Local Police Services
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08172, in the name of Graeme Pearson, on justice. I will allow only a few seconds for members to change places, as we are extremely tight for time in the debate.
I call Graeme Pearson to speak to and move the motion. Mr Pearson, you have a maximum of eight minutes.
15:48
Prior to the 2011 election, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s resistance to the creation of a single police force was well known. Post the election, economic realities affecting countries across the western hemisphere obviously persuaded him otherwise. After years of inaction, we witnessed a hell-for-leather pursuit of reorganisation. Promises came from the cabinet secretary, the convener of the Scottish Police Authority and the new chief constable of a national police service committed to delivering local policing and dedicated to local community partnerships, but the Government’s actions have delivered otherwise.
Our debate today is driven by the effects of two Scottish National Party directives to the Scottish Police Authority: that there must be 17,327 police officers across the country, at an added cost of around £35 million to the budget; and that, at the same time, the police force has to deliver £140 million in savings by 2016. As a result of those directives, 1,200 police staff posts have gone. Although the chief constable has “no policy” on backfilling those posts, when he appeared before the Justice Committee this week he finally accepted that some officers are having to engage in administrative tasks. I know that those tasks include personnel, recruitment, warrant management, intelligence analysis and others that have been announced recently.
Will the member enlighten us as to the Labour answer to those two directives? What number of police officers does he think that there should be in Scotland? From which budget should the £40 million be deducted?
I hope that, if the cabinet secretary gives me time to develop my argument, he will see where we are coming from.
Seventy of the people who have been given voluntary redundancy previously delivered citations for the court, and those duties are to be passed to police officers on patrol. So we are moving from backroom bobbies to police posties. It will be useful to hear from front-line officers whether they can spare the estimated 123,000 hours that it takes each year to deliver those citations. The absence of comment from the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents seems to indicate that street officers have sufficient time to take on additional administrative tasks and postie duties. All of that is to deliver on Mr MacAskill’s cuts.
The amendment that has been lodged reeks of complacency. Although crime is down to a 39-year low, that outcome has not solely been delivered in the past few years; it is thanks to 20 years of hard work by all concerned. There are 1,000 additional officers but, depending on who one speaks to, that number might or might not include up to 350 officers who are paid for from local authority budgets. We should remember the 1,200 support staff whose jobs have been lost. In any case, the £35 million cost of the additional posts pales in comparison with the £140 million of budget cuts. Mr MacAskill would do well to keep company with Theresa May, who also lauds the continuing drop in reported crime—in the case of England, to 1980 levels. She has also pursued a reduction—in her case, of 14,000 officers across England. He could keep company with just about every justice minister in Europe, Canada and America.
Will the member take an intervention?
I ask the cabinet secretary please to let me continue.
The Government’s budget decisions have resulted in the need to consider the closure of 65 police office counters and reductions in service at a further 75. That means a cut in service in more than half the offices in Scotland, even though not one additional police officer will be placed on the street. I am sure that, during the debate, we will hear about the impact of that, as it affects virtually every region and city in the country. To name but a few, the changes will affect stations in Airdrie, Coatbridge, Wishaw, Portobello, Anderston in Glasgow, Oakley and Bucksburn.
I wonder what Mr Pearson’s comment is on Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, who has said:
“They”—
that is, the UK Government—
“need to change course and accept Labour’s argument and the expert evidence that a 12% reduction in police spending would be manageable”.
Does Mr Pearson support a 12 per cent reduction in police spending?
If the cabinet secretary spent more time worrying about Scotland and getting it organised, we might have a better outcome in the political life of Scotland.
The statistics that are given in support of the closures are largely admitted to be ropey and historical. The closures are not driven by the desire to deliver better local policing or to support local partnerships, as we are told; they are driven by budget cuts, and that is shameful. Although some are of the view that the use of police stations is no longer necessary and that we should move to mobile phones, the internet and Twitter, in many places, the police office is the heart and soul of the community. For parents worried about a missing child, relatives worrying about a missing grandparent, a youth going home early in the morning worrying that he is going to be accosted, a young woman worried about a stranger who is following her, or a homeless person who is facing a bout of anxiety, a counter staff member offers the quality of service that they need.
Will Mr Pearson give way?
I am afraid not.
Some years ago, a householder watching the BBC news at 9 o’clock saw that a terrible murder had been committed in Glasgow in which a woman and child had been stabbed to death. He realised that a workmate, who had unexpectedly called at his home and who was then seated in his kitchen alongside his wife and baby, was the likely murderer. The householder left the house in panic and ran half a mile to an open police office and made a report at the counter, which, thankfully, resulted in a successful outcome—a murderer arrested and no possibility of further mayhem. In such circumstances, I do not think that a tweet would offer any solution or that an e-mail would support us. We must value the work that our counter assistants carry out.
