SP Paper 559 (Web Only)
JSC/S4/14/R1
1st Report, 2014 (Session 4)
The Sub-Committee's activities in the first year of police reform
Remit and membership
Remit:
To consider and report on the operation of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 as it relates to policing.
Membership:
John Finnie
Christine Grahame (Convener)
Alison McInnes
Margaret Mitchell
Graeme Pearson
Kevin Stewart
Committee Clerking Team:
Irene Fleming
Joanne Clinton
Clare O'Neill
Christine Lambourne
The Sub-Committee's activities in the first year of police reform
The Sub-Committee reports to the Justice Committee as follows—
INTRODUCTION
1. The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (‘the 2012 Act’) replaced the eight territorial police forces in Scotland with one national force, Police Scotland. Governance of the previous eight forces was shared in a tripartite arrangement between the Scottish Ministers, eight police authorities and joint police boards, and eight Chief Constables. The 2012 Act replaced the eight boards and authorities with one single oversight body, the Scottish Police Authority (SPA), and also abolished the Scottish Police Services Authority and Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. These arrangements came into effect on 1 April 2013.
2. The Scottish Parliament is required to make arrangements for keeping under review the operation of the 2012 Act and to publish reports on the topic.1 To fulfil this requirement and, in recognition of the heavy legislative workload of the Justice Committee, the Parliament established the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing on 13 March 2013 with the remit to consider and report on the operation of the Act as it relates to policing. Sub-Committee members have been selected from the Justice Committee, Local Government and Regeneration Committee and Equal Opportunities Committee to represent their committees’ interest in policing.
3. This report has been published both in line with the requirement in the 2012 Act and in the Sub-Committee’s remit. It focuses on the Sub-Committee’s main areas of interest in the first year of police reform, including:
-
ongoing tensions between the SPA and Police Scotland in relation to their responsibilities and governance arrangements;
-
the new complaints handling and investigations procedures;
-
the impact of police reform on local policing;
-
development of the information and communications technology (ICT) systems, in particular the i6 programme, needed to support a national service, and
-
governance of the policing of major events.
4. The Sub-Committee heard evidence on these topics from a range of witnesses from Police Scotland, the SPA, Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC), Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS), Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS), Scottish Police Federation (SPF), and Unison. We also received a large number of written submissions in response to our call for written evidence on local policing and held a visit to the new Crime Campus at Gartcosh on 25 April 2013.
5. The Sub-Committee’s focus in its first year has been to gather information on how the new arrangements are working in practice and to explore some of the emerging issues and challenges arising in the early months of police reform. We consider that it is too early in the process of reform to make any definitive conclusions or recommendations in this report. We therefore provide a summary of the Sub-Committee’s work in the areas listed above and set out next steps in relation to ongoing key areas of interest.
RESPONSIBILITIES AND GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS
Overview
6. The 2012 Act sets out the responsibilities of the various policing bodies, including governance arrangements. These are summarised below.
Chief Constable
7. Section 17 of the Act specifies that the Chief Constable2 is responsible, and must account to the SPA, for the policing of Scotland. In particular, the Chief Constable has direction and control of Police Scotland and is responsible for its day-to-day administration, including the allocation and deployment of resources received from the SPA.
Scottish Police Authority
8. The SPA’s main functions are to maintain3 Police Scotland and to hold the Chief Constable to account for the policing of Scotland, while supporting continuous improvement in policing and to keep it under review. The SPA is directly responsible for providing forensic services and for appointing future Chief Constables (subject to approval by the Scottish Ministers) and Deputy and Assistant Chief Constables (in consultation with the Chief Constable).
Scottish Ministers
9. The Policy Memorandum on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill stated that, while the Scottish Ministers would remain accountable to the Scottish Parliament for policing, the Bill would “provide a clear separation between Scottish Ministers and the services by ensuring their role is primarily a strategic one”.4
10. The 2012 Act therefore specifies that Scottish Ministers are responsible for appointing members of the SPA, approving the appointment of the Chief Constable, setting strategic police priorities, and approving the strategic police plan prepared by the SPA. They also agree a funding settlement paid directly to the SPA following the annual parliamentary budget process.5
11. Section 4 of the Act allows Scottish Ministers to issue directions to the SPA which must be complied with, but these cannot be given in respect of a specific operation being, or to be, carried out by Police Scotland. To date, no such directions have been issued.
Local authorities
12. The Chief Constable must designate a constable as a local commander who may cover more than one local authority area and is responsible for (a) preparing the local police plan to be approved by the local authority, and (b) reporting to local authorities on how police functions are carried out in their local area. The Act is silent on how local authorities should make arrangements for scrutiny of policing in their areas to allow flexibility in determining the most appropriate mechanisms for them.6 In practice, four broad models of local scrutiny are currently operating across Scotland and these are explored in further detail in the local policing section of this report.
Auditor General for Scotland
13. Under the 2012 Act, responsibilities for the audit of policing transferred from the Accounts Commission to the Auditor General for Scotland (AGS), who may now initiate examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of Police Scotland and arrangements made by the Chief Constable in securing best value.
14. In November 2013, the AGS produced a progress report on police reform, in particular examining whether the new arrangements represent value for money. The Public Audit Committee conducted a short inquiry into the AGS report and published its findings in May 20147, including a recommendation that Police Scotland and the SPA should undertake a post-implementation review.
Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland
15. HMICS8 is responsible for inspecting the SPA and Police Scotland and, under the Act, has taken on the additional task of examining the delivery of best value and producing annual work plans. Its most recent work plan, HMICS scrutiny plan (2014-15), published on 2 May 2014, sets out its intention to introduce a rolling programme of divisional policing inspections entitled Local Policing+.9 HMICS also intends to undertake detailed scrutiny of the recording of stop and search procedures and crime recording, as well as thematic reviews of roads policing, forensic services and the custody and care of prisoners.
