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

Executive Summary

The Scottish Government introduced the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill 2012 to Parliament on 16 January 2012.^[1]

To help shape the final proposals and the legislation, a written consultation paper^[2], "Keeping Scotland Safe and Strong: A Consultation on Reforming Police and Fire and Rescue Services in Scotland", was published on 8 September 2011 which set out proposals for how best to establish these single services. This report provides an independent analysis of the consultation responses to that consultation.

145 responses to the consultation were received. 115 responses (79%) were from organisations, and 30 (21%) were submitted by individuals. A summary of respondents' views on the key issues follows.

Modern purpose for policing and fire and rescue

There was much support for modernising the purpose of policing and fire and rescue as part of the reforms. However, there was support and opposition in equal measure to the specific wording proposed for the modern purpose of policing, which some respondents viewed as too broad and generic, without a distinct policing relevance. The proposals for a new purpose for fire and rescue were generally supported with the emphasis on partnership working particularly welcomed.

The majority view was in favour of setting out the purpose of policing in national guidance; much support was expressed for the proposal to place the purpose of the Fire and Rescue Service in the Fire Framework. Both of these were seen as providing the flexibility for future updating as necessary.

There was much agreement, especially amongst police bodies, with the plans to retain the existing functions of policing but in a modern form. Although most police bodies wished to see the current police oath retained, the overall balance of views amongst respondents from all sectors was in favour of modernising the oath. The majority of those who expressed a view, including almost all of the local authorities, supported the proposal to retain the existing functions for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

Integration and partnership arrangements

There was broad, cross-sector support for the proposal to integrate the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA) into one single police service led by a Chief Constable. Views were mixed, however, on whether some support functions (including forensic services and the DNA database) should report to, and be directly accountable to the proposed Scottish Police Authority (SPA). Some felt that this could create conflicts in terms of the SPA operating as both service provider and governance body.

An overarching view was that current partnership arrangements should be aligned with the new body as soon as possible, with current, effective local partnerships protected and supported.

The transfer of Scottish Government fire and rescue assets (such as the Scottish Fire Service College and management of the Firelink Communications System contract) to the new service was widely supported in principle, although it was stressed that sufficient funding should accompany the assets transfer.

Composition and appointment of Boards

Respondents were largely in favour of a number of appointments to the SPA and to the Board of the new Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SRFS) being reserved for serving councillors nominated by COSLA. The perceived benefits of this included:

• commands public confidence
• accountable
• reflects geographical and socio-economic diversity
• achieves a political balance
• preserves links with local government.

There was general agreement amongst respondents that each of these bodies should comprise more than 11 members to ensure representation of a wide range of skills and geographical diversity. The skills most commonly mentioned by respondents as important amongst Board members were:

• knowledge of policing/fire and rescue issues
• knowledge of local government working
• expertise in finance/business
• strategic thinking.

Several respondents recommended that Board members be supported with training, for example on equality and diversity issues.

Governance and accountability

Many respondents welcomed the proposed intention to enhance local accountability under the reforms, but a common view was that the arrangements outlined for local accountability appeared unclear and confusing. Clarity was requested on the role of local councils in the development and agreement of local policing and fire and rescue plans.

A recurring theme was that local authorities should have a meaningful role in contributing to their local plans for policing and fire and rescue, with some degree of alignment of local decision-making with delegated budgetary responsibility. There was considerable support, largely amongst local authority respondents, for framing the role and function of local committees in statute.

Greater clarity was requested on the lines of responsibility and accountability between the local officer (Local Commander for police; Local Senior Officer for fire and rescue), local partners (council and committees) and the Chief Officers (Chief Constable for police; Chief Officer for fire and rescue). There was speculation on whether national or local needs would take precedence and how these would be prioritised.

Concern was raised over possible variation in rank of Local Commanders and Local Senior Officers, a common view being that lower ranked officers may have less influence over allocation of resources to their respective authorities.

Finance and funding

The proposed new funding and financial accountability arrangements were broadly welcomed as logical and appropriate for new single services. There was, however, a common perception that information was lacking on the establishment of local budgets, and in particular, local authorities' role in scrutinising these.

Clarity was requested on whether the current practice of local authorities raising additional funds for local priorities (such as additional police officers) could continue.

Many respondents stressed the need for transparency in the way funds are allocated to support local plans, with several urging that rural communities should not lose out at the expense of the central belt of Scotland.

Concern was raised over the implications of reform for VAT, finance carry-forward mechanisms, and borrowing capability. An early decision on the legal status of the new single services was called for in order to clarify these financial issues.

Scrutiny

The proposal that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS) continues to be responsible for inspections of the Scottish Police Service was broadly welcomed, as was the proposal to transfer audit responsibilities from the Accounts Commission to the Auditor General.

The consultation presented 4 options for handling police complaints, criminal allegations, serious incidents, and reviews of investigations. The balance of view, especially amongst police organisations, was in favour of the creation of a new, independent body whose functions would include the existing responsibilities of the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS).

Most of those expressing a view supported the proposed external scrutiny and audit role for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Advisory Unit (SFRAU). This proposal was seen as providing an independent, professional challenge which would 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 (SPSO) principles and procedures for handling complaints was supported. Clarity was requested by respondents on the role of local government in monitoring and scrutinising complaints. It was emphasised that current expertise should not be lost under the future arrangements.

Workforce

There was much support for the proposals to retain Regulation 21 under the 2004 Regulations^[3] which provide safeguards for police officers and for police officers and staff to maintain their terms and conditions in the transfer to the new services. Likewise, the proposal to retain the terms and conditions of staff transferring to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) was welcomed. There was, however, repeated emphasis on what was seen as an urgent need to address harmonisation of such conditions for staff.

Calls were made for communication about the reforms to be timely, with the changes managed carefully in order to reduce conjecture and maintain staff motivation. A recurring view was that standards in delivery of service should not be affected during the transition period and that early appointments of senior officers should help in driving the reforms forward.

Some respondents expressed concern that officers and staff may be required to relocate across Scotland post reform. In particular, it was considered that possible centralisation of specialist and support functions could result in a drain on opportunities outwith the centre.

The consultation sought views on the specific workforce issue of the current prohibition on police constables being employed as firefighters. This issue generated mixed views even within respondent sectors. Overall, however, the majority of those who provided a view supported retaining the existing prohibition. Those wishing to see the prohibition removed comprised largely rurally located respondents concerned about shortages of officers in rural, remote and island areas.

Equality Impact Assessment

Two themes dominated the responses. Firstly, it was argued that centralisation of functions should not detract from the experience and expertise of local partnerships and specialist services in addressing local equality issues. Secondly, concern was expressed that possible centralisation of support functions is likely to impact most on women who make up most of the support staff and who could be faced with reduced employment opportunities and restricted work options.

Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment

A recurring view was that adverse impacts should not be underestimated and that risks and issues associated with "business as usual" needed to be further quantified. Many respondents expressed their view that anticipated benefits may not be realised.