Mr MacAskill says that we are investing in local policing and enhancing services, but the Government looks increasingly like the ministry of truth. It keeps repeating the mantra, “Crime down, numbers up, life good.” However, the findings of the Scottish policing performance framework—the cabinet secretary’s own framework report—announced that, in some communities, 50 per cent of people do not believe that the police prevent crime, 87 per cent believe that the crime rate is the same as or worse than it was a year ago and two thirds do not bother to report thefts or housebreaking. Communities are under stress and need support.
I suggest that members look to their communities and support my motion. I hope that they have the courage to back their local police service and avoid being caught up in the mantra of “Crime down, numbers up, life good.” Life will be good if we can maintain a local police service that is worthy of the name.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government’s budget cuts are having a significant impact on the link between communities and their local police service; notes concern at plans to close police station public counters and reduce opening hours; also notes concern at the use of police officers to cover for cuts in the number of police staff; encourages people to make the case to save the service offered by their local police station and stand up for their local police service; condemns the practice of back-filling of staff posts by police officers, and calls on the Scottish Government to defend local policing.
15:56
I welcome the opportunity to respond to Graeme Pearson’s motion on behalf of the Scottish Government. It may be helpful if I start with the context, which will bring some balance to what we have heard so far.
Policing in Scotland is performing excellently, notwithstanding what Mr Pearson suggests. Crime is at a 39-year low, violent crime is down by almost half since 2006-07 and homicides are at their lowest since records began. The risk of being a victim of crime is falling, and confidence and satisfaction in the police are high, as figures that were published yesterday demonstrate.
Although the figures that the cabinet secretary has quoted are welcome, does he accept that reported crime is on the increase?
Across the board, statistics and evidence show that policing in Scotland is doing remarkably well, and the onus is on the chamber to support rather than denigrate the police.
The situation in Scotland is in stark contrast to the situation in England and Wales. We have more than 1,000 more police officers than we had in 2007. The backdrop to the debate is strong policing that is valued and trusted by communities throughout Scotland, not the negative picture that is painted by Graeme Pearson’s motion. Furthermore, the establishment of the single service will safeguard and sustain what we hold dear about our police service.
Money is tight. We all know that—even Yvette Cooper. However, it is the UK Government that is cutting budgets, not the Scottish Government.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will give way in a moment.
Westminster is cutting our budget by 11 per cent in real terms over five years, so we must cut our cloth accordingly and ensure that every penny is invested wisely. Yvette Cooper wants a 12 per cent cut. Perhaps Mr Pearson can tell us what Labour in Scotland wants.
I take it, from what the cabinet secretary says, that there is no cut in Scotland. However, £140 million is a substantial cut and is having such an impact that the chief constable does not believe that he can sustain current police numbers much longer.
We know where the cuts are coming from—Westminster. They started under Darling, they are continuing under the coalition and they would be maintained under Yvette Cooper.
The single service will remove the duplication that was built into the previous structures, in which there were eight police forces as well as the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and the Scottish Police Services Authority. We no longer need directors for each corporate function or eight chief constables. The new structure allows more resources to be focused where they can have the greatest impact, supporting outcomes and, above all, keeping people safe. Local policing is the bedrock, which is why there is now a local commander for each division in Scotland who works with communities, councils and other partners to shape and deliver policing. There is a local policing plan for every council ward, every local authority has a named contact on the Scottish Police Authority board and more councillors than ever before have the opportunity to have their say on policing in their areas.
The cabinet secretary is at pains to tell us all the things that will not now be needed. Does he really expect the people in my constituency in Possilpark, which is adjacent to the Baird Street and Maryhill police stations, to think that the cut to their stations’ opening hours is good enough? In the case of Possilpark, does he think that a Monday-to-Friday, nine-to-five service is really what that area deserves?
As I can say is that what I think people want is a solution to the problem.
“If you are the victim of a crime you don’t really care where the officers come from so long as something is being done.”
I agree. That comment was made by Graeme Pearson MSP in the Daily Record on 22 August 2010.
Local matters are being enhanced by access to national—
I remind the cabinet secretary that my colleague asked him a question. He was asked whether providing daytime-only services is sufficient in a place such as Possilpark.
I responded with what I thought were your quite credible and appropriate remarks from three years ago, Mr Pearson. [Interruption.]
Order, please. I ask members to speak through the chair.
As I say, we now have access to national and regional expertise, helicopters and a specialist crime division.
We know that we face unprecedented budget challenges, but the work that Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority are undertaking seeks to deliver the savings that this Parliament agreed and ensure the most effective and efficient use of resources.
The review of public counters at police stations, which has generated a lot of interest, is being progressed by Police Scotland in discussion with the SPA. I emphasise that that review is about public counters, not stations. Front counters that are not used will close; some will retain their current opening hours; others will open for longer; and some will provide an improved service by relocating. For example, the counter in my constituency will move into the Edinburgh east hub, which is a much more sensible location.