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
16. The Act renames the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland as the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC), extending the remit to include, where directed by a prosecutor, investigation of serious incidents involving the police and circumstances where a person serving with the police may have committed an offence. The PIRC is also able to investigate any relevant police matter where it considers it to be in the public interest.
Emerging issues
Ongoing tensions between the SPA and Police Scotland
17. One of the first issues to be considered by the Sub-Committee was long-running tensions between the SPA and Police Scotland in relation to their respective responsibilities and governance arrangements. Prior to the Sub-Committee being established, the Justice Committee closely followed this issue as it unfolded in the months before Police Scotland came into operation on 1 April 2013.
18. The disagreement focused mainly on who should have responsibility for human resources and finance functions. The SPA had argued that both were corporate functions and should therefore come under its responsibility, while noting that it would also free up Police Scotland to concentrate its focus on operational policing. However, the Chief Constable insisted that he needed some HR and finance functions to ensure both the operational independence of the police service and a balanced workforce.
19. The Justice Committee questioned the SPA Chair and Chief Constable on this topic, firstly during scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s Draft Budget 2013-14 in October 2012 and then again at an evidence session dedicated to the issue in November 2012. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice was also questioned on the dispute during budget scrutiny, where he gave assurances that matters were being “chivvied along”.10 At the later session in November 2012, the SPA Chair and Chief Constable said they were confident that the areas of disagreement would be resolved by the end of 2012.
20. Agreement was finally reached, following intervention by the Scottish Government, on 18 January 2013. Scottish Government officials wrote to the SPA on 17 January 2013 asking that it adjust its proposals “to ensure that the Chief Constable has access to police staff to assist him in relation to his administration responsibilities in the areas of HR and finance”. The letter also stated that “the Cabinet Secretary is of the view that these changes are essential to the discharge of efficient and effective policing in Scotland”.11 The SPA wrote to the Scottish Government on the same day stating that, “with more than a little reluctance the Board has agreed to this request at this eleventh hour” and it formally endorsed the Scottish Government’s proposal at its meeting the next day on 18 January.
21. On 28 March 2013, the SPA Board agreed a ‘Scheme of Arrangements’, setting out working arrangements for the SPA and Police Scotland, with a particular focus on specific business areas, including finance, procurement and human resources. The Scheme was produced in consultation with the Scottish Government and Police Scotland and was intended to be a “dynamic document” which could be amended over time to reflect practical experiences and changing circumstances.12
22. On 21 June 2013, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to the Sub-Committee outlining further changes to the governance arrangements for policing, in advance of a Governance Policy Statement being considered by the SPA Board on 26 June 2013.13 In it he stated that “the SPA, Police Scotland and the Scottish Government (with the support of HMICS) have achieved a consensus on the next phase of reform, and to evolve the SPA’s organisational role to focus on strategy, policy, scrutiny and engagement while providing leadership and acting as a champion of Scottish policing”. Police Scotland would “deliver support services” including ICT, procurement and estates and fleet, as well as human resources and finance insofar as they affect operational matters.
23. Concerned about the implications of further changes to responsibilities and governance arrangements, particularly given the assurances given in January 2013 that the dispute was resolved, the Sub-Committee agreed to question the SPA Chair and Chief Constable on the issue at its meeting on 27 June 2013.
24. At this meeting, Vic Emery, the SPA Chair, told the Sub-Committee that the SPA’s “focus was to undertake the merger and to ensure that it went smoothly [but now] we need to not get involved in the day-to-day policing operations and the support services that the Chief Constable needs”.14 He added that the SPA would now be concentrating on governance, policy, strategy and scrutiny instead of providing some of the services that it provided at the beginning of the process.15 The Chief Constable advised that the police had been consulted, but that it was a decision for the SPA, not Police Scotland, to take. He added that, “from what I have seen, the development looks wholly positive to me”.16
25. The Chief Constable and SPA Chief Executive, John Foley, told the Public Audit Committee on 20 November 2013 that relationships are now positive with clear roles and responsibilities.17 The Sub-Committee is encouraged by the apparent improved relationships between the two organisations in recent months.
Next steps
26. In line with its new focus on scrutiny, the SPA is piloting a scrutiny review of Police Scotland’s stop and search policy and practice and is expected to publish its findings of this review in May 2014. The SPA has also recently published its scrutiny topics for 2014-15 and 2015-16 based around the three key themes of prevention, partnership and performance. Its topics for review include: violence against women and girls; operational partnerships; performance targets; roads policing; local plans, and whether the stated objectives of police reform are being delivered.18
27. The Sub-Committee notes both the SPA’s plans for scrutiny in 2014-15 and 2015-16 and HMICS scrutiny plan 2014-15. We look forward to reviewing the findings of their forthcoming reviews which will in turn inform the Sub-Committee’s own scrutiny work over the coming months.
COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATIONS
Overview
28. The 2012 Act sets out new roles and responsibilities for a number of bodies in the handling of complaints against the police. These are summarised below.
Chief Constable
29. The Chief Constable is responsible for ensuring that suitable arrangements are in place for dealing with complaints against Police Scotland and its police officers. He is also responsible for ensuring that information on complaints is properly recorded and that information is provided to the SPA to enable it to assess the suitability of arrangements for handling complaints.
30. Local commanders must provide local authorities with such statistical information on complaints made about the police service in, or the policing of, its area as the local authority “may reasonably require”.
