The next item of business is a statement by Kenny MacAskill on policing. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.
I recognise that we have moved to the statement early, but members are now well aware that we follow on from debates to statements. I note that some members, particularly some front benchers, are not present for the statement, and I will take that into account when I decide who is to be called to speak.
15:55
I welcome this opportunity to make a statement to the Parliament on the use of armed officers within the routinely unarmed Police Service of Scotland, of which we are rightly so proud. I take this opportunity to thank the Police Service for its contribution to what has been the best-ever Commonwealth games. It made its contribution in a friendly and welcoming manner, like the city of Glasgow, and two officers even played a cameo role in the opening ceremony.
Scotland is rightly proud that its police officers conduct their daily business unarmed. That has always been the case, and I make it clear to the Parliament that that is how we intend it to remain. Armed officers have for a considerable time provided support for police colleagues and security for citizens. However, the public should be assured that the number of officers who are authorised to carry weapons is low and limited. Only 275 of the 17,318 officers who are employed by Police Scotland are deployed on firearms duties—that is less than 1.6 per cent of our police force. It should also be made clear that those officers operate on a shift system and are subject to extraction and indeed holiday entitlement, so only a fraction of that already low number will be on duty at any one time.
Gun crime in Scotland is rare, but in Police Scotland’s first year, specialist firearms units attended 1,300 incidents across the whole of the country, including more than 100 in the Highlands. It is not just gun crime and firearms incidents that they deal with, as they are also called out to deal with incidents where there is a significant threat. Those can involve knives, samurai swords, machetes or even broken bottles. The presence of those officers in such situations is necessary for the safety of colleagues and the public alike. It is therefore essential that the chief constable has the operational flexibility that he needs to properly protect the public and ensure the safety of his officers.
The decision on the deployment of armed officers and the granting of standing firearms authority within a police force that is recognised as one that goes about its day-to-day business unarmed is therefore an operational matter for the chief constable. That has always been the case. That is how it was before the inception of Police Scotland, and that is how it remains. The current standing firearms authority was given by the chief constable after a range of factors were assessed, including evidence and intelligence. The authority is not new. Three of the former constabularies—Strathclyde Police, Tayside Police and Northern Constabulary—had endorsed that position prior to the inception of the service, and the approach is taken in 42 of the 43 services in England and Wales.
When we debated the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill in the Parliament a couple of years ago, it was clear that operational independence was paramount. It was made clear by members in all parts of the chamber that our democratic structures require that the chief constable has operational independence and is free from political interference. However, given police officers’ powers and the need to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected, safeguards were built in. First, to ensure the separation of powers between Government and the police, the Parliament established the Scottish Police Authority, and it is for that authority to appoint the chief constable and hold him or her to account. The Scottish Police Authority has a broad membership with a wide range of experience.
Secondly, the Parliament decided that, as we were moving to a single service for Scotland, it was appropriate that the Scottish Parliament had oversight. It is for that reason that the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing was established, and it is able to scrutinise all aspects of policing.
As well as those safeguards, additional checks and balances have been built in. First, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner was established under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 to deal not simply with any complaints against the police but with actions of the police, and any use of a firearm will automatically be remitted to him.
Secondly, we have Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, which is long established and which has great experience of advising not just the service but the Government on the quality of policing and the nature of police activities. HMICS is independent from the chief constable and from Government and is able to advise without fear or favour. The inspector provides a further level of scrutiny of police officers and the decisions that they take, irrespective of rank. That includes all aspects of operational decisions, including standing firearms authority.
Thirdly, a standing firearms authority is reviewed quarterly, which ensures a regular and contemporary basis for the granting of what is exceptional authority for a police officer in a routinely unarmed constabulary. The next review is due next month. The chief constable has already confirmed publicly that, in addition to considering available information and intelligence, he will take on board views and representations that have been made. I welcome that commitment by the chief. I welcome the fact that further assurance will be provided by HMICS on this occasion. As normal, the report of HMICS will be published and available to the Parliament.