Budgets are tight. The police are using the 101 non-emergency number and social media. Social media is not a matter to be denigrated; many on the Opposition benches use it themselves to communicate with their constituents, so why should they criticise the police for using it? Proposals are under way, and we must support our police in that work.
I do not accept the premise of Graeme Pearson’s motion. Policing continues to perform excellently, and has the confidence and trust of communities and partners. It should not be denigrated by politicians.
It bears repeating:
“Crime is at a 39-year low, violent crime is down by almost half since 2006-07 and homicides are at their lowest since records began.”
I ask the cabinet secretary once again whether, despite the splendid figures he gives, he will accept that reported crime is on the increase.
Cabinet secretary, you are in your last minute.
We have 1,000 additional officers—[Laughter.]
Order, please.
—unlike the collapse in officer numbers faced south of the border.
The record of our Scottish police service is quite outstanding; it ill behoves politicians to denigrate those who have done an outstanding job.
This Government will not implement the Winsor package and we will not privatise policing. We will support local policing in our communities and we will ensure that expertise is available to every community and that Police Scotland can perform continually the outstanding service that it provides day in, day out. Others may denigrate the police—some of them should know better, given their service, and should not join in that catcalling. We should recognise the outstanding police service that we have in Scotland. I reject Graeme Pearson’s motion and move my alternative.
I move amendment S4M-08172, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:
“recognises that recorded crime is at a 39-year low, with homicides the lowest since records began, crimes of handling offensive weapons down by 60% and violent crime down by almost a half since 2007; welcomes the 1,000 additional officers that the Scottish Government has delivered since 2007; acknowledges the significant progress made by Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to ensure that policing in Scotland continues to perform excellently, despite UK Government budget cuts; recognises that local policing remains the bedrock of the new service, supported by the ability to share expertise and equipment as required, and fully supports Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority in their work to ensure the most efficient and effective use of resources.”
16:03
I congratulate the Scottish Labour Party on lodging its motion on the proposed closure to members of the public of police counters.
The closure of police counters at more than 60 stations and the reduction of the opening hours at 80 stations are a significant blow to communities. The importance that people place on that service, which provides not only a direct means of contacting the police at a time of their choosing but reassurance that there is a police presence, has been summarily dismissed by both the cabinet secretary and Police Scotland’s chief constable. Consequently, while many police stations will remain open to deal with offenders, either to question them or to take them into custody, the proposal remains that many stations, in which police counters are one of the most visible examples of front-line and local policing, will be closed to the public.
The proposals for police counters vary and will have different impacts throughout Scotland. In my region of Central Scotland, for example, the proposal is to remove public counter services from Shotts and Uddingston. With no public counter service in Shotts, local residents will have to travel to Wishaw, which is 7 miles away, to access a public counter service. That journey can take more than 40 minutes by public transport.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have a further point to make first, if the cabinet secretary does not mind.
In addition, given that the East Kilbride station is designated as a prescribed station under the sexual offences regulations, offenders who are under notification requirements need to access the counter service at that station to report to an officer, but that service will no longer be open 24/7. Instead, it will be open only from 8 am to 6 pm each day. That is a real cause for concern, especially in view of the number of sex offenders in the community who are already breaching the terms of their licence.
Is the member saying that no counter should close or have its hours varied—even counters that have had only one or no visitations within a four-week period? Is that the position of the Conservative Party?
The cabinet secretary is on very shaky ground with some of the information that he cites about the use of the police station counter service. Given that it is a front-line service, rather than being reactive and closing counters, we should do more to ensure that they serve the public who use them.
When we ask the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government legitimate questions about policing, the automatic response is twofold: they state that such decisions are operational matters for the chief constable and that it would be wrong for ministers to get involved; and, when they are pressed about budget cuts, they blame them on Westminster.
However, the police budget is decided by this Government, and even a cursory examination of the facts reveals the truth—namely, that the Scottish Government has decided that the police budget is set to fall by 6.3 per cent in real terms in 2014 and by more than 9 per cent in 2015. Meanwhile, the inconvenient truth for the Scottish Government is that, by contrast, the amount of money that it has to spend will fall by only 1.3 per cent in 2014 and 1.9 per cent in 2015. It is clear that, instead of blaming Westminster, the SNP needs to accept responsibility for the cuts in the police budget.
Furthermore, the Police Scotland public consultation on police counter closures was far from adequate. In the first instance, it was carried out online and without any meaningful equality impact assessment being done, which meant that the elderly and less technologically savvy people were excluded. In addition, the footfall analysis that was carried out by Police Scotland was done years ago. Crucially, it was done before 43 stations closed and 23 had their hours reduced, which means that it is highly likely that footfall will have gone up. In some rural areas, no footfall analysis was carried out, so Police Scotland just guesstimated. In those circumstances, the case for rerunning and extending the consultation to ensure that it is properly representative is compelling.