Scottish Police Authority
31. The SPA deals with complaints relating to its business as a public body, including complaints made about its Chief Executive, the SPA Board and its individual members and SPA staff. It also handles complaints and allegations of misconduct made against senior police officers, including the Chief Constable, and provides oversight of how Police Scotland handles complaints and is responsible for ensuring that complaint handling arrangements are suitable. In addition, the SPA administers any police appeals tribunal held following the dismissal or demotion of a police officer.
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
32. The PIRC’s post was established by the 2012 Act, taking over and expanding on the role and responsibilities of the former Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland. The PIRC heads an independent organisation, unconnected to the police, with a remit covering all police forces operating in Scotland, including the ability to investigate on the grounds of public interest any matter relating to the SPA or Police Scotland. The SPA and Police Scotland must refer to the PIRC for investigation certain serious incidents involving the police. Members of the public can ask the Commissioner to review the way in which complaints have been dealt with by the police. Depending on the result of any such review, the Commissioner may recommend that the police take action.
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
33. In general, complaints alleging that police officers and staff have committed an act amounting to a criminal offence are dealt with by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). However, the PIRC can investigate allegations of a criminal nature if directed to do so by the COPFS.
Emerging issues
34. The Sub-Committee considers it essential that members of the public as well as individual police officers have confidence in the new complaints process. We were therefore keen to establish how the new arrangements were working in practice and, to this end, agreed to hear from a number of organisations, including: Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation and Association of Scottish Police Superintendents on 5 September; the SPA on 19 September 2013, and the PIRC on 3 October. The key issues arising from these evidence sessions are summarised below.
Transitional arrangements
35. The Sub-Committee heard that the transition to the new complaints handling arrangements had gone smoothly. DCC Neil Richardson, for example, highlighted that “the volume of complaints and activities has remained relatively consistent and no warning bells have been ringing in the broader environment”.19 Representatives from the SPF and ASPS broadly agreed with this position.20
36. At a later meeting, Professor John McNeill, the PIRC, highlighted that differences in interpretation of the roles and responsibilities of the various bodies involved in complaints handling had arisen. However, he said “when that happens, we sit down and talk” and “no-one has sought to prevent me from carrying out my functions”.21
Promoting good practice
37. Witnesses were asked what measures were being put in place to promote good practice in relation to complaints handling. Ian Ross, Chair of the SPA’s Complaints and Conduct Committee, responded that the SPA had tried to build on good practice that already existed when creating its own procedures and policies, while acknowledging that “there may be points of learning all the way through the process that we will want to capture fully and share”.22 DCC Richardson said that he expected inquiry officers to feed in for wider dissemination any learning points that emerge through the handling of a complaint.23
38. Robin Johnston, Director of Reviews at the PIRC, advised the Sub-Committee that the PIRC does not consider a complaint to be closed until all of its recommendations are implemented and that in 2012-13 “we are working towards a situation in which the police will have implemented 100% of our recommendations”.24 He highlighted that the police generally have 28 days in which to implement a recommendation from the PIRC, but that there would be cases that might take longer, for example, where a review of procedures was required.
39. Mr Johnston also made a distinction between the PIRC’s recommendations, which are made in relation to a specific matter, and learning points, which raise more general issues for the police service, for example, the need to adapt procedures in a particular way. Learning points do not carry the force of a recommendation.25
Local authorities and complaints handling
40. Witnesses were asked to clarify reports by Fife Council that the SPA had instructed local commanders to stop providing local authorities with information about complaints regarding local police officers. DCC Richardson confirmed that statistics on the number and nature of complaints in particular areas were still being provided to local authorities, as required under the 2012 Act.26 Calum Steele, General Secretary of the SPF, told the Sub-Committee that he had no objection to local authorities being made aware of the general number of complaints, but that it would not be appropriate for them to be involved in examining individual complaints on police officer misconduct as this was “not their role under the 2012 Act”.27
41. Mr Ross clarified that “at no stage did the SPA make any statement” that information on complaints should no longer be provided to local authorities as “we are not in a position to—it is not something that we have control over”. He added that he planned to meet with representatives from Fife Council to discuss the matter later in September 2013.28
Court of Session ruling
42. On 3 September 2013, the Court of Session ruled that allowing police to investigate fellow officers over an allegation of assault breached ECHR (regarding the right to an effective investigation of allegations of ill-treatment in police custody). When asked about the implications of the ruling on 5 September 2013, DCC Richardson told the Committee that there was “nothing to give me any cause for concern that the human rights position has in any way been compromised as a consequence of the change”.29 SPA Board Member, Ian Ross, said he was also reassured that the ruling did not raise any concerns as the SPA’s regulations are ECHR compliant, there is a clear separation between its complaints and conduct work and other activities, and the SPA can make use of the PIRC as an independent investigator if required.30
Capacity and resources
43. A number of issues relating to the PIRC’s capacity and adequacy of its resources to deal with complaints under the new arrangements were raised during evidence.
44. The PIRC told the Sub-Committee that “there has been something like a 50% increase in the number of complaints that I have been dealing with [and] there has been a considerable increase in a number of areas that I had not expected: examples are death following contact with the police and serious injury31 following contact with the police”.32 Robin Johnston suggested that one possible reason for the increase in cases was that “PIRC is a higher-profile organisation than the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS) was” and that “the 2012 Act introduced a three-month limit for complainers to bring their cases to PIRC having received a response from the police”.33
45. Professor McNeil highlighted that the PCCS had 12 or 13 staff and a budget of under £1 million, whereas he now has 41 staff and a budget of £2.61 million, suggesting that “it is different in scale and complexity and in terms of responsibility”. 34 However, he added that, although “the situation is demanding” he is “fairly relaxed about the resources at the moment”.35
Next steps
46. The Sub-Committee notes that the evidence it heard on complaints handling took place very early in the process of police reform. We therefore intend to return to this issue in the coming months to establish how the new arrangements are working in practice.