I believe that the public understands and accepts the need for a small number—I stress that it is small—of police officers to be authorised to carry firearms and for the chief constable to have operational independence over their deployment and use. However, I also understand the concern of the public that we do not slip into a situation where officers become armed as a matter of routine practice, which would clearly go beyond the operational into matters of policy. I give the Parliament and the public my assurance that that will not happen.
Following discussion with the chief constable, I can confirm that he has agreed to provide quarterly reports to the SPA and the parliamentary sub-committee on the number of officers who are deployed on firearms duties. As an additional measure and reassurance to Parliament, I can announce that, should the number of officers who are deployed on firearms duties routinely exceed 2 per cent of the total number of officers in Scotland, the chief constable will notify the SPA and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice of that fact. There may of course be specific occasions when there is a need to increase numbers on a short-term basis to respond to specific risks and threats. We fully support the chief constable’s operational duty to take immediate decisions that reflect any such threats.
In conclusion, I once again state that we should be proud of the fact that our police officers are routinely unarmed, despite the challenges and dangers that they face on a daily basis. However, I believe that, in the world in which we live, it is necessary for the safety of officers and members of the public to have a very limited number of officers who are capable of providing firearms and Taser support.
Armed officers do a difficult job of which we should be proud. In a democracy, it is right that their deployment should be a decision for the chief constable and not for a political minister or party. However, it is also important that there should be sufficient safeguards and checks and balances. It is for that reason that we have the Scottish Police Authority, the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary for Scotland and a standing firearms authority that is reviewed quarterly.
I hope that Parliament will join me in thanking the officers not just for their service during the Commonwealth games but for the job that they do on a daily basis in their communities the length and breadth of Scotland.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
By way of explanation, Presiding Officer, some of us who were slightly late in entering the chamber may have been waiting for the arrival of a copy of the cabinet secretary’s statement, which was very late in being delivered.
Excuse me, Mr Pearson, can you sit down?
Two wrongs do not make a right. When we move on to a statement in the chamber, I expect members to be here.
On the statement not coming, the member will be aware that the convention is that Opposition spokespersons receive a ministerial statement no less than one hour in advance of the statement being made, and I am concerned to hear that that was not observed in relation to today’s statement on policing. It was also not observed in relation to the statement on data retention. That may be something that Opposition business managers wish to discuss with the Minister for Parliamentary Business.
You can continue your question.
I am obliged, Presiding Officer.
There is substantial public disquiet, and the cabinet secretary is evidently reluctant to share information with Parliament. What legislation demands that he regards such non-urgent policy shifts as something to be maintained solely in the remit of the chief constable in terms of an assertion of operational independence, and what boundaries apply to the application of operational independence?
Only on 23 March this year, an officer unintentionally fired a gun in a police station and was deemed to have been negligent in a preventable accident. Will the cabinet secretary initiate a review of the policy by ensuring that the SPA plays an effective role in governance, oversight and transparency, given the declared discomfort of some board members? If not, what is the point of having a police authority? What happened to the much-acclaimed local consultation process before such changes are made?
I very much regret that it was not possible for the statement to be sent earlier. I apologise for that discourtesy. I do not know the reasons for it.
Mr Pearson will know that the incident involving the discharge of a firearm in a police station was remitted to the PIRC, who reviewed it. Indeed, the PIRC’s statement has been published and Police Scotland will take on board the recommendations that he made and the advice that he gave.
As a result of the debate that went on in the country and the Parliament when we set up the single national service, we have the SPA and the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing—an approach that Mr Pearson championed—as well as additional checks and balances in the PIRC, HMICS and the quarterly review. I have spoken today to the chair of the SPA. He is happy with the statement that has been given and the action that has been taken.