The Labour motion mentions the backfilling of staff posts with police officers, which makes no economic sense. According to Unison, 200 police officers are involved in drawing up documents to do with police reform, at a cost of £7 million.
I am afraid that you must close.
That is economic madness, and the Scottish Conservatives will support the motion.
We come to the open debate. We are extremely tight for time, so I ask for speeches of less than four minutes.
16:09
On the subject of counter closures and hours, I remind Graeme Pearson of what he said on Sunday, when we were talking about the issue. He asked why Giffnock and Helensburgh police stations were not closing. I wonder what his colleagues Ken Macintosh and Jackie Baillie would think about that.
Graeme Pearson rose—
That is what the member said.
It is important to restate some of the Scottish Government’s achievements. I will name but a few. Crime is at its lowest level in not 10, 20 or 30 years, but 39 years.
Drew Smith (Glasgow) (Lab) rose—
Youth crime has been halved and an additional 1,000 officers have been provided. All that and more has been done against a background of unprecedented cuts from Westminster. Those achievements should be welcomed across the chamber, as they deliver for the people of Scotland.
What people want to know—indeed, the question has been asked before—is the number of police officers that Labour would cut. Labour’s leaders at Westminster—and we know from recent events that Labour in Scotland takes its orders from Westminster—want to cut the budget by 12 per cent, which would mean a cut of more than 2,000 police officers from Scotland’s streets. Is that what the Labour Party in Scotland supports? Does it think that that will make our communities and people feel safer? The simple answer is no, it will not.
Will the member give way?
Such a move will simply put our communities at risk and will, as the Labour motion puts it, have
“a significant impact on the link between communities and their local police service”.
It is the Labour Party in Scotland that is the threat to local policing. However, we do not know whether that is actually Labour’s policy because the one thing that it is good at is having no policy, other than the promise of a cuts commission to scrap the idea of universality—
Will the member give way?
Mr Smith.
That is something that it supposedly supports in order to end—as its leader stated then later denied—the something-for-nothing culture. Although the comments in question have been removed from the Labour website, everyone can still watch them being made on YouTube—and I would advise them to do so.
How, then, can we believe what Labour says? The member who lodged today’s motion, Mr Pearson, recently said that
“breaking up the UK could have direct impact on the ability of Scottish police officers to do their job”,
but he was contradicted by former director of intelligence at the old Strathclyde Police force, who said:
“I simply do not accept these criticisms of Scotland’s abilities to have effective security arrangements ... An excellent Scottish intelligence organisation could be developed in an independent country.”
Who are we to believe: the member or the former director of intelligence? Is that just another example of Labour’s project fear?
Will the member give way?
Is today’s motion not yet another example? Only last week, the head of Police Scotland told the member that there is “no policy” on backfilling. Members can read that in the Official Report—it is there for everyone to see. Who, again, are we to believe: Mr Pearson or the current head of Police Scotland?
Will the member give way?
I do not know what axe certain members have to grind—[Interruption.]
Order.
We need to work with rather than against Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to ensure that any reform benefits people over politicians.
According to Alison McInnes, who I notice is in the chamber,
“Community policing must be able to adapt to local circumstances and need”,
which is exactly what the Government is doing. We are responding to changes in and cuts to Scotland’s budget that are being driven by Ms McInnes’s party in the coalition at Westminster. As far as I can see, the Liberals have no policy other than to impose, through their man in the Treasury, further cuts on Scotland and have nothing constructive to offer other than to join their partners in project fear and doom-mongering.
This SNP Government is protecting local communities by putting police on the street and combating and preventing crime. That is what the people want and surely what this Parliament should be delivering.
16:13
Sandra White had four minutes in which she could have mentioned her police station in her constituency, which is closing; instead, she chose to defend her ministers on the front bench.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that you are not getting any of my speech to do what you should have done in your own.
Order. I ask that members speak through the chair.
My apologies, Presiding Officer.
I will talk specifically about the cabinet secretary’s constituency, in which three stations—Howdenhall, Portobello and Craigmillar—are affected. Howdenhall and Portobello’s working hours will change from 7 am until midnight to 8 am to 6 pm, while Craigmillar will close to the public altogether, despite 1,201 demands having been made of the station assistant in the two weeks during which the review took place.
Will the member give way?
I would like to get a bit further into my speech.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it appropriate for a member to state that Craigmillar police station is closing when it is not? As I have stated, the counter is relocating to the Edinburgh east hub. Is it not appropriate for the member to be accurate in what she states in the chamber?
What members say in their speeches in the chamber is entirely up to them, not me.
If the cabinet secretary had let me get further into my speech, I would have commented on the shared facilities. He is clearly a little bit tetchy today.
