Plenary, 05 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, February 5, 2004

Official Report 753KB pdf

---

Police Accountability

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-849, in the name of David McLetchie, on police accountability, and two amendments to that motion.

I am sure that no one in the chamber would dispute the fact that the maintenance of order and the rule of law is an essential function of the state. The police service is the pre-eminent public service, as it is the foundation on which everything else is built.

There is a clear causal relationship between effective policing and crime reduction. However, there is an equally clear public dissatisfaction with levels of crime and disorder in too many communities in Scotland. The Executive's Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill is, in part, a response to that dissatisfaction.

We have debated—and we will no doubt debate again—the extent to which the police need extra powers to discharge their duties; however, that is an argument for another day. This debate is about how the structure of the police service can be reformed to make it more effective in tackling crime and more responsive to public demands. Simply promising more money, more police officers and more bobbies on the beat is not enough because, if such promises are not visibly implemented and the rhetoric in Parliament fails to match the reality on the streets, that will serve only to undermine public confidence in politicians and the political process. That is the current situation and the credibility gap that we must bridge.

Accountability is one of the key issues. Currently, there is a tripartite structure that shares responsibility for our police service among police boards—which are made up of elected councillors—the Scottish ministers and chief constables. The structure gives police boards clear powers to determine budgets and police numbers and, in conjunction with Scottish ministers, to appoint senior officers.

Within that framework, the police enjoy what is known as operational independence. Decisions about the deployment of officers, the level of community policing, whether there should be more officers on the beat in a particular area, approaches to different kinds of crime and the targeting of particular criminal activities are left in the hands of chief constables. The principle of operational independence is jealously guarded by police officers, as we have seen in their hostile response to the limited powers of direction and guidance that the Executive has proposed in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill.

Given the powers that we invest in our police forces, no one would dispute that important constitutional and civil liberties issues are involved in the relationship between the police and politicians, but that does not mean that we should shy away from reviewing or adjusting the boundary between their powers. It cannot be right that senior police officers can decide which laws of the land in respect of the possession of cannabis or street prostitution will or will not be enforced, for example. Such issues involve public policy decisions that should be taken by elected politicians who can be held to account by voters.

The public do not see more police officers patrolling their streets in many communities partly because of a lack of resources—I have some sympathy with Nicola Sturgeon's amendment in that respect—and because, from time to time, there are competing demands on the resources that are available. However, we must also face the fact that the public do not see more police officers patrolling their streets because many senior officers and chief constables do not consider that to be an effective method of policing. Indeed, such a method might not be effective in solving the most serious crimes, but it can be effective in deterring crime and antisocial behaviour and in promoting good order in many of our troubled communities.

Does David McLetchie agree that police independence is important? There is a debate about the issue, but it is a debate in which there is no room for shades of grey. There must be clarity.

Mr McLetchie referred to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, in which a power of direction is given to ministers that seems to cover the eventuality of the police not implementing the dispersal powers that are contained in the bill. His colleague Annabel Goldie and I have been adamant that that is absolutely wrong and that politicians and ministers should not interfere in the operational independence of the police. David McLetchie seems to infer something different. For the sake of clarity, will he decide whether his or Annabel Goldie's view prevails?

I do not want to get into a long debate about powers, but the dispersal powers in the section in question are unnecessary because there are adequate laws at the moment. Consequently, the subsidiary provisions in the sections that deal with the powers of direction and guidance in relation to the dispersal powers are themselves unnecessary. If one does not want the principal power, the subsidiary power is not needed. Therefore, what we have said is not inconsistent with what we are saying in the broader context of relationships between politicians at national and local level and senior police officers in police forces.

I would argue that the current interpretation of the principle of operational independence is not, in practice, delivering the police service that our public deserve, demand and pay for through their taxes. The convention needs far clearer definition and to be more strictly limited. Of course, the police should have operational responsibility without political interference in the specifics, but politicians should be responsible for more than just setting budgets and appointing senior officers. They should approve an overall policing plan and the priorities in a local area and scrutinise performance against agreed and understood objectives.

David McLetchie talks about local areas, on which the Conservatives have put a great deal of emphasis. Perhaps he is developing what he is saying about powers, but I am still unclear about what he means. Does he believe that the current structures are those best suited to deliver the local accountability that the proposal to have a directly elected convener seeks? If he believes that a directly elected convener is best, why not for other services?

We will get into a very broad area if we discuss other services. I agree that we do not need to review the number of police boards and police authorities in Scotland at this stage. However, they need to play a more prominent role in public life. There are differences between the police service and other public services, such as health and education services. I do not think that there are parallels between them—they do not read across. As I said, the police service is the pre-eminent public service and will always be delivered by the state, so accountability flows not from any consumer principles relating to purchasing power and direction of money; there must be democratic accountability. That is the basis of our proposals and of similar proposals that the Home Office has made for England and Wales.