I hope that Mr Pearson will continue to contribute to the scrutiny of the police, as he does as a member of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. If he has comments to make about the SPA, he should make them to the chair and other members of the board. They meet in public every month and I am sure that Vic Emery and his colleagues would be happy to meet him and discuss their work with him.
I thank the cabinet secretary for at least some advance notice of the statement.
The fact that, throughout Scotland, police officers are carrying firearms while responding to everyday duties is deeply disturbing for the public and represents a change in policy. The public’s fears have been heightened by the unacceptable lack of transparency and accountability on this issue in particular.
It has been consistently acknowledged in the Parliament that someone who carries a knife for whatever reason is in danger of using that weapon or becoming a victim of knife crime. There is an interesting analogy with the arming of police, because there is real apprehension that, if police officers routinely carry weapons, those weapons will be used in a manner other than that intended.
How are the officers who carry firearms selected? How many police in Scotland have been trained in the carrying and use of firearms? What form has that training taken, how frequently has it taken place, and is it due to take place in future?
I take pride—as, I think, everybody in the chamber does—in the fact that, in the main, police officers in Scotland routinely go around unarmed. That is the norm.
In response to Margaret Mitchell’s questions, I say that the number who have been trained is limited, but the overwhelming majority—98 per cent—of police officers in Scotland routinely go around unarmed. Sometimes they face difficult and dangerous positions. We should pay tribute to them for that and take great pride in the fact that they do so without the routine ability to access firearms.
However, there are and have always been officers who are routinely armed. As I indicated in my statement, that is not a new policy but the policy that was operated by three out of the eight legacy forces: Strathclyde Police, Tayside Police and Northern Constabulary. The chief constable has now ensured that the policy applies across the country.
How the officers are selected is an operational matter. I do not know how it is done. I have no doubt that significant checks are carried out and are on-going on a regular basis. However, recruitment to the police and to specialist areas in the service is, correctly, a matter for the chief constable. There are more than 500 authorised firearms officers, but only 275 officers have standing firearms authority. The officers who have been seen by members of the public are a small fraction of the 275. However, this Administration appreciates the concerns. That is why we have the checks and balances that currently exist and are ensuring that there are further safeguards so that the public can be reassured that there is not—and, under this Administration, never will be—a routinely armed police service.
As the chamber knows, I chair both the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing and the Justice Committee. I note the references in the statement to that sub-committee and to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the correspondence between the sub-committee and the SPA on armed police and that the issue remains live before the sub-committee. Is he also aware that, in two weeks’ time, HM inspector of constabulary will give evidence to the Justice Committee, when, no doubt, the issue of the arming of police will arise? Does he therefore agree that there is parliamentary scrutiny of the matter? Will he respond to any relevant issues that arise from the scrutiny by the sub-committee and the Justice Committee?
I can give the member that assurance. Obviously, the Administration will respond to that. I am glad that HMICS is going to her committee. I will meet him shortly myself.
We welcome the fact that Parliament established the SPA and we believe that, as we now have a national service that serves all of Scotland, there should be a role for the national Parliament. That was, quite rightly, championed by Graeme Pearson, and I give due credit to him for that.
I am grateful to all the members who serve on the sub-committee that is chaired by Christine Grahame. I know that it has met on 21 occasions, that the chief constable has appeared before it three times and that, on six occasions, his deputies or assistants have attended on his behalf. I have no doubt that they received the same welcome and challenge that HMICS will receive in due course. I am grateful for the role that it plays. It is important, as it ensures that we have oversight and scrutiny and can ensure that we avoid political interference by a cabinet secretary who represents a political party.
Armed police were never used on routine operations in Dumfries and Galloway prior to the advent of Police Scotland. Once again, there has been no consultation or even communication with the local community about that major change in practice. What information will be made available to elected representatives about the deployment of armed police in their wards or constituencies? Will we—not with a desire to interfere politically, as I was accused of doing by the chief constable a couple of weeks ago, but on behalf of our concerned constituents—be kept informed about when and how armed police officers have been involved locally in patrols and routine incidents?