LOCAL POLICING
Overview
Policy objectives in relation to local policing
47. The main policy objectives of the Act are set out in the Policy Memorandum36 on the Bill. Two of the three policy objectives relate to local policing:37
-
to protect and improve local services despite financial cuts, by stopping duplication of support services eight times over and not cutting front line services, and
-
to strengthen the connection between services and communities, by creating a new formal relationship with each of the 32 local authorities, involving many more local councillors and better integrating with community planning partnerships.
Local policing arrangements
48. Under the 2012 Act, the Chief Constable is responsible for designating a local commander for each local authority (although they may cover more than one authority). The Chief Constable has appointed 14 local commanders to cover the 32 local authority areas who report quarterly on performance in each area.
49. Thirty-two local police plans were developed and approved by the relevant local authority for the first year of police reform. These plans were reviewed at the end of the first year and will be reviewed on a three yearly basis thereafter. In addition to the policing plans at local authority level, Police Scotland has also produced plans for each of Scotland’s 353 multi-member wards, which are in place to respond to more locally identified policing needs. These plans are refreshed annually, following consultation with local communities.38
Local scrutiny and engagement
50. The Act is silent on how local authorities should make arrangements for their scrutiny of local policing and approval of local police plans. This was intended to allow local authorities to adopt the most appropriate model of scrutiny for their local area. In practice, there are currently four broad scrutiny models in operation across local authorities:
-
scrutiny by the full council;
-
an existing committee, such as a community safety committee, taking on the scrutiny function;
-
informal groupings between councillors and stakeholders (where only the councillors can vote on a plan), and
-
a broader partnership approach, such as building on a community safety partnership or community planning partnership.39
HMICS local policing reviews
51. HMICS thematic inspection of the development of local policing plans (and local fire and rescue plans) and associated arrangements for local scrutiny and engagement published in May 2013 found that there was a high level of enthusiasm and interest in the development of local scrutiny and engagement structures across Scotland. However, HMICS concluded that it was “too early in the development of these new arrangements to make meaningful judgments into their impact”, and recommended that a more comprehensive review would be required early in 2014.40
52. HMICS scrutiny plan 2014 sets out its plans for this review consisting of a rolling programme of divisional policing inspections entitled Local Policing+. It explains that “this will provide a consistent means of assessing the quality of local policing across Scotland and enable us to report publicly on how Police Scotland is delivering against local priorities and keeping people safe”.41 It plans to conduct a Local Policing+ pilot inspection in Fife Division during May and June 2014 to test methodology and refine scrutiny processes before starting the formal programme in October 2014. Each inspection is expected to take around three months.42
Emerging issues
53. The impact of police reform on local policing was identified by the Sub-Committee as one of the key areas of interest and indeed was the focus of its first evidence session with Police Scotland on 18 April 2013. At that meeting, DCC Rose Fitzpatrick, who has responsibility for local policing within Police Scotland, gave a progress update in relation to the models of scrutiny being adopted by local authorities, development of local and ward policing plans, and how local commanders and community officers were engaging with local authorities and communities. The Sub-Committee noted these early developments and agreed to revisit the issue later in the year once the new arrangements had more time to bed in.
54. On returning to the issue on 31 October 2013, the Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Chief Constable, Superintendent Craig Naylor, and the then HMICS, George Graham. The main areas of discussion at this session included the proposals to close a number of police counters and the perceived standardisation of police approaches across Scotland. Both areas are explored in more detail later in this report.
55. Following this session, the Sub-Committee issued a call for written evidence on 4 November 2013 to gather views from local communities and stakeholders on how the new policing arrangements are affecting local policing in their areas. In particular, the call for evidence sought views on: the impact of police reform on the policing services in local areas; whether local policing services had improved, remained the same, or deteriorated since 1 April 2013, and whether local policing services had been designed to address the specific needs of local areas. This consultation ran until 10 January 2014 and received 36 written submissions. The Sub-Committee has produced a summary of the written evidence received which is available on the Sub-Committee’s web pages.43
56. To inform its work on local policing, the Sub-Committee also conducted fact-finding visits to Dumfries and Galloway, Fife and Moray in January 2014 to see first-hand how local policing arrangements were working in practice. The Sub-Committee selected these places to cover a broad range of geographical areas and models of local scrutiny. The visits included meetings with local police commanders, community police officers, local victims’ groups, and local and community councillors. A note of the key issues discussed during the visits is also available on the Sub-Committee’s website.44
57. The Sub-Committee invited DCC Fitzpatrick to give evidence on 20 March 2014 to respond to some of the issues raised in written evidence and during the visits. The main issues raised are explored in more detail below.
Standardisation, targets and use of discretion
58. There was some concern that policing practices were being standardised across the country and an indication that targets were now being set nationally for officers to apply in local areas without the ability to use their discretion.
59. Orkney Islands Council, for example, suggested that police reform had resulted in centralisation and standardisation of policing which does not take full account of local needs, views or methods of working.45 COSLA also argued that policing had become more centralised with national priorities, such as stop and search and road traffic enforcement, being imposed from above on local commanders. This, it argued, created a ‘collision’ between national and local priorities.46 Unison Police Staff Scotland stated in its written submission that “a centralisation of functions is perceived as being not a standardisation around best practice but instead the imposition of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ method of policing which is both blind to local circumstance and heedless of the contribution which could be made by those on the ground”.47
60. COSLA also suggested that Police Scotland was adopting more of a target-based approach with a greater emphasis being placed on national priorities to the detriment of local discretion.48 The Retired Police Officers Association (Ayrshire Branch) also highlighted an overuse of performance indicators and an increased use of Fixed Penalty Tickets for motoring offences.49
61. The community policing team in Dumfries and Galloway highlighted a general feeling of being “on the Strathclyde model now” while officers in Moray agreed that a standardised target-based approach was being rolled out by Police Scotland. There were also concerns from some police officers that, since reform, there has been pressure to move from effective preventative work based on intelligence, to target-driven policing and enforcement. There was also a feeling that police officers were not being consulted or communicated with regarding changes to policing approaches.