Even if we agree—which we might not—that there is a need to redraw or redefine the boundary between public accountability and operational independence, there is still a need to decide on the balance of accountability between national and local politicians. Clear lines of accountability are essential and I do not think that the current structure provides them. Our police forces should be more accountable to elected representatives of local communities and, through them, to the public at large.

The current structure of our eight police boards is not adequate in that respect. I bear no ill will to the conveners of our boards, but I doubt whether even the famously cerebral Stewart Stevenson could name all eight or even half of the conveners. If Mr Stevenson does not know who they are, the public certainly do not.

That matters because the public need to know where the buck stops with their local police force. That is why we have proposed that police board conveners should be directly elected at the same time as we elect our councils. The boards would still be made up of councillors who are drawn from the local authorities in the police board area, but a directly elected convener would improve local accountability and increase public awareness of the performance of their police force through the regular publication of local crime statistics and other performance indicators. He or she would also be a powerful champion of the police service in negotiations with the Scottish Executive and councils over funding for the police and reforms of the criminal justice system. They would draw on local experience.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, we are too tight for time.

I am sorry, Mr Rumbles, but I must finish.

In my view, there would be significant benefits from increased local accountability. It would increase the responsiveness of police forces to the concerns of the communities that they serve; it would increase public confidence in our police service; and it would encourage innovation and diversity in the management of policing. Those are essential for the delivery of more effective policing, which would help to reduce crime. I believe that we all want to achieve that objective, even if we differ in how we seek to achieve it. Therefore, I move the motion in my name as a contribution to a debate that I believe is of significant importance to our country.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that there is widespread public misunderstanding of who is responsible for what in terms of policing in Scotland; recognises that there needs to be greater local involvement in policing along with a police service that is more responsive to public demands, and calls on the Scottish Executive to strengthen public accountability and involvement by considering ideas such as the direct election of conveners of police boards and the regular publication of localised crime statistics.

I appreciate David McLetchie offering the motion as a contribution to the debate on police accountability. We need to have such a debate to ensure that our police service and, indeed, our other services not only deliver effectively, but are accountable to local communities and are seen to reflect their needs and interests. However, I suggest that the Conservatives' particular proposal would not take us much further forward.

I pay tribute to the Conservatives. On a number of occasions it has been said that they have run out of ideas, but today's debate shows that they are as capable as ever of putting forward pointless and ineffective ideas that have no relevance whatever to the people of Scotland. The Conservatives are nothing if not consistent.

David McLetchie probably answered much of his own argument. He said that the rhetoric in Parliament sometimes fails to match the reality on the streets. I believe that the rhetoric of what his proposal seeks to deliver would fail to match the reality on the streets.

It is fair to say that we have a specific interest in law and order in Scotland, because undoubtedly some communities are under pressure. However, we are considering ways of tackling that that go beyond simply introducing legislation. We have record numbers of police officers and record investment, and other measures are being put in place to improve matters. I believe that we have seen a significant achievement by our police. Clear-up rates are at higher levels than at any time since the second world war; prosecutions for the supply of drugs are up by 22 per cent; housebreaking is down by 28 per cent; serious road accident casualties are down by 29 per cent; assets are being seized from criminals; internet paedophile offenders are being caught and dealt with; and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency is doing sterling work.

I thank the minister for taking an intervention. If the litany he just gave us is so impressive, why are we now in a situation in which a crime is committed in Scotland every 1.2 minutes? That has never happened before.

I believe that a number of factors are involved in that, one of which is that people are more ready to report crimes because they know that it is more likely that the crimes will be detected and the criminals will be caught. It is clear that there are problems in some communities, where drugs and poverty blight the community and cause people to turn to crime, but those are being dealt with.

I turn to the Conservatives' specific proposal for a directly elected convener for police boards. I believe that the argument is bizarre in its construction. The Conservatives laid great store by local accountability and bringing local services back to local communities when they wanted to abolish the administrative regions. They said that some regional authorities were too large and remote for the local communities that they served. However, if the Conservatives' proposal was implemented for an area such as Strathclyde, we would have a directly elected police convener for an area that has a population of 2,204,000 and which stretches from Oban down to Girvan.

The Conservatives talk about a local community being able to influence the police convener. In Strathclyde, about 2 million people would directly elect the police convener. That could mean that the people of Oban or Girvan would be unable to prevent a police convener from moving resources to areas such as Glasgow or Lanarkshire, to the detriment of Oban and Girvan. How would those local communities outvote other communities that might well be satisfied with their police convener?

If our proposal is such a bizarre idea—to use the minister's expression—why is it postulated as one of a number of alternatives in the Home Office publication, "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together"? If the proposal is so bizarre for Scotland, why is it not bizarre for it to be adopted or implemented elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

I do not know whether David McLetchie has noticed, but we have a different legal structure from the rest of the UK and we have set up a different political structure. We have set up a Scottish Parliament precisely to do things differently and to take account of Scotland's specific needs. The proposal that an area with the geographic diversity of Strathclyde or the area that the Northern constabulary covers, which has small communities such as Inverness and Fort William, should have directly elected police conveners is bizarre. It is bizarre to suggest that Oban and Fort William should compete with Lerwick to influence a police convener.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No, I must press on.