Although I was instinctively against the cuts, I decided to ask my constituents what they thought before I sent in my submission to the police. When I surveyed 2,000 people in Portobello, just under 200 people responded. I asked three questions and gave constituents space to reply without responding to any questions. I asked for their views on local accessible policing, what they felt about the 101 number, and whether they supported the changes. Ninety-six per cent of people opposed what the cabinet secretary is doing, a handful of them said that it was okay, and one said:
“Never mind the Police Station, tell the Council, my grass needs cut”.
Ninety-six per cent of people, or 96 per cent of the cabinet secretary’s constituents, think that what he is doing to Portobello police station is wrong. I will tell him why, in their words.
When asked about the 101 number, a constituent said:
“The 101 number is ok for general enquiries but useless for anything else. Face to Face contact is very important when reporting crime or requiring re-assurance.”
Another said:
“If you are upset by something happening it can be difficult to speak to someone on the phone especially for people of my generation—I am 74. It is much easier to speak to someone face to face.”
A third person said:
“I would much rather prefer to discuss a situation face to face. Officers are more likely to assess how stressful the impact of the situation is on an individual. A lot of older people are unable to convey their message over the phone.”
The person said that a lot of older people cannot hear or understand, or they have no confidence, and that the approach could lead to a reduction in reported crime.
Another person said:
“101 is faceless and does not inspire confidence. Not happy to use 101. The person at the other end is not local to the area. Police on the ground are familiar with Portobello, and the people as a whole.”
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
When Graeme Pearson took some of that survey to the police last week, he was told that my questions were loaded and that I should not have asked them.
In the space that was given to constituents to raise any other issues that they felt were important, one said:
“Part of the reason I, and my family, have moved to Portobello is the family-friendly nature of much of the town, and the security the local police station offers.”
Another said that it was ironic that on the same day that they received my survey, they received a survey from the cabinet secretary, who was concerned about the rising spate of break-ins and recent antisocial behaviour in the area. Will he share with members the results of that survey?
The member is in her final 30 seconds.
There is much more that I could share. I have the full survey responses, and they are with the police. I am happy to share them with the cabinet secretary.
Portobello is a bustling town. When the sun shines, Edinburgh goes to Portobello. It needs a local police station on the High Street. It has been there for 117 years, and it will be the local constituency MSP who closed it. That is an absolute disgrace.
Speeches should be less than four minutes.
16:17
Crumbs.
Graeme Pearson said in a Justice Sub-Committee on Policing meeting:
“I indicated that the business case might well justify some offices closing or amending their hours. My position is not that there should be no closures”.—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 31 October 2013; c 259.]
Fair enough; I have said it.
I think that we all accept that there is a background of swingeing cuts to the Scottish budget, and that that is reflected in the budgets that we have to apply. Police Scotland therefore had to look to cut £64 million from the budget this year. It is almost there, but it has more next year.
What do the public want in a time of austerity? If a choice—it is about choices—has to be made between police counters being serviced when there is little usage of them and the police being visible and acting on the streets of our towns and villages, I think that we can all predict the answer. The question is: are police counters necessary in all circumstances? When did members last use a police counter? If we look at the usage figures from the earlier police review and the consultation, we will see, frankly, that it would be hard to justify keeping them all open, as people use mobiles, emails, texting, 101 and 999 in emergencies.
Will the member give way?
I do not have enough time.
I want to deal with Kezia Dugdale’s point. In a recent meeting with the divisional commander for Midlothian, Jeanette McDiarmid, we had a discussion about the availability of police officers if somebody dials 101. She raised the whole profile of the diary car. Somebody will phone up, say that there has been an incident, and it will be determined that it is not urgent. They are asked when it would be suitable for the police to call, they are put on a list in the diary, and one police officer—two are not always needed—goes out at the person’s convenience to their home. If they are working or picking up children from school, that visit is done at their convenience. It is a face-to-face approach.
The importance of keeping contact with the police beyond reporting incidents is also important. I think that Margaret Mitchell raised the issue of the public simply being able to go in and tell the police about things that have happened. It is a good thing that the police go out, as I do. I do not sit in my Galashiels office; I do surgeries in supermarkets such as Tesco three Saturdays a month. I collect intelligence and hear from people. The police are thinking of doing their surgeries in supermarkets and libraries to be in touch with the public where the public are and at their convenience, rather than asking them to have to travel to the location of a police counter.
In my patch, it has been proposed that some hours will be marginally reduced, such as in Penicuik, Peebles and Galashiels, and that there will be two counter closures, in Lauder and Melrose.
Despite the publicising of the proposals, I have had not one email of concern about them from any constituent. I received one email that sought clarification as to whether it was the police station being closed or the counter, but the sender also praised the fact that they were seeing police in their village as they had never seen them before.
As for the visibility to which Margaret Mitchell referred, Gorebridge in my constituency has no counter availability but the big police station is highly visible, with a big “Police” sign, and it is very busy. I know that because I have been on shifts with the police officers. The police have briefings in the station before going out. The folk in Gorebridge are not unhappy about not having a police counter.