62. However, the local police commander in Dumfries and Galloway advised during a visit to the divisional headquarters that she sets local targets but allows local officers to continue to use their discretion. Officers in Fife division told members that local discretion currently continues, but suggested that the balance may shift towards a target-based approach as newer police officers join the force.
63. When asked whether targets were being set as part of a standardised approach to policing across Scotland, DCC Fitzpatrick told the Sub-Committee on 20 March 2014 that a performance framework including targets and performance indicators was being used by senior officers for monitoring purposes but that “there are absolutely no targets for officers or sergeants”.50 She stated that “every single officer across Scotland continues to have discretion at the heart of their policing toolkit”.51 Chief Superintendent Garry McEwan, Fife Division Local Commander, added that “the use of discretion is fundamental to policing in Scotland, whether it be in campaigns against violence or in other areas”.52
Stop and search
64. In an SPA Board paper of 21 August 2013, the Chief Constable stated that targets were not being set for the number of stop and searches carried out by any individual police officer, team or division. He added that Police Scotland uses two key performance indicators (KPIs) directly related to stop and search activity within its overall performance management framework. These are (a) the number of stop and searches conducted, and (b) the number of ‘positive’ stop and searches carried out, where an illegal item is recovered and a crime is therefore recorded. These KPIs are recorded at local level and are compared to the individual crime levels in each division “to ensure proportionality in stop and search activity”.53
65. In Fife, police officers told Sub-Committee members that the number of stop and searches had increased “quite dramatically” since the inception of Police Scotland, but this was partly due to introduction of a more sophisticated recording system.
66. During evidence on 31 October 2013, the Chief Constable told the Sub-Committee that, on average, officers are undertaking a stop and search “just over once a week, or just over five times a month”.54 ACC Wayne Mawson told the Sub-Committee on 20 March 2014 that “the positive rate of finding drugs, knives, weapons and stolen property [from stop and search] had increased from 13.6% under legacy arrangements to 19.3% in the first year of Police Scotland, while the total number of stop and searches had reduced by 4.6%”.55
67. Members also raised concerns with DCC Fitzpatrick regarding the particular impact of stop and search on young people, including whether they would feel able to refuse to allow a consensual search. She responded that “it is particularly important that we use understandable language and that young people know what their rights are and what their expectations should be”. She added that Police Scotland was starting work with young people’s organisations “to develop some tools for young people, to help involve them in our training and the way that we do stop and search”.56
68. In addition, DCC Fitzpatrick explained that work was ongoing to develop a process and system for recording the details of individuals who are being stopped and searched “to establish how often individuals are being stopped and searched and on what grounds, and how that information is being used to reduce crime”.57 Sub-Committee members expressed concerns that such recording was not currently being carried out as a matter of course.
69. As referred to earlier in this report, the SPA is piloting a scrutiny review of Police Scotland’s stop and search policy and practice and is expected to publish its findings of this review in May 2014.58
Review of front counter service provision
70. On 27 June 2013, Police Scotland wrote to the Sub-Committee advising that it was carrying out a review of the public service provided at police stations with a view to:
-
determining the most efficient opening times of police station front counters;
-
determining the most efficient services to be provided, and
-
matching service provision to demand.
71. Police Scotland announced proposals arising from the review on 2 October 2013. Of the 215 existing public counters:
-
65 were to be withdrawn59;
-
75 were to operate with reduced hours;
-
21 were to operate with increased hours, and
-
54 were to operate with unaltered hours.60
72. Police Scotland argued that the number of people attending at police station front counters had fallen in recent years as other ways of engaging with the police, such as accessing the police via the 101 non-emergency telephone number, had developed and become more widespread. It also confirmed that, in instances where it was proposed that front counter services at police stations were to be removed or reduced, the police stations themselves would not close but would continue to operate normally.61 Shortly following the announcement of the proposals, Police Scotland launched a public consultation on the plans which ran for four weeks until 31 October 2013.
73. At an evidence session with the Chief Constable on 31 October 2013, the Sub-Committee raised concerns regarding the short timescale for public consultation on the proposals leading to a perception that the decisions on closures had already been made. The Chief Constable stressed that “this is a consultation process” and “in effect, it ends today and we will reflect on the responses received”.62 When pressed, he also agreed to take into account responses from members of the public submitted in the four to six weeks after the deadline had passed and before the decision was taken. He also acknowledged that “when we look back on things, we can always say that maybe we could have done them a little better”.63
74. There were also concerns that the proposed counter closures could affect the policy objective of the 2012 Act of strengthening the connection between services and communities. The Chief Constable acknowledged that “the presence of a police station or police officer and a front counter is part of an engagement policy and contact with the local community”.64
75. Police Scotland announced its final decisions in relation to police counters on 7 February 2014, including amendments to some of the original proposals, such as extending proposed opening hours at some counters and reversing proposed closures altogether.
Review of traffic warden service provision
76. On 27 June 2013, Police Scotland announced a review of traffic warden provision to run parallel with the review on police counter provision discussed above. Enforcement of parking in Scotland has historically been delivered by traffic wardens employed in local forces across Scotland. However, following the Road Traffic Act 1991, which decriminalised many non-endorsable parking offences, different practices of enforcement developed in the legacy force areas.