The other aspect that Mr McLetchie has not articulated is what powers the conveners would have. Would they be able to influence the budget? Would they be able to set a budget for the constituent local authorities in areas in which a police board covers more than one authority? What tensions would there be if local police conveners attempted to set budgets beyond a level that had been agreed by the other members on police boards? What tensions would there be with chief constables? Who exactly would be responsible for the delivery of services? If a chief constable was not delivering, would the chief constable or the police convener be held to account? Would the police convener be able to do something about the chief constable if the convener felt that the chief constable was not delivering? Would the convener be able to take measures against the chief constable irrespective of the wishes of the directly elected board?

Mr McLetchie has not answered any of those questions. Issues that would arise from the implementation of his proposal would compromise the police's operational independence and would cause compounding problems. Mr McLetchie's proposal has been inadequately considered, is ill judged, would lead to tensions with other police board members and chief constables and would make a complete and utter mess of police services in Scotland.

I move amendment S2M-849.3, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"endorses the Scottish Executive's commitment to work for a safer Scotland by reducing crime and re-offending; welcomes its commitment to enhance community accountability for policing through local police boards; endorses its promotion of responsiveness to local communities through police boards' duty to secure Best Value and to report to the public on performance, and welcomes its policy of Community Planning which is enabling police forces to improve the delivery of services to local communities through more effective collaboration with other public bodies."

I well understand that the Tories have to toe the London line on policy, but what we are debating today are nothing more than recycled Tory policies from south of the border. In fact, it is worse than that, because they are recycled Tory policies from the days of Iain Duncan Smith.

David McLetchie is looking confused. I am sure that he watched the UK Tory conference last year, at which Iain Duncan Smith announced those very policies. They miss the point completely. Yes, with the police as with every other public service, we should always strive for greater accountability, but electing the conveners of police boards will not put a single extra police officer on the streets of any community anywhere in Scotland.

Personally, I do not have a problem with publishing local crime statistics. Any community police officer in Scotland could tell us the crime statistics as they break down for their police patrol. However, publishing local crime statistics would itself not lead to a single extra crime being prevented or detected. That is why what we are debating misses the point. I have never heard anyone anywhere in Scotland say that the problem with policing in Scotland right now is a lack of police accountability. What they say repeatedly—day in and day out and time and again—is that the problem with policing in Scotland is a lack of police officers. We should be doing more to address that situation.

When it comes to issues of law and order, the Tories are fond of citing the New York example. I dare say that the Tories would claim that their policies were borrowed from across the Atlantic rather than from London. Certainly, New York's recent law and order experience has been positive. I believe that in the past year the reduction in crime there has been in the region of 6 per cent. However, a closer look at New York would teach us lessons beyond those that the Tories are perhaps trying to teach us today. That is, that in addition to various crime-fighting strategies—

If we increased police numbers without interference, which the member has said is unnecessary, how would we ensure that those extra police officers were used effectively in the community?

I do not know whether Duncan McNeil will make a speech later in the debate but, if he does, perhaps he will make the case that chief constables currently waste their police resources and use officers inappropriately. I will wait to hear whether he does so or not. My point is that we can have all the crime-fighting strategies we want, but if we do not have the officers to implement and enforce them, they will not make a huge difference to the lives of people in the communities we are discussing.

Returning to the New York example, I should point out that, in addition to the many strategies and initiatives that have been introduced in that city, there has been a 12 per cent increase in the number of police officers. If we did the same in Scotland, we would have an extra 1,800 police officers. We need such a substantial increase in the number of police officers if we are to have any chance of delivering the kind of zero tolerance approach to crime that many people want. The people in these communities want more officers visibly fighting crime on their streets instead of politicians having endless esoteric debates about tripartite structures and so on.

Communities want the police to tackle vandalism, ned culture and so on. It is clear from their actions over the past decade and from their recent evidence to parliamentary committees that the police feel that that is not their priority. There is no guarantee that an increased police force would be used in those areas.

No doubt Hugh Henry would say—as he does repeatedly—that we have record police numbers in Scotland.

It is true!

Jackie Baillie is right to say that from her sedentary position and, given the statistics, I am happy to admit that that is the case. However, that is not the experience in communities. That is partly because, as Duncan McNeil pointed out, many more police officers are involved in specialist activities and the kind of intelligence policing that we have been discussing. Although there is nothing wrong with such an approach, it places greater burdens on community policing and means that those who are involved in such policing face more of a challenge in responding quickly and effectively to the incidents that Mr McNeil highlighted. We should be having a debate about that, not the debate that the Tories have initiated this morning.

