force		LA	22
PB		Vol	1
Pol Org		CPP	4
FRS	4	NHS
FB	4	Oth	8
Fire Org	6	Individuals	5

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

13.2 Of those who provided a clear view, 21 welcomed the proposed external scrutiny and audit role for SFRAU, whilst 14 opposed this. Half of those who expressed their opposition were fire and rescue bodies.

Reasons given in support of the proposals

13.3 The proposals were seen as straightforward, and providing an independent, professional challenge which would ensure robust scrutiny arrangements and enhance public confidence.

13.4 The proposals to develop complementary and co-operative scrutiny relationships with other bodies to avoid duplication of working were particularly welcomed by 4 respondents. However, another (Oth) cautioned that the services which these bodies delivered had significant differences and the training which the development of any shared audit and inspection resource should reflect.

Reasons given in opposition to the proposals

13.5 The most common argument against the proposals was that Audit Scotland should be the body which undertakes independent scrutiny. One respondent remarked:

"Audit Scotland are recognised as being an independent audit body and, with support of peer assessors, have been successful in carrying out performance reviews following "modernisation" and as part of the Best Value regime" (Fire Org).

Other reservations about the proposals included:

• Conflicts of interest may arise, for example, if the CIFRA has already served in the single service their independence may come into question (5 respondents).
• The proposals do not adequately establish an independent, professional inspectorate separate from Government (4 respondents).
• The proposals do not necessarily streamline the scrutiny arrangements (1 respondent).
• The creation of a new inspectorate would need justification in terms of value for money and reducing bureaucracy (1 respondent).

Other comments

13.6 A common view held by respondents was that no mention is made of local inspection and audit arrangements, with little mention of inspection and audit arrangements for the Board.

13.7 Clarity was requested largely by local authority and Community Planning Partnerships on the implications of the proposals for the Best Value audit process of local authorities and Community Planning Partnerships.

13.8 4 respondents called for audit and inspection to cover the contribution made to Community Planning Partnerships and single outcome agreements.

13.9 2 respondents requested that formal mechanisms should be put in place for reporting inspection and audit outcomes to local authority committees.

13.10 One respondent (Fire Org) urged that a mainstreamed approach to equality inspection and audit be implemented; another (Vol) recommended that an audit of accessibility of service and EQIA be incorporated.

13.11 2 respondents advocated a change of name for SFRAU to reflect its new functions.

Question 21: What are your views on our proposals for handling complaints?

Summary of proposals in the consultation document:

• The SFRS to be required by law to establish a procedure by which a person, or someone acting on a person's behalf, may make complaints.
• SPSO to retain responsibility to overseeing how complaints are handled, as at present.
• Where the SFRS believes a complaint would be better handled by an independent individual or body, the Service will approach SFRAU to identify and nominate an appropriate person or organisation to take this forward.

13.12 52 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	2
Pol Org		CPP	2
FRS	4	NHS
FB	4	Oth	7
Fire Org	6	Individuals	6

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

13.13 Of these respondents, only one (Ind) requested that the complaints handling be left as at present. All of the others either expressed their specific support for the proposals or provided general, supportive commentary.

13.14 One recurring comment was that no mention is made in this section of a role for local government, whereas in section 9 of the consultation document a formal role for local government committees is identified "to monitor and scrutinise complaints". Several respondents urged that the expertise in handling queries and concerns from constituents, built up at local level amongst elected members, should not be lost in the future arrangements.

13.15 3 respondents called for the complaints procedure to be fair, transparent and accessible. One respondent (Fire Org) requested that the complaints process be monitored for equality related issues.

13.16 Summary

• Most of those expressing a view supported the proposed external scrutiny and audit role for SFRAU. This proposal was seen as providing an independent, professional challenge which will ensure robust scrutiny arrangements and enhance public confidence.
• Further information was called for regarding local inspection and audit arrangements.
• The proposal that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service introduces an internal complaints procedure which follows the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman's principles and procedures for handling complaints was supported.