77. The review proposed withdrawal of provision of police traffic wardens in the remaining areas of the country. Certain traffic and parking offences which still constituted a criminal act, including dangerous parking, would continue to be enforced by police officers. Local authorities and affected staff were consulted on the proposed changes.
78. As part of its written submission to the Sub-Committee’s call for evidence on local policing, COSLA highlighted a lack of police engagement, consultation and information-sharing with local authorities around Police Scotland’s decision to remove police traffic wardens from local areas.65 Similar concerns were expressed during the Sub-Committee’s fact-finding visits, particularly from community councillors. For example, in Dumfries and Galloway, community councillors advised members that the consultation exercise around the removal of police traffic wardens was ‘flawed’ and that their views were not taken into account. Moray community representatives highlighted similar concerns regarding the lack of consultation on this issue.
79. The removal of police traffic wardens came into effect in February 2014; however, Police Scotland negotiated transitional arrangements with some local authorities, such as Stirling, while continuing to try to agree a long-term solution.
Control room closures
80. On 30 January 2014, the SPA Board approved plans to close control rooms at Dumfries, Glenrothes, Glasgow Pitt St, Stirling and Aberdeen, while retaining those at Govan, Motherwell, Bilston Glen (Midlothian), Dundee and Inverness. No prior consultation had been conducted. The closures were to be phased in, with Dumfries closing in April 2014, Stirling in December 2014, Glenrothes in March 2015, Glasgow Pitt Street in March 2015, and Aberdeen in December 2015.
81. Although the decision was taken after the Sub-Committee’s call for views had closed, members expressed similar concerns regarding lack of consultation with the public and staff to those raised in relation to earlier reviews of police counters and traffic wardens discussed above. In addition, community representatives in Dumfries and Galloway, anticipating the decision to close control rooms, suggested that such closures would lead to a loss of local knowledge which could hamper police responses to incidents which take place in more remote areas.
Next steps
82. A theme arising from Police Scotland’s recent reviews into police counter closures, police traffic warden removal and closure of control rooms has been a lack of meaningful engagement and consultation with local communities, stakeholders and staff. The Sub-Committee considers that future reviews should build in sufficient time to allow proper consultation with those affected to ensure that the most appropriate outcomes for local communities are achieved. We will continue to monitor this issue in the coming months.
83. The Sub-Committee notes the evidence from DCC Fitzpatrick in relation to the policy and practice of stop and search. However, concerns remain, particularly around the number of negative searches, the inability to record details of those being searched, the potential impact on young people, and status of consensual searches. We therefore plan to explore the issue of stop and search further in an evidence session with Police Scotland and the SPA in June 2014, following publication of the SPA’s scrutiny report on the policy and practice of stop and search.
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) SYSTEMS
Overview
84. ICT across the public sector has increased significantly over the past ten years and, as with other organisations during that time, policing has seen a number of ICT developments, including: the criminal history system; Scottish intelligence database; automatic number plate recognition system; a database for missing and vulnerable persons, and a violent and sexual offences register.
85. The Outline Business Case (OBC) for police reform highlighted the complexity of the ICT landscape across Scottish policing in 2011, with 1,396 separate software packages, 1,681 servers, 15,000 desktops and 21,000 Airwave terminals, along with a number of contracts with telecommunications service providers to facilitate connectivity.66 The OBC estimated that the cost of integrating ICT provision as part of police reform would be £12 million over three years. At FMQs on 20 June 2013, the First Minister confirmed that the estimated total cost for ICT systems was £45 million over ten years.67
86. In 2006, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) initiated the Common Performance Management Platform Project aimed at creating an ICT platform across 134 different data sources and ICT systems within Scottish policing. The project failed to deliver its objectives and was closed down in 2012. Final overall costs are estimated to be £8.7 million. HMICS published a review of the project in April 2013 which concluded that, while the rationale for the project was sound, project risks and issues were not identified or managed well throughout the project lifespan. A major problem identified was changes in specification from an ‘off the shelf’ programme to an increasingly tailored solution.
Emerging issues
87. During scrutiny of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, concerns were raised by some members of the Justice Committee regarding the degree to which the ICT landscape in Scottish policing was fit-for-purpose and how weaknesses could be addressed. The Sub-Committee has continued this interest in the development of ICT systems to support police reform. It held evidence sessions in May and June 2013 and more recently in February and March 2014. Early areas of interest included progress with development and approval of an ICT strategy and the operational benefits, costs and timescales of the i6 programme, a key element of the ICT strategy. The SPA Board approved an ICT blueprint and business case for the i6 programme in June 2013 and, as part of its Governance Policy Statement also agreed that month, responsibility for ICT was transferred to Police Scotland. A number of issues have arisen in relation to the i6 programme over the last year and these are explored further below.
i6 programme: background
88. The purpose of the i6 programme is to bring together more than 100 separate ICT systems in the legacy forces to free up more time for front-line policing. It will cover 80% of current police operational activity and include six strands: crime; vulnerable persons; criminal justice; custody; missing persons, and productions and property.68 Proposals for development of the programme had begun prior to the inception of Police Scotland.