Although it is right and appropriate to discuss the kinds of offending and crime—no matter how low-level they might be—that affect people's quality of life all over Scotland, we must not take our eye off the ball when it comes to violent crime. After all, the statistics show that such crime is on the increase.

I move amendment S2M-849.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"believes that the public's concern about policing is less about the lack of police accountability and more about the lack of police officers; calls for an overall increase in the number of police officers to take account of the fact that many more are now engaged in specialist activity, rather than community policing; recognises the right of the police to set local priorities free from political interference; encourages an intensive targeting of crime hotspots, low-level offending that nevertheless impinges on the quality of life in communities and persistent offenders who account for a disproportionate amount of crime, but urges all those involved in the criminal justice system not to lose sight of the fact that it is serious violent crime that is on the increase in Scotland."

Although I certainly welcome the debate, I, like Nicola Sturgeon, would guess that the big issue for the man or woman on the Corstorphine omnibus is not police accountability but police resources and what the police are doing in our communities. The Executive is trying to tackle the problem not only through record police numbers, but through some of the initiatives that have been introduced.

That said, it is important to know who is responsible for providing this very crucial service and how they can be held accountable not only for the way in which they spend their significant resources, but for the results that they achieve with that investment. Some targets are easier to quantify than others. For example, the "Narrowing the Gap" report, which Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary published in 2002, recommended that police boards should set performance indicators for fear of crime.

However, all we have heard from the Conservatives are gimmicks. Having directly elected conveners to police boards would not improve services for the people of Scotland one iota. The minister is quite right to highlight the tensions that such an approach would throw up. For example, what powers would conveners have? Would they have greater powers than the other elected board members would have? What would happen to the operational independence of the chief constable? What powers would conveners have to dismiss senior police officers?

Moreover, the general public would feel uneasy about any move towards a situation in which politicians could interfere too much in daily policing matters in our communities. That said, it is important that the police are not seen as being above the law with regard to being accountable for the money that they spend and for their own actions. As a result, we propose the introduction of an independent police complaints body to consider accountability at that level.

The current tripartite arrangement is set out in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and involves the Scottish Executive, local police authorities or boards and chief constables. The service is funded by the Executive, which has provided £889 million this year, and by local authorities, through non-domestic rates and council tax. I welcome the review of grant-aided expenditure funding for police, and believe that Edinburgh—as well as many of our other cities perhaps—has a very strong case for an upgrade in funding.

The public must become more involved in the decision-making process and must have the ability to say what they want to happen on the streets. However, there is a paradox at the heart of such an approach. If we ask members of the public what they want, they will say that they want to see policemen on the beat. However, sometimes we have to be brave enough to point out that being on the beat is not always the most effective way for a police officer to spend his time. Sometimes it is more effective for a police officer to liaise with other people in the community through community planning and to try to tackle problems such as drugs and youth disorder in a much more holistic and partnership-led way.

We will all have to face the paradox between having bobbies on the beat and intelligence-led policing. It is a sad, hard fact that it is often easier for a chief constable to get results on paper from intelligence-led policing than it is to quantify what is gained from having bobbies on the beat. We all know that having police officers on the ground, getting used to their communities, building up relationships with young people and so on, has its own rewards. The police know what is going on in communities, for example. However, that is much more difficult to quantify. In a society that is led by results on paper, it is difficult to square those two aspects.

The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, with its community planning provisions, represents a great opportunity for the police to work in partnership with other agencies. In that respect, I applaud the moves that have been made in my constituency by the City of Edinburgh Council's housing department to fund extra police officers in Muirhouse and Pilton. Elsewhere in my constituency, the West Edinburgh community planning pilot addresses local issues of service improvement and co-ordination and greater community influence on council and health services and the work of the local enterprise company and Communities Scotland. Our police can achieve an awful lot with such an approach.

We must respond at a local level to the needs of the people we represent. In a sense, I have some sympathy with what David McLetchie is getting at. How many of us have sat in our surgeries listening to people's complaints about antisocial neighbours only to hear that the police did not come when they were called? Furthermore, even when the police have responded to a call and the person in question tries six months later to build a case for evicting their neighbour to take to the housing department, he or she finds that there is no record of the fact that police officers stood in their living room. That is not good enough, but the solutions that the Conservative party has suggested this morning are not the way forward. The solutions will happen at a local level and will come with better resourcing, man management and partnership with other agencies.

We all accept that delivering a police service is a very complex and difficult task. I welcome the opportunity this morning to debate how we hold our police authorities to account, and in my speech I will give particular consideration to the high crime levels in my constituency.

Although I have some sympathy with today's motion—especially in relation to police accountability—I do not see the people of Red Road, Burnie Court, Sighthill and other parts of my constituency that are affected by high crime levels being excited by the proposal to have a directly elected convener in police authorities in Scotland.

