Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is not news to the Government. It is a matter for the Parliament, in terms of law and regulation. The lawyer here will keep me right, but it would not be a matter for the PNBS to change its constitution.

With respect, I am happy to go over the issues in more detail, but it is for the Parliament to pass regulations. It would not be the norm if the PNBS were changing its own constitution. It could, of course, come back to ministers at some point, in the fullness time, if there were something inoperable about the constitution that could be changed. However, I am conscious that time and effort have been invested to come to an agreement on the constitution and, bearing in mind the 2016 act, MSPs would be well within their rights to be somewhat concerned if matters of the constitution of this very important body were not dealt with by the Parliament via regulations but were dealt with in a more ad hoc way.

First, let me say that I have no objection to answering any questions from committee members.

I will respond to the convener in a way that I hope will be helpful and clear. I will do my best to be succinct. The process that we are all now following was set out in the 2016 act. In terms of the constitution, the information was made available with the papers on the instrument, although people may or may not choose to read or print links or whatever.

I do not think that there are many more ways in which I can commit to the value and importance that the Government sees in arbitration and, as always, in working in good faith and as a good actor.

There are some matters in the correspondence from the Scottish Police Federation that could be addressed through the guide that will be agreed by all the PNBS members. With the greatest of respect to the SPF, my understanding was that it was broadly content, and I am conscious that other partners and staff associations were also involved in the process and that they have not made any representations to the committee, to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, we have a situation in which people are happy to move forward. As with any set of arrangements, people—whether it is the Scottish Police Federation or any other party—have the right to bore down into the detail, but in my view that will now be a matter for the guide that all partners will work collaboratively to develop.

I think that it is time that we moved on to have a Police Negotiating Board for Scotland, as opposed to using the legacy arrangement of a UK body. It is my view, and that of the Government, that a police negotiating board scenario, with the protection of arbitration built in, is far preferable to a police pay review body, which is what exists down south. That is not a negotiating body. It can make recommendations to the Home Secretary, because it is accountable to the Home Secretary but, of course, there is a pattern of recommendations not being accepted.

I think that I have put on the record in the strongest possible terms that we want to, and will continue to, enter into all this in good faith and will accept the principles and purpose of arbitration.

We are part of the negotiating process, although I do not personally sit in on PNB meetings, for all sorts of reasons that you would understand.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to everyone. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 provided for the establishment of the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland, and the regulations will give effect to the constitution of the new body.

The constitution is published and linked in the regulations. It sets out how the new body will carry out its functions in negotiating pay and terms and conditions for police officers in Scotland. Our aim is to create a modern negotiating body, with consensus on the matters under its remit being the norm. However, the constitution also sets out how conciliation and arbitration should be used when all other options are exhausted. The new Police Negotiating Board for Scotland will replace the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom, which now extends only to Scotland following the abolition of the Police Negotiating Board in relation to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, where police officers’ pay is now considered by the Police Remuneration and Review Body.

The new body will become operative on 17 August 2023.

To help inform the development of the regulations, the current members of the PNB, including Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the staff associations, have been consulted on the detailed arrangements set out in them. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service Scotland has been consulted on the arrangements for conciliation and arbitration. The views of those stakeholders have been taken into account. I can report that the PNB members agree that collective bargaining should be maintained and that they support the introduction of the PNBS.

The regulations will give effect to the constitution of the PNBS, which has now been published. The regulations will disapply what would otherwise be mandatory statutory arbitration rules, and they define qualifying cases, which are cases in respect of which ministers must “take all reasonable steps” that appear to them to be necessary to give effect to the representations made to them following arbitration.

The regulations disapply the mandatory rules made under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 and, in the constitution, PNBS members have set out that the default arbitration rules under the 2010 act will not apply to arbitration in the PNBS. Disapplying the rules will allow there to be continuity in arbitration procedures between the PNB UK and the PNBS.

ACAS Scotland will carry out conciliation and arbitration in line with the guidance set out under the constitution. Arbitration findings are binding on the PNBS and would form the representations made to the Scottish ministers. In 2016, the Parliament agreed that ministers should “take all reasonable steps” to implement the findings of arbitration, but there was also agreement that that should be limited to two cases each year. The regulations and the constitution set out the criteria for the two qualifying cases, in which ministers will “take all reasonable steps” to implement the findings of arbitration. Other disputes might go to arbitration in any given year, and ministers would consider the representations that the PNBS made, but would not be legally bound to take all reasonable steps to implement the findings.

It should be noted that, since 2014—when the PNB UK was abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—there has not been a need for arbitration in Scotland. Pay and terms and conditions claims in Scotland have been successfully agreed by the PNB. However, it is right that police officers have the protection of arbitration set in legislation to provide police staff associations with an agreed route to resolve disputes. Police officers are not employees, are not governed by normal industrial relations and cannot withdraw their labour, so they need to have their terms and conditions set out in police regulations and to have a fair mechanism to negotiate and resolve disputes.

We are currently recruiting the first chairperson of the new body, and I take this opportunity to thank Ian McKay, who is the current chair of the PNB UK, for his eight years of service in chairing the PNB. During those years, the PNB agreed a range of changes to officers’ terms and conditions and reached agreement each year on the annual pay award.

I believe that the PNBS continues our commitment to collective bargaining, gives an effective voice for police officers and will provide them with a mechanism to discuss and negotiate their terms and conditions with the organisations that fund the service in Scotland.

I am happy to take questions, convener.

I am happy to answer any specific question on any matters that have been raised directly with the committee.

The core issue is about the binding effect of arbitration. We legislated for almost-binding arbitration in the 2016 act. That is the closest that we could get to binding the Parliament and ministers—that is a really high threshold for binding the Government. I hope that that is of considerable reassurance both to the committee and to the staff associations, all of which have been consulted on the regulations and the constitution.

It is important to stress that, practically, the PNBS will operate on three levels. First, we have the regulations. Secondly, the constitution has been published—has been shared publicly—and is rooted in the regulations. However, there is a third layer below that, in the day-to-day operating guide. That is being developed and it will be for all parties in the PNBS to come to an agreement about its processes.

Are you talking about the correspondence of 24 May?

It was published in May 2023.

It is important to recognise that the Government wants to act in good faith. Although, as I said, there has been no need for arbitration procedures to be used in the past, I consider protecting on-going arbitration arrangements to be a sign of strength, not of weakness. Bearing it in mind that police officers cannot withdraw their labour, it is imperative that they have access to other mechanisms.

As I said, under the 2016 act, the Parliament agreed that the Government would have to “take all reasonable steps” to implement any arbitration agreement. To put that into more human speak, we would seek, in the spirit of fairness, to fulfil any obligations that are placed on the Government when it comes to arbitration.

The wording in the legislation is “all reasonable steps”. It is not uncommon for such wording to appear in legislation. The Government accepts that arbitration arrangements should be in place and that we would act in good faith and seek to implement any arbitration decisions, other than in extreme and exceptional circumstances. I do not think that our position has changed over successive terms of office.