89. On 30 May 2013, Martin Leven, the then SPA Chief Information Officer, told the Sub-Committee that “the number one priority [of the ICT strategy] is the i6 programme”.69 DCC Richardson agreed that “there is no doubt that, at the moment, i6 is the stand-out priority for Police Scotland”.70
90. As referred to above, a full business case for the i6 programme, including the awarding of the contract to the preferred bidder, Accenture, was agreed by the SPA Board on 26 June 2013. The business case described the i6 programme as “a strategic enabler of the development of Police Scotland as a national organisation”, adding that it would “enhance partnership working in law enforcement, criminal justice and public protection, and provide agility to respond to future change such as that driven by the Criminal Justice and Victims and Witnesses Bills”.71
91. During evidence on 6 March 2014, DCC Richardson told the Sub-Committee that the SPA, as the contractor, had the ultimate responsibility for the programme but “on a practical programme delivery level it is driven through a programme board, of which I am the senior responsible officer”.72 Chief Superintendent Alex Hippman advised that the i6 contract value was around £39 million over ten years.73
i6 programme: development
92. Concerns were raised at the Sub-Committee’s meeting on 13 June 2013 by both Stevie Diamond of Unison and Calum Steele of the SPF that there had been no formal consultation with their members in relation to development of the i6 programme.74 At the Sub-Committee meeting on 27 June 2013, members raised this issue with the Chief Constable who sought to reassure them that appropriate consultation in this area would be carried out.75
93. At the evidence session on 20 February 2014, police representative bodies confirmed that they had become more involved in the project development. Chief Superintendent David O’Connor of ASPS told the Sub-Committee that he had “absolutely no doubt that [his members] regularly bring points to the table about [the programme] meeting the needs of our members, federation members and police staff”.76 Mr Diamond echoed this point, stating that his members “have been involved in workshops on each of the six strands of i6”.77 ASPS, the SPF and Unison each stressed the importance of continued engagement with staff.78,79
94. On 6 March 2014, Chief Superintendent Hippman provided reassurance that functionality for the i6 programme to respond to new requirements as a result of changes to the law, such as implementation of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, had been part of the original requirements of the project.80
Contractual dispute
95. In November 2013, the Sub-Committee sought an update on developments in relation to ICT projects and the i6 programme in particular. DCC Richardson’s response of 29 January 2014 stated that “detailed delivery planning is being finalised” and provided details of various gateway reviews planned for the project.81 Further clarification as to whether the i6 programme was on time and in budget was sought by the Sub-Committee on 31 January. DCC Richardson reiterated in his response of 17 February, that detailed delivery planning was being finalised and that further details of progress could be provided following the appropriate gateway reviews.82
96. Also in February 2014, DCC Richardson presented a paper to the SPA Board stating that only one of the three milestones that should have been completed by that time had been approved and paid.83 The paper indicated that a Contract Variation Agreement (CVA) was in development and being negotiated.
97. In light of the responses received, the Sub-Committee invited DCC Richardson and colleagues involved in the i6 programme to give evidence on 6 March 2014 and to provide in advance a timeline for the i6 programme, including an indication of whether key milestones had been met. A further response was received on 3 March 2014 acknowledging the frustration of Sub-Committee members at the level of information provided regarding the status of the project and highlighting that “difficulties have emerged as to what the contract required the supplier to deliver which have contributed to delays”. He indicated that “a contractual way forward is in development and currently being negotiated”.84
98. By way of comment, the Sub-Committee would welcome straightforward concise answers to straightforward concise questions in Police Scotland’s written responses in future.
99. At the evidence session on 6 March 2014, DCC Richardson reiterated “the position is that complete delivery of all the elements that make up the milestones has not been achieved in a couple of areas and, as a result, that milestone payment has not been paid”.85 He added that “the issue has been a difference of perception of what the contract required of the supplier”.86 Asked when these difficulties with the contractor began to emerge, Chief Superintendent Hippman confirmed that Police Scotland formally started a dispute resolution process in August 2013.87 DCC Richardson explained that the Sub-Committee was not informed of the contractual difficulties until March 2014 because “if I was to escalate matters every time that something started to deviate or there was a potential issue, we would end up getting locked into governance and escalation processes that would take attention away from delivery of the programme”.88
100. On 11 April 2014, DCC Richardson provided a further written update to the Sub-Committee which confirmed that the second and third milestones had been achieved but that the timescale for the i6 roll-out had been extended by nine months and was now due for completion by September 2016. He stated that “this delay was unavoidable, however, I am able to advise that under the CVA no additional sums are payable by Police Scotland to the supplier, who have agreed to bear the additional technical costs necessary to meet Police Scotland’s requirements”.89
Next steps
101. The Sub-Committee notes DCC Richardson’s latest update confirming that, although there is some slippage to the original timescales of the i6 programme, the contractual difficulties have been resolved with no additional costs to be borne by Police Scotland. However, given the significance of the project in harmonising the various technologies used in the previous legacy forces, the difficulties with previous public sector ICT contracts, and the substantial costs involved, the Sub-Committee intends to continue to monitor progress with the i6 programme and will return to the issue later in the year.
GOVERNANCE OF POLICING OF MAJOR EVENTS
Overview
102. The Sub-Committee recognises the considerable demands that the policing of major events, including the Commonwealth Games and Ryder Cup, will place on Police Scotland during the course of 2014. It therefore agreed to write to the SPA on 28 April 2014 seeking an update of the structure of governance that the SPA has put in place to monitor potential implications on the day-to-day policing during the 2014 events.90
103. The SPA’s response of 21 May explained that “the Chief Constable has been delegated responsibility by the Scottish Government for delivering a safe and secure Commonwealth Games” and therefore he reports directly to the Scottish Government on delivery of the security aspect of the programme. The letter provides further detail of the oversight mechanisms that the SPA has put in place to oversee the impact on day-to-day policing, including that Police Scotland provides written reports to all Board meetings and SPA Finance and Investment Committee meetings from February 2014 in addition to verbal briefings as required. Reports would focus on business as usual, cost, legacy and engagement. In its letter, the SPA concludes that “Authority Members are, therefore, confident that Police Scotland has taken all steps necessary to ensure that there is no detriment to local policing or other non-Games related policing activity throughout the ‘Games Period’”.91
Next steps
104. The Sub-Committee is aware of the potential impact of resources being diverted away from day-to-day policing to ensure the security of those attending and participating in the Commonwealth Games. We note the oversight mechanisms that the SPA has put in place to monitor these potential implications and will continue to seek updates on this matter at regular intervals.