The way in which police officers can best communicate with the public and best capture and clarify information on local crime statistics is important, as is the way in which that information is formatted and made available to local communities. All too often, communities receive wrong information. In the Sighthill area, before the Firsat Dag murder, the community was advised that crime levels were low. That was not the local experience. We have to consider how to take account of local perceptions of high crime levels. Unreported crimes are an issue for police officers.

I am not entirely convinced that our authorities—the police authorities in particular—interact with other agencies to find the best way of sharing information. Margaret Smith touched on that point. I welcome the interest of Strathclyde police's chief constable William Rae in community planning, but we have a long way to go to ensure that a robust system is in place for the sharing of information by police authorities. That is an accountability issue.

I have said in this chamber on a number of occasions that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes it clear that police authorities can share information with other agencies. All too often, the Data Protection Act 1998 is used as an excuse not to share information. We have to ensure that our police authorities, in particular, use existing legislation on the sharing of information more effectively.

Police authorities have to be encouraged to involve themselves proactively in problem solving in local communities. All too often, police officers have not taken a problem-solving approach to dealing with crime. However, in my constituency, I know of good examples of police officers taking such a constructive approach. I welcome that, and would encourage others throughout Scotland to take that approach.

We are obsessed with police numbers, and we often hear the political slogan, "More police officers on the beat." That is the quick-fix answer to the challenges. However, we must ensure that officers are used more effectively in local communities. Officers should be deployed in areas of high crime. The number of police officers in the Ruchazie and Blackhill areas of my constituency is the same as in the leafy suburbs of Glasgow. We have to focus our police officers on areas with high crime levels, and we should perhaps find a more effective way of deploying our resources.

I welcome this debate. It should be part of a wider Executive debate to find the most positive ways of making progress.

I have only four minutes, so I will start by commenting on the point in David McLetchie's motion about elected conveners of police boards. As many members have said, that is a complete side issue and of no relevance to the public. It makes no difference to the public whether the police board convener is directly elected or elected in some other fashion. In any case, the police board convener is elected. He is elected as a councillor; he is elected by his council on to the board; and he is elected by that board to be the convener. That is a good method. There is local accountability. The person is elected and can be removed at any of those levels.

If that is the case, what power has a person living in a ward in Greenock in Duncan McNeil's constituency, for example, to do something about the police board?

There are several ways—they can go through their councillor, they can go directly to the police board or they can do what was spoken about earlier. How much influence would an individual member of the public in Oban have if a directly elected member was putting resources into Glasgow, Girvan or somewhere else? Very little.

Duncan McNeil's point about needing people on the streets is valid, but it is also important that we have intelligence-led policing that deals with serious crime, drugs and other issues. The balance between the two approaches is important. I accept that police numbers are higher than they have ever been, but we should perhaps consider increasing the number even further, as the SNP has said.

The Tories are very keen on the New York example of zero tolerance. There is much to be said in favour of that method of policing, but there is no doubt that problems exist. Ethnic minorities feel targeted in New York by that method of policing and communities feel that they, instead of individual criminals, are being targeted. I have serious concerns about the zero-tolerance approach.

We could consider other examples from America and around the world. In Boston, the policing strategy is community led. The police department established a neighbourhood policing strategy in 1994. There are teams involving the clergy, trade union members, police officers and social workers. There is a city-wide anti-gang unit. If we are talking about community involvement, we should perhaps consider the Boston example rather than the New York example. More than 400 Bostonians were involved in the process. They created neighbourhood strategies and public safety initiatives in their communities on issues that were important to them, not issues that were important to other people. The coalition produced a neighbourhood plan for policing—it was Boston's localised approach to cutting crime. Within two years, the number of homicides, or murders, was down by 39 per cent and the number of shootings was down by 28 per cent.

Community involvement in policing has been effective in Boston, where neighbourhood policing is based on the development of partnerships between judges, religious leaders, business owners, teachers, young people, probation officers and the police. We should take the time to consider examples not only from Scotland but from around the world. We should not always go for headlines such as "More police officers on the beat" or "Zero tolerance is the answer". We should not just take the high-publicity headline approach of saying that zero tolerance is a quick fix; we should look at good examples from elsewhere. The Boston example of community involvement in local police forces is a good example that could fit the Scottish model much better than the New York example would.

I will concentrate on two issues in the four minutes that have been allotted to me. The first is wider democratic accountability of our police services, an issue that the motion raises; the second is the need for an independent police complaints authority.

On democratic accountability, Mr McLetchie spoke about avoiding political interference in the operational decisions of the police. That was rich coming from the Conservatives. Next month marks the 20th anniversary of a miners' strike during which the Government used the police to pursue the National Union of Mineworkers, creating a national police service in Britain for the first time and politicising it.

During that strike by some miners—not all miners—the role of the police was to uphold the law of the land against the thuggish and intimidatory tactics of Arthur Scargill and his cohorts, who were a disgrace to the trade union movement and who cast aside all the democratic traditions and principles of their own union.