I have met armed response officers in Dumfries and Galloway, and those who now serve in Police Scotland. I am grateful for the service that they provide. I paid tribute to them in the past, when they lent support to officers south of the border when there was a tragedy and a significant firearms incident. I have also paid tribute to them more recently, when they addressed firearms incidents and armed robberies in, for example, Dumfries, in the member’s constituency.
It is important that there is oversight and scrutiny. The Police Service has particular powers that are not available to the ordinary citizen. That is why, when the legislation was passed, we ensured that those safeguards and checks and balances were in place. I do not think that I have to reiterate that position. Equally, we have ensured that there is engagement at a local level between the police—the local commander and other ranks—and those who serve on the local policing committee, in whatever manner the local authority has set it up.
I am aware—it is a matter of public knowledge—that, in addition to that local engagement, the chief constable has gone out of his way to engage with councillors in places such as the north of Scotland, where they have expressed concerns. I am grateful to him for that.
I think that we have the appropriate balance and have protected the police from political partiality.
When I queried why, up until 20 minutes ago, we had not received the statement, I was advised that it was still being worked on. That does not demonstrate to me a confident Government. It suggests that there is some turmoil behind the scenes on this issue.
The cabinet secretary said that the authority for armed officers will be reviewed. Any decent and sensible way forward would follow a strategic firearms risk assessment, which, in turn, should be determined by future demands and threats. It stretches credibility to ask us to believe that the threats and risks throughout Scotland are all the same. In the absence of any evidence this afternoon from the cabinet secretary, the approach is surely disproportionate to the risk.
The cabinet secretary’s statement has not gone far enough and we must have a full review of the decision to move to the deployment of overtly armed officers on routine duties in our towns and villages. This is not about how many; it is about the change in deployment. I urge the cabinet secretary to make this the last time that he is dragged to the chamber belatedly to react to citizens’ concerns.
I express my regret to Alison McInnes that the statement was not available sooner. I do not know the reason for that. I can assure her that I have had it before me for some time.
First, the chief constable—correctly—carries out the assessment. The authority is reviewed on a three-monthly basis, under guidance that goes across the border. Given the significance of firearms and, as I have said, given that we take pride in having a routinely unarmed police force, these issues should be decided only on the basis of intelligence and proper analysis—and the chief constable must deal with that.
Coincidentally, the next three-monthly review will take place next month. The chief constable has said publicly that he will take on board people’s views. I am sure that those will include not only the views of councillors who share Ms McInnes’s political affiliation north of the border but comments made in the chamber today.
However, it is correct that any decision should be made by the chief constable. He is the person who has the information, intelligence and analysis. I do not have it and in many instances it would be quite wrong for it to be given to me. The chief constable has the experience, and he has the information before him.
Because of the significance of the issue, perhaps sometimes because of what can be an infringement of civil liberties and certainly because of the alarm that can be caused, we ensure that the numbers are limited and that we have safeguards and checks and balances. However, it is a matter for the chief constable, who is held to account by the appropriate authorities that we have enshrined.
Having served on a police board for some 13 years, I can say whole-heartedly that with the local policing committees, the Scottish Police Authority and the sub-committee, we now have greater scrutiny than we have ever had.
I ask the cabinet secretary to describe the detail of the training that is provided to specialist officers. What independent oversight is in place in relation to that training?
Some of those aspects are operational. What I can say, though, is that all authorised firearms officers are trained rigorously to the standards defined in the United Kingdom national police firearms training curriculum. That involves initial training and, frequently, refresher training. It is a significant investment by Police Scotland.
The oversight that the member asked about is exercised through the College of Policing, which ensures that the training delivered is consistent throughout the UK and meets the standards of authorised professional practice for armed policing. I concur with the member that we now have greater scrutiny. In practice, UK services, including Police Scotland, deliver training locally. However, they are independently assessed by the College of Policing to ensure that their training delivery meets the national standard.