CONCLUSION
105. In its first year, the Sub-Committee has covered a range of issues pivotal to the success of police reform, including relationships, technology, complaints handling and local policing. During our work on local policing, we identified stop and search as an area that we wish to explore further and we have therefore scheduled an evidence session with Police Scotland and the SPA on this issue in June. Later in the year, we also intend to take evidence in relation to the new independent custody arrangements which are provided for in the 2012 Act. Looking ahead, we note that the SPA and HMICS have recently published detailed scrutiny plans and look forward to complementing their work in future months.
Any links to external websites in this report were working correctly at the time of publication. However, the Scottish Parliament cannot accept responsibility for content on external websites.
Footnotes:
1 Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, section 124.
2 Stephen House was appointed as Chief Constable of Police Scotland on 25 September 2012.
3 Section 3 of the Act specifies what is meant by ‘maintain’ Police Scotland, as follows: the SPA must pay constables pay and allowances, and reimburse any expenses reasonably incurred by a constable. The SPA may also provide and maintain anything necessary or desirable for the carrying out of police functions, including vehicles, equipment, information technology systems, land, buildings and other structures. It must provide to the chief constable before the start of each financial year details of how it intends to allocate financial resources it expects to have available to it in respect of that financial year.
5 Policy Memorandum, paragraph 119.
6 Policy Memorandum, paragraph 221.
8 George Graham QPM was appointed as the temporary HM Inspector of Constabulary on 1 March 2013 and was replaced by Derek Penman in January 2014.
10 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1947-1948.
14 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 27 June 2013, Col 148.
15 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 27 June 2013, Col 148.
16 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 27 June 2013, Col 155.
17 Scottish Parliament Public Audit Committee. Official Report, 20 November 2013, Col 1806.
19 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 5 September 2013, Col 164.
20 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 5 September 2013, Col 164
21 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 3 October 2013, Col 223.
22 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 19 September 2014, Col 196.
23 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 5 September 2014, Col 183.
24 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 3 October 2014, Col 228.
25 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 3 October 2014, Col 231.
26 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 5 September 2014, Cols 168-169.
27 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 5 September 2014, Col 167.
28 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 19 September 2014, Col 202.
29 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 5 September 2013, Col 170.
30 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 19 September 2013, Col 196.
31 A memorandum of understanding between the SPA, Police Scotland and Crown in relation to meeting and setting he bar for referrals defines a serious injury as “a fracture, deep cut, deep laceration, injury causing damage to an internal organ or the impairment of any bodily function, or severe psychological trauma from which the victim’s recovery is expected to be difficult or impossible”.
32 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 3 October 2013, Col 224.
33 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 3 October 2013, Col 225.
34 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 3 October 2013, Col 234.
35 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 3 October 2013, Col 227.
36 Policy Memorandum, page 1.
37 The other policy objective of police reform is: to create more equal access to specialist support and national capacity – like murder investigation teams, firearms teams or flood rescue – where and when they are needed.
39 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 18 April 2013, Col 38.
41 HMICS Scrutiny Plan 2014-15, page 3.
42 HMICS Scrutiny Plan 2014-15, page 3.
45 Orkney Islands Council. Written submission, page 1.
46 COSLA. Written submission, page 2.
47 Unison Police Staff Scotland. Written submission, page 4.
48 COSLA. Written submission, page 2.
49 Retired Police Officers Association (Ayrshire Branch). Written submission, page 2.
50 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 20 March 2014, Col 395.
51 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 20 March 2014, Col 393.
52 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 20 March 2014, Col 395.
54 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 31 October 2013, Col 264.
55 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 20 March 2014, Col 403.
56 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 20 March 2014, Col 402.
57 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 20 March 2014, Cols 405-406.
58 The SPA published the Scrutiny Review – Police Scotland’s Stop and Search Policy and Practice Final Report and Recommendations on 30 May 2014, after the Sub-Committee had agreed this report.
59 Figure provided by Chief Inspector Jane Black, Review Team, Police Service of Scotland, 18 October 2013.
60 The unchanged figure relates to core hours. In some instances the start and finish times will move from between 15 min and 1 hour depending on the current opening times.
62 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 31 October 2013, Col 252.
63 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 31 October 2013, Col 262.
64 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 31 October 2013, Col 252.
65 COSLA. Supplementary written submission, page 1.
67 Scottish Parliament. Official Report, 20 June 2013, Col 21415.
68 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 13 June 2013.
69 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 May 2013, Col 89.
70 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 May 2013, Col 88.
71 Full business case for i6 programme, page 3.
72 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 6 March 2014, Col 351.
73 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 6 March 2014, Col 356.
74 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 13 June 2013, Cols 115-116.
75 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 27 June 2013, Col 140.
76 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 20 February 2014, Col 330.
77 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 20 February 2014, Col 330.
78 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 20 February 2014, Col 331.
79 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 20 February 2014, Col 334.
80 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 6 March 2014, Col 378.
85 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 6 March 2014, Col 352.
86 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 6 March 2014, Col 356.
87 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 6 March 2014, Col 364.
88 Scottish Parliament Justice Sub-Committee. Official Report, 6 March 2014, Col 373.
91 Correspondence from SPA Chair to Sub-Committee (21 May 2014).
Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP by APS Group Scotland, 21 Tennant Street, Edinburgh EH6 5NA
Back to top