I am sure that the trade union movement looks forward to hearing lectures from Mr McLetchie on the values of trade unionism. Those miners were following their lawful right to picket and to strike, as Mr McLetchie well knows. The Conservative Government set up the Association of Chief Police Officers and sent hundreds of police officers from one constabulary or division to another part of the country hundreds of miles away. In ensuring that the strike was policed in such a political way, the Tory Government politicised the British police force in a way that had never been done before and created the most vicious class division of the 20th century. The Conservatives' claims about separating operational matters from political interference ought to be seen in that historical context.

Avoiding political interference in operational decisions is one thing, but I insist—as I am sure the Scottish people do—that police constabularies be fully accountable for their decisions to the communities that they police. That is a political matter. What is needed is openness, full accountability and, ultimately, democratic control of policing strategy, rather than of operational decisions.

The Tories' motion and the Executive's amendment concur on the general point of accountability, but it is ironic that it is the Tories who dissent from the status quo, in that they believe that the current set-up is not sufficiently accountable or democratic. The Executive defends the inadequacy of the current situation on the grounds that democracy is too difficult to implement or that board members are elected—by proxy—as local councillors. The Tories are right to call for a change, but they cannot bring themselves to accommodate full democracy; they want only the convener of the boards to be elected. It is time to stop patronising the public with a spoonful of democracy—the joint police boards should be replaced by community police boards whose members are elected by the community as a whole.

Members have said that the police perform an exceptional and unique role in our society and that that should be recognised by exceptional and unique standards of trust and respect. I believe, rather, that the police should meet the highest possible standards of trust, not the lowest.

The Executive has already commissioned a report to examine the public's lack of confidence in the police complaints procedure. As the 2002-03 annual report by HM inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland shows, of the 2,823 complaints that were registered in the period that the report covers, only seven were upheld—that amounts to less than 0.25 per cent. Either there are a heck of a lot of malicious complaints or there is a clear fault in the system.

I believe that the public have no faith in in-house investigations and that there needs to be a fully independent police complaints authority—perhaps the newly elected community police boards that I mentioned could also play a part in that. A modern democratic Scotland demands the highest standards of probity and integrity in all our public services. Self-examination or special status, which means that the police can shirk those standards, is not defensible if we are to go forward.

The Tories seem to be congratulating themselves on some sort of innovative solution to the issue of police accountability. However, on closer inspection, we can see that their new proposal is nothing of the sort; it has simply been lifted from proposals at Westminster. I quote from the Home Office publication "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together":

"there is widespread misunderstanding of who is responsible for what in terms of policing in England and Wales."

Does that sound familiar, if we remove "England and Wales" and insert "Scotland"? Those are the words of the Tories' motion. Not only are the Tories incapable of thinking up their own policies, but they cannot even reword the ones that they steal.

David McLetchie certainly did not explain how having an elected convener of a police board would impact on the operational independence of the chief constable. Either the chief constable has operational independence or he does not. I was not clear about what the Tories are in favour of—they need to explain whether they are in favour of operational independence.

Nicola Sturgeon's main argument was that we need more police officers, which is an easy call to make. How many more police officers do we need? Should we enter a bidding war? I seem to recall that there was such a bidding war at the election.

Hugh Henry and Margaret Smith outlined the obvious problems and the tension that the Tory proposal would cause between the chief constable and a directly elected convener of a police board. Stewart Maxwell emphasised the point that our police board conveners are already elected, both as councillors and by their colleagues on the board.

I usually enjoy listening to Colin Fox, as he comes up with some sensible suggestions—[Interruption.] All right—perhaps I am being too generous, but I am trying to be helpful. His suggestion that all members of the police boards should be elected was not sensible.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to improving police accountability and links to communities. We have already proposed that we increase public consultation and participation in policing by giving a greater role to accountable police authorities in the preparation of the annual police plan, for example, the importance of which is not to be underrated. There were no comparably detailed proposals in the Conservative manifesto; the Tories have merely jumped on yet another bandwagon.

If the member consults our manifesto, he will see that we called for the production of neighbourhood policing plans by chief constables, in consultation with police boards. I called on the Executive to make available resources from its safer communities fund to implement neighbourhood policing policies. If he would like the full text, I will send it to him.

Why are we not having that debate this morning, instead of—[Interruption.]

Order.

Mr McLetchie can enlighten us in his summing up.

I am not summing up.

The Tories believe that the record number of police officers who have been recruited under the Scottish Executive is not good enough. They demand up to 1,000 more officers and claim that it would be worth the cost, even though they know that resources are limited. What is needed is an emphasis on core resourcing, as the coalition advocates.

Our partnership agreement says that we will improve the efficiency of police forces by providing more common support services, while enhancing accountability for policing to communities through local police boards. We will also increase the number of police officers on operational duty in every Scottish force and improve on the current record overall police numbers.