We could go the way of England, with police officers disappearing like snow off a dyke and money being spent on 41 police commissioners, elected on less than 20 per cent of the vote and with annual salaries of between £70,000 and £100,000 a year. I think that the Scottish people would prefer to see us spending our money on police officers on the beat, on crime detection and reducing crime across the piece and, frankly, keeping the peace.
16:20
I, too, welcome the opportunity to raise concerns about proposals to close police stations, particularly those in my constituency. The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the link between communities and the local police service. On this, the Scottish Government has been left wanting, but instead of defending local policing it is trying to evade and make excuses.
As the motion clearly states, the proposals are part of a wider programme of cuts to police staff that can result, and is resulting, in the backfilling of staff posts by police officers. That does not make financial sense and it means that officers are distracted from tackling crime and are instead sat behind a desk. In my constituency, the Selkirk and Coldstream stations are set to close to the public, with Eyemouth moving to a category E station, meaning that it will no longer have full-time cover. Just outside my constituency, in Christine Grahame’s constituency, the nearby Lauder and Melrose stations, which I know are used by my constituents, are also set to go. In the Police Scotland consultation, which we already know used old data, no figures are provided on footfall for any of those stations, so their closure is being proposed without any knowledge of how often my constituents use them.
The fact is that even if those stations are not heavily used, they provide an important local service and give residents the chance to interact with the police. The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland has warned that town centres such as Selkirk’s could be under threat because closures will sever the link between the police and the local business community. In the face of the closure of courts and now the closure to the public of police stations, many residents in the Borders will feel that justice is being withdrawn from the area. Frankly, given the sheer extent of the proposed closures and the refusal of the Scottish Government to intervene, I am shocked by the audacity of the Government’s amendment, which claims that local policing is the
“bedrock of the new service.”
John Lamont mentioned the fact that local businessmen were complaining to him about the closure of police counters. Are you aware of any businessman who has approached you specifically to say “I’m concerned about the issue because I’ve been into a police office in this way”, or are they more concerned about post office closures in their own area? Is that not the reality?
Members must speak through the chair.
All that I can say is that businesses have expressed concerns to me about closures. I also have disabled residents who are unable to use the phone service or get to other locations but who can get to the counter in the local police station. As a result of the reforms or changes—the closures—such residents will no longer be able to interact with the police in the way that they have done in the past. Mr Crawford might be happy to support the proposals, but I am not.
It is worth being clear about why Police Scotland is having to make the savings: it is because the Scottish Government decided that moving to a single police force would save over £100 million a year. Where did that figure come from? It came from an outline business case, drafted in 2011, about which the financial memorandum to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 said that it
“does not provide a plan or blueprint for the future delivery of the services and it is not intended to be used to set future budgets”.
My party wanted the Scottish Government to provide a full business case for police reform so that we were all clear on the savings that would be made under the single police force; instead, the Scottish Government has plucked figures out of the air and imposed huge budget cuts on our police.
There is no wriggle-room for the Scottish Government on this, because it made the decision on the policing budget and the cuts are a direct result of decisions made by the Scottish National Party Government. This is its mess and it needs to intervene to ensure that local policing is protected.
16:25
Local policing is being protected by the Scottish Government. The significant impact of changes to links between communities and their police service can be seen south of the border rather than here, where I think we are doing very well. South of the border, some 4,516 officers disappeared between March 2012 and March 2013. It was the fourth consecutive year of cuts, and 14,186 officers, or 10 per cent of the police, have disappeared south of the border since 2009. A total of 1,300 stations have closed in England. In The Sunday Telegraph on 18 March 2012, Jill Grieve of the Countryside Alliance said that this is the
“death knell for the bobby on the beat.”
That is happening because of Con-Dem policies south of the border.
I believe that we are getting things right here. I am not saying that everything in the garden is rosy, but the reality is that we have to deal with the austerity cuts that have been passed on by Westminster. I believe that the cabinet secretary and the chief constable are taking the right decisions in ensuring that bobbies are on the beat, which gives the public confidence and has resulted in a 39-year low in crime. Having been an elected member in Aberdeen City Council and here for some 14 years, and having served on a police board for 13 years, I have to say that complaints about the police are at an all-time low in my mailbag, too. That is something for which congratulations are due.
I find it bizarre that, as Christine Grahame mentioned, Mr Pearson said on 31 October:
“I indicated that the business case might well justify some offices closing or amending their hours. My position is not that there should be no closures”.—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 31 October 2013; c 259.]
Yet today, we see something different in the motion. I think that Labour is grandstanding and trying to grab headlines, rather than dealing with the realities that we have to face.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I do not have time.
You are in your final minute, Mr Stewart.