The cabinet secretary said in his statement that the standing firearms authority is reviewed quarterly; indeed it is due to be reviewed next month. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the chief constable will take public concerns into account on an on-going basis?
Yes, I can. I reaffirm to the chamber what I said in my statement, which is that the chief constable has made it clear not only that the standing firearms authority is to be reviewed in September but that he will take on board the comments that have been made and may continue to be made to him until he reports on his review.
As I said in my statement, as an additional safeguard, should at any one time the number of officers with standing firearms authority exceed 2 per cent of the total number of officers—other than when some instance has arisen—if it is to be routine, the chief constable will inform the SPA, the committee and me.
The cabinet secretary has been at great pains to say that three of the former constabularies—Strathclyde, Tayside and Northern—had endorsed the position of there being a standing firearms authority prior to the inception of the new service. Can he confirm that the police boards in those three areas were of that view and gave that authorisation to the chief constable to bring about that change in policy?
I do not think that I can be asked to answer for something that is not my responsibility. Those were the procedures carried out by those three authorities; they signed them off. If Ms Ferguson has cause for concern, she should raise it with those who served in the authorities. All I can reiterate is that the arming of police officers is not new, it is not routine and it is certainly the intention of this Administration to ensure that we never have a routine armed police presence on every street or in every community. We take pride in our police officers, who sometimes with great bravery go out at their own risk. Equally, to ensure their safety and indeed general public safety, we have to have access to a very limited number—and thankfully a very low number—of specialist officers.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry that the cabinet secretary seems to be suggesting that there may be criticism of the bravery of individual officers. That is not the case. What I was querying from his statement was that he prayed it in aid that three authorities had endorsed this position prior to the inception of the new force. Now, however, he tells us that that is not a matter for him and that I should take it up with those authorities. It is part of the cabinet secretary’s statement, Presiding Officer, therefore he should be able to stand that information up or withdraw it.
That is not a point of order.
Legislation rightly ensures that the chief constable is operationally independent, so that decisions on policing are made free of political interference. However, could the cabinet secretary provide further detail on the role of the Scottish Police Authority in holding the chief constable to account in relation to the deployment of armed officers?
I agree with the member that decisions on policing should be free from political interference. It would be a sad day for democracy if there were such interference. That was one of the main issues that we debated and discussed when the Parliament passed the bill. The chief constable is, as I stated, accountable to the SPA and not to ministers. That is entirely appropriate. The SPA challenges and supports the chief constable to ensure the delivery of the best possible policing.
I have outlined the role that the SPA will play in ensuring the appropriate use of armed officers. I spoke to the chair of the authority earlier today and he is happy with and supportive of the proposals. He welcomes the contribution that will be made in terms of the information provided to him.
I think that if the member, or any other member in the chamber, wishes to make suggestions, the SPA will be happy to engage with them and to take on board any thoughts or views that they might have.
I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to the cabinet secretary for missing his opening few words and thank him for his statement.
The cabinet secretary made reference to the Highlands and Islands and Northern Constabulary on more than one occasion. There have been various versions of who was responsible, and when, for the fundamental change to the very successful policing style.
This is not about skills; it is not about numbers. Three armed officers attending a minor incident in Inverness high street is not what the public want to see. It is also inconceivable that a risk assessment would change at midnight for five of the constituent forces—that is lazy management.
Will the cabinet secretary agree to publish the decision-making process behind that change to policy for each of the constituent forces and place it in the Scottish Parliament information centre? That would be one way of advancing his view that local policing was considered. It is certainly not my view and it is certainly not the public’s view.
I do not have that information. The information that would apply to previous police boards belongs to police boards or indeed to their constituent members. It is not something that the Government would routinely have access to. That is an issue that perhaps the member would be better raising with council colleagues.
I understand and take on board the concerns that people have about seeing armed officers attending various incidents. However, I say to the member and to the chamber that reference was made to an incident in Glasgow last week or a fortnight ago, where armed police attended a road traffic incident.