There are 15,560 police officers serving in the eight police forces in Scotland, as well as 6,066 civilian support staff. We should contrast that with the record of the Tories when they were in government. In 1999, my colleague Sir Robert Smith, MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, asked what the year-on-year change in funding for the police service in Scotland had been between 1979 and 1999. The answer that was given by Henry McLeish MP showed that there had been four years in which the funding in real terms was cut. Those four years were all Tory years.

The Tory motion simply represents more of the same—more empty posturing by a discredited party that is willing to jump on any bandwagon that goes by. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I have no hesitation in urging Parliament to reject the motion.

Of course it is in everyone's interest to ensure that we have an efficient, effective and accountable police service. In his speech, David McLetchie stated that we need the police to be more effective in tackling crime and more responsive to the local communities to which they are responsible and which they serve. I am sure that most members would agree with those objectives, but to suggest that the best way of attaining them is through allowing communities to elect the convener of a police board is just nonsense.

The reality is that police boards are already served by local councillors who represent the communities that elect them. Those local councillors are responsible for electing the police board's convener. Therefore, it is clear that those who serve on the police board are accountable to their local communities. The Conservatives have failed to address the inherent contradiction in their proposal. How would the preservation of the operational independence of the police and the role of the elected convener of the police board be married together?

Police authorities have to be more effective in communicating with local communities about what they are doing to tackle crime. I believe that more effective community policing strategies are one of the best ways in which the police could go about doing that. Simply having another election will not solve the problem. Some members have already mentioned the police's apparent over-preoccupation with intelligence-based policing. Community policing is one of the most effective ways in which to gather intelligence on crimes that are occurring in communities.

A number of members have highlighted concern within local communities that the police are not tackling the types of crimes that local people want them to tackle. As Duncan McNeil said, communities feel that the police are preoccupied with serious crime and are not dealing with the ned culture.

Intelligence does not need to be sophisticated. People in my community tell me—I am sure that people in Michael Matheson's community tell him, too—about the drug dealer who lives up their close, about the taxis that stop every 15 minutes and about drugs users lying unconscious in the common close, but where is the action? They want action on those issues and they want it quickly.

I understand, because I hear the complaints all the time, that people are frustrated and feel as though there is not enough policing in their communities to tackle simple crimes such as someone going down the street taking the mirrors off cars or breaking windows. Part of the reason for that is the gap between the political rhetoric and the reality of policing. Ministers tell us that we have a record number of police, but they do not mention the fact that the police also have a record level of responsibilities. The police have to comply with much more legislation, including health and safety regulations and the European working time directive, which all impact on the police's daily working.

We need to ensure that the gap between the political rhetoric and the reality of policing is closed. The best way in which to do that is to provide more police officers who can work within local communities where the crimes that I have mentioned are being committed and who, in doing so, can ensure that communities feel safer. That is better than the gimmicks and political rhetoric that we hear, particularly the gimmick that we have heard from the Tories of directly electing the conveners of police boards—what will that do to protect local communities that are suffering?

I agree with much of what Michael Matheson said in his concluding remarks—much of what the Conservatives have proposed is political rhetoric. However, it ill behoves the Scottish National Party to complain about the gap between political rhetoric and reality, given the gap between reality and what the SNP proposes, not only on police numbers, but on health, on education and on roads and all other aspects of transport. The SNP promises everything, knowing that it will never be in a position to deliver, and has no conception of where money comes from or of living within budgets. By all means let us criticise the Tories' ill-thought-out and ill-judged proposals, but let us also have a reality check on political rhetoric, because the SNP is good at promising everything and not giving definitive answers about where resources would come from.

The debate has demonstrated that no one apart from the Conservatives is persuaded by their gimmick, as it has rightly been described. Annabel Goldie asked in an intervention what power someone who lives in Greenock would have to do something about the Strathclyde joint police board, but I ask her what power they would have to influence a directly elected convener of the police board who was failing to deliver for people who live in Greenock but was satisfying people who live in Glasgow, Lanarkshire and elsewhere in Strathclyde. What could they do about that directly elected convener? I suggest that they could do very little. The Conservatives have come up with no answers—I wait to hear what Annabel Goldie says in her closing speech—on the relative roles of the convener and the rest of the board or of the convener and the chief constable. There are huge gaps in the logic of what the Conservatives propose.

Paul Martin was right to say that, although the boards play a good role, there is always room for improvement. We should always strive for greater accountability. The way in which the police and others are responding to community planning gives some hope that local organisations in local communities can start to work together far more effectively.

I was not clear about how the democratically elected and accountable police boards that Colin Fox mentioned would operate or be structured, but he also raised issues about a police complaints body. I re-emphasise that it is right that, when things go wrong, there should be a proper mechanism for dealing with complaints. We will strengthen the arrangements for that—during this parliamentary session, we will legislate to set up a new police complaints body to deal swiftly and impartially with complaints that are made about the police, because we realise that there is an element of concern about independence and impartiality.