At that meeting of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, the chief constable read out extracts from an email from a member of staff who was on counter duties, who decided to take voluntary severance. That person said:
“I did not take this course of action lightly but having experienced a vast reduction in workload over the years, it seemed to me only a matter of time before this happened. We have also been constantly warned for the past three years that this may happen ... The workload has been affected for a variety of reasons, the first being the advent of the Force Contact Centre taking away a huge percentage of phone calls to the front office”.
These are the realities of the world that we live in. People are phoning, emailing and tweeting. People are using modern communication methods to get in touch with the police.
You must finish, please.
The other thing is that they want bobbies on the beat, not the nonsense that we are getting south of the border. The motion is just grandstanding.
Members cannot take more than four minutes and really ought to be taking less.
16:29
It concerns me that Police Scotland finds itself between a rock and a hard place and is forced to look at unpopular, unhelpful and unwanted cuts thanks to a cabinet secretary who has carved police numbers in tablets of stone while making massive budget cuts that threaten the character of Scottish policing.
It is not surprising that the cabinet secretary has not taken responsibility for the consequences of his actions, because we all know that when the going gets tough he passes the buck and hides behind the facade of operational matters. Hundreds of staff posts have been axed, and now police accessibility is under attack. The public—our constituents—are being pushed towards using centralised call centres, instead of being able to visit a local station. That is Kenny MacAskill’s doing, and it is only the beginning, given that £140 million will be cut over the next two years—and that is the Scottish Government’s doing.
The programme of station cuts affects how Scotland is policed. Most people would not call that an operational matter. In my area, the public are very concerned about Wishaw police station, but my call for a public meeting was rejected. Last year, 1,000 people and local businesses said clearly that they wanted a 24/7 police station in Wishaw, and this year they have been joined by hundreds more. Wishaw is a large town, not a small village, and it merits a full-time police station.
This is not just about people’s ability to visit a police station when they need to do so. It is about an important element in the community: a station and a police presence. Downgrading station hours downgrades police availability, and cutting corners by closing stations undermines front-line public contact.
Stephen House said—and I have never heard the cabinet secretary disagree—that a single force would bring stronger community connections, create more equal access and improve local policing. How can that be consistent with cutting and closing police stations and thereby restricting community contact and access?
The proposed changes will create confusion about how to contact local police. Many people will not travel or indeed be able to travel to remote offices, and many will not use call centres. The 101 number is no substitute for local police stations, as the cabinet secretary knows.
If the changes are desirable, why were they not proposed prior to the cuts?
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
The cabinet secretary’s mantra that almost everything is an operational matter has created a policy vacuum, which Police Scotland fills by default. He leaves the police to make policy decisions, with inadequate consultation, on matters such as Taser use and slashing stations. The main exceptions to that are his insistence on Police Scotland maintaining officer numbers, whatever the cost to police effectiveness, and his recent comment that he will prevent former supermarket managers with less than 10 years’ police service from getting promotion.
How such minimal involvement enables the cabinet secretary to claim credit for falling crime rates is a mystery worthy of investigation by Rebus. Meanwhile, major policy decisions are left to unelected officials, leaving the Parliament to ask when the Scottish Government will take back ownership of Scotland’s policing policy.
16:33
We are all aware that police stations are reassuring to the public. Everyone likes to see them. However, the issue is how much they are used and how they are used.
The key issue is how we carry on providing a service to the Scottish people when we are under constant attack from vicious budget cuts from London. We have heard all about what we should be doing and what we should keep; it would be really great if any of the Opposition parties said what it would cut.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am sorry.
I came across a press release on the Scottish Police Federation website.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I just want to point out that that is the fourth member who has not taken an intervention despite having made all sorts of accusations.
That was not a point of order, and I am afraid that I must now take time out of the remainder of the debate.
Brian Docherty, of the Scottish Police Federation, said:
“If under used police offices can be shut to save money then we have no problem with that. It would be nice to have a police officer on every street and a police office in every community but we have to live in the real world.”
Even the police are saying that. Police officers—front-line officers—are saying that.
We accept that we do not live in a perfect world and we are trying to do our best. We are doing an awful lot better than our colleagues down south are doing. I wish that the other parties would at least accept that, because it is their parties and their colleagues who are responsible for what is happening to people down south.
Will Colin Keir take an intervention?
Sorry, but I do not have an awful lot of time left.
How do we produce a modern police force? Surely it is like any business in the sense that it is about communication and speed of action.
I am very lucky. In my constituency, Edinburgh Western, under the leadership of Chief Inspector Dykes and his team, the police work in conjunction with the local community and local council officer. They are moving the Corstorphine front office up to the Drumbrae hub. They are doing something similar over in the cabinet secretary’s constituency, and it puts the whole set-up together. There is, I suppose, an issue of cost—whether it is cost neutral or saves money—but whatever happens it is partnership working. It is doing the best for our communities.