I saw the information that Police Scotland made available on that incident. It did that because the armed vehicle was closest to the incident. When the officers arrived, they sought to have others come to relieve them but because of other pressures, no other officers were able to get there. One of the three ladies who were injured had a broken or dislocated hip and was in a significant amount of pain. [Interruption.]
Members should perhaps listen to this. In my understanding of what is in the report, the police officer cradled that lady as she was dealt with by medical staff. Those officers did not wish to be there; they would rather have departed, allowed other officers to come in and got back to patrolling. I think that they did the right thing and should be commended, not condemned. Had other officers been available, the original officers would have departed, but it was much better that they assisted with the welfare and care of that lady at the road traffic incident than that they waved goodbye, said that it was nothing to do with them and left her in pain and suffering.
I checked my inbox this morning and I did not receive any emails from the public about this subject.
What criteria are applied by Police Scotland in deciding to deploy armed officers? What assurances can the cabinet secretary give that such deployment will remain proportionate?
The chief constable has made it clear that he does not wish to see any increase in such deployment, although instances may arise, subject to intelligence and analysis. Having discussed the matter with Police Scotland, we have made it clear that any routine increase above 2 per cent would have to be reported to us, the SPA and the committee. We are ensuring that the chief constable is taking on board the evidence and intelligence that he has, and he is keeping numbers low and proportionate. He is ensuring that all areas in Scotland can be protected, and he has commented on that.
The changes that Police Scotland offers in covering all areas of Scotland, whether with trunk road policing, dogs, horses or other functions, should be welcomed and supported. Armed policing has always been there, but we have to ensure that the routine bobby on the beat remains unarmed. That is how it will be. Equally, when there are times that those officers or our communities are challenged, resources and backup, whether they be firearms or tasers, must always be available.
Presiding Officer, please accept my apologies for being late and missing the cabinet secretary’s opening remarks.
Nobody is arguing against firearms. What is relevant is that the statement has failed to address why, instead of being available in vehicles, they are now routinely being carried without good cause. Why is such a fundamental change in policing being hidden behind an arbitrary 2 per cent figure when the best safeguard is to revert to the previous policy?
I go back to the two particular points that I have been making. First, the Parliament decided, correctly, that decisions on operational matters would be for the chief constable. There was great and understandable concern that a cabinet secretary of whatever political hue might seek to interfere, so the Parliament made it clear that the authority lies with the Scottish Police Authority and the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. Equally, we recognise that operational matters are best dealt with by the chief constable, whoever he or she might be, because they have the information and intelligence and are able to make that risk assessment. It is for a chief constable at the time to make a decision and to be held to account in the Parliament by the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing and the SPA, which appoints them. I also welcome the additional checks and balances and the commitment that we made to keep numbers low to ensure that the people of Scotland can always be reassured that our police, in the main, are routinely unarmed.
I also apologise for my late arrival and for not anticipating the early closure of the previous debate.
The cabinet secretary makes great play of the fact that this radical change in policy predates the establishment of the new police service. Does it predate his appointment as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice? Given the cabinet secretary’s inability to point to any public discussion by any police board of this radical change in policy, will he simply clarify whether he believes that there should have been a public discussion before such a change in policy was implemented?
With regard to the precise timing, Mr Macintosh should know, as a member for and resident of Strathclyde, that the decision was taken by the chief constable of the legacy Strathclyde police force, who was held to account at that stage by the Strathclyde police authority, Strathclyde Police Joint Board, so it was ultimately the board’s decision.
My responsibility for the national police service was introduced by the 2012 act, but I am also subject—quite correctly—to the clear guidance of the Parliament in order to ensure that there is no political interference. The decision now is therefore not for the legacy boards or forces, but for the Scottish Police Authority.
If Mr Macintosh was not aware that Strathclyde Police had taken the decision, he may wish to raise the matter with political colleagues in his own area.