The Conservatives might have prompted a useful debate on accountability, but they have added nothing to it with their ill-thought-out, ill-judged and irrelevant proposal, which would be ineffective. I have no hesitation in commending the Executive's amendment and asking Parliament to reject the Conservative motion.

I start by referring to what Hugh Henry finished with: he used the phrase "useful debate". Indeed, it is germane to consider the validity of the debate. We know that, in Scotland, a crime is committed every 1.2 minutes and we know from HMIC's 2002 report that we have only about 140 police officers on our streets at any one time. We also know that the public have a huge appetite for more community policing and more police on the streets. That was a top priority for respondents to a BBC survey and, interestingly, it emerged as a significant desire in the public's response to the Executive's consultation on antisocial behaviour. However, all parties accept that public demand is not being met by police supply. That is the credibility gap to which David McLetchie referred.

I was struck by some of the comments on the kernel issue of the debate's validity. The minister conceded its validity, although he rubbished the Conservatives' ideas—at least he accepted that we are presenting ideas—and Paul Martin's speech was in a similar vein. Their speeches contrasted with Nicola Sturgeon's, in which she simply said that accountability was not the problem and that there should be more police. My question to Nicola Sturgeon is, "But how?" The public want more police and have wanted them for a significant period of time. When I look at Nicola Sturgeon's amendment, I have to ask how, under the current structure, she would implement one jot or tittle of what she proposes. The dilemma is that she cannot.

Duncan McNeil also conceded the debate's validity, although he does not agree with the Conservatives' proposals. He made an important point when he intervened on Nicola Sturgeon to ask, "What will more police do? Where will they go? Who will decide that?" In essence, I think that he is saying that the public are not getting what they want.

Is this the same Annabel Goldie who has for umpteen weeks been going on at Justice 2 Committee meetings about the inappropriate nature of anything that suggests that politicians can direct the police to do anything, or does she have a twin sister who has turned up in her stead today? She says that she disagrees—as I do—with the dispersal power in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill and seems to have been clear that the principle of politicians directing the police is wrong, so why has she suddenly changed her mind?

I have not changed my mind. As David McLetchie said, the Conservative party opposes the dispersal power in its entirety—the ministerial direction power is in that part of the bill. As Conservatives, we also have a strong suspicion that ministerial direction means centralised political control, but that is not what we are talking about in the proposal.

Let me continue to examine the reasons for the apparent frustration of the public—something about which everyone in the chamber seems to agree, as far as I can gather. Those reasons are multiple. The Scottish Police Federation is saying that we need more police officers. The Scottish Executive is saying, "It is not our fault. We have an excellent record of providing police." I do not think that having 140 officers on the beat at any one time substantiates that view. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has another, starkly different view from that of the public. An ACPOS representative indicated that the association has a certain antipathy to beat patrols or, at best, a lack of enthusiasm for them.

Are the Scottish Conservatives being radical agents provocateurs for leading this debate and for suggesting that accountability lies at the heart of the problem? It seems that, in principle, the minister, unlike the Scottish National Party, is prepared to accept that that is the issue. David McLetchie alluded to the Home Office consultation that is being carried out. It is easy for Mike Rumbles to be snide and sneering about that—acting entirely in character—but that is to be entirely blind to the germane principles of what I think is a very important argument. The Government at Westminster has conceded that there is an issue. Members may talk about different legal systems and structures, but the issue remains the same.

As David McLetchie said, democratic accountability is essential. There have been challenges to that view, but democratic accountability is not political interference. A structure in which the public have a rather greater say about the provision of policing at a local level, in terms of control and accountability, does not, in my book, need to be inimical to the professional operational activity of the police force. It is important that the police authorities should respond locally to overall public demand.

Will Annabel Goldie clarify a straightforward question? Are the Conservatives in favour of the operational independence of chief constables? Yes or no?

The operational independence of chief constables—which arguably exists at the moment—is, by any criteria, raising questions. We are submitting a proposal that tries to introduce greater accountability for chief constables and their colleagues. As I said, that is not, in my judgment, necessarily inimical to professional operational policing at a local level.

Will the member take an intervention?

The member is in her last minute.

As for the current structures, Mr Henry attacked the undemocratic nature of what he thinks our proposals represent. What he said posed a paradox, however. I probably know more about the dietary habits of the indigenous tribes of Papua New Guinea than I do about the convener of my local police board.

Perhaps that is the member's problem.

It is that remoteness that—

She did not bother to find out.

Order.

It is that remoteness that gives rise to much of the public's concern about the provision of policing. Speaking of remoteness, I should add that nothing that Stewart Maxwell said would resolve that issue.

The Executive amendment dodges the issue, hiding behind the inadequacy of the current structures, while the SNP amendment simply fails to recognise the problem. I support the motion in the name of David McLetchie.