The record low figures are not just national but local. The people who accept the figures are the people who live there.
Will the member give way?
The member is in his last minute.
Here in Edinburgh, the local newspaper is running a campaign on saving the counter facilities. Like at least one other member, I have not received one letter or email about the issue. The campaign is not run on the back of what the police or locals want; it is a campaign that is run by Opposition parties. Quite frankly, I would rather see police out on the street, doing what they are supposed to do, producing record figures and coming out with results that the people accept and realise are the best in 40 years.
16:37
SNP ministers are very vocal in attacking other levels of government when they make bad policy. They attack councils forced to implement their Government’s cuts and they wash their hands of any responsibility. They rightly attack the coalition Government at Westminster for its health service reforms. In doing so, they do not put any blame in the hands of national health service trusts or NHS bureaucracies; they blame the Government.
Contrast that with their attitude to what is happening with the police service in Scotland. When the chief constable takes a wrecking ball and seeks to wipe out one in three of our local police station front counters, does the cabinet secretary rear up in condemnation? Does he tell the chief constable to stop? No. The cabinet secretary is uncharacteristically silent—not a word of condemnation, just a faint whisper of “This is an operational matter for Police Scotland.” He is like a wee laddie with his hand caught in the biscuit tin. Instead of taking responsibility, he turns round and wants to blame somebody else.
I want to focus on West Lothian, in my region. West Lothian is an area that the cabinet secretary knows only too well, having fought and lost six elections there. It is an area with the largest projected population growth in the country. Take a place such as Armadale and Blackridge, where the cabinet secretary stood for the Lothian regional seat. The population is 14,000, and a train station development will see another 3,000 houses built. It is a growing area, with many new items of infrastructure, including two train stations. To complement all that positive development, it will have a closed police station on its main street.
Will the member taken an intervention?
No, thank you.
What about Linlithgow, the cabinet secretary’s home town? It is, again, a town of 14,000 people, which attracts large numbers of visitors throughout the year. Guess what, though? It has no publicly accessible police station. Does the cabinet secretary seriously believe that the good people of Linlithgow have no interest in that issue and that they have made no representations on it? He knows them better than that.
What about West Calder and the Breich valley, where villages such as Polbeth and Addiewell—communities that really need police support and access to a station—will be left without that support and access? At Addiewell, there is a prison of 800 inmates. For the village in the vicinity of a prison to have no accessible police station is just plain stupidity.
Christine Grahame, who I see has left the chamber, says that she works in new ways, including by holding surgeries in Tesco. I bet that she does not close her constituency office for ever when she does those surgeries.
For only 70 or so members of the public to have responded to the Police Scotland consultation shows not that people are not interested but that the process is fundamentally flawed.
In West Calder, I conducted my own consultation. In that town of 5,500 people, I received more than 100 written replies to my questionnaire, all of which have been passed to the chief constable. Why are they not included in the consultation response numbers? I also received 120 emails—he will know about that because 120 copies were sent to him as well—and a petition complaining about the attack on community policing, which was also sent to the chief constable.
Had there been time to do so, I would have done the same in other affected communities, but of course the consultation period was unbelievably short. If we had, however, I believe that we would have got the same response.
The cabinet secretary is, as he famously said, tired of marching, but surely even he can muster up the energy to stop that sham in its tracks. He is politically accountable for the decisions, and I am afraid that, on this one, he is guilty as charged.
16:40
Six months on from the dissolution of our local police forces, we are seeing the true face of the SNP’s centralisation agenda: asset stripping and the erosion of local services. That is why we need to go back to first base and ask whether we want a police service that is rooted in our communities, open, accessible and welcoming, or whether we are willing to settle for a faceless, increasingly impersonal enforcement agency.
Modern policing is a complex business that relies on the interaction between police officers, specialist civilian staff and—crucially—members of the community. To portray it in the way that SNP members have done in the debate—that bobbies on the beat somehow trump everyone else—is trivialising and damaging. We are being offered a one-dimensional version of the police force and we should say no thanks.
Civilian staff have been a vital part of Scotland’s community policing. Intelligence analysts, custody officers, community wardens, control room staff and counter desk staff—we could go on for ever—are the people who have helped us to reach the 39-year low in recorded crime. The Government is quick to laud that figure but it seems all too slow to recognise the role that police support staff have played in achieving it. That 39-year low in crime—a trend across the UK—is due to the hard work of the legacy forces and testament to the community-based policing model.
In the past two years, 1,400 civilian posts have been lost. The haemorrhaging of civilian staff must be staunched. It is threatening the health of our police service. The SNP Government needs to take heed or risk losing the community focus and, thereafter, the public trust that, until now, have been the foundation of policing in Scotland.
Dozens of front desks from Stromness to Kirkcudbright are to close or have their opening hours slashed based on a questionable review and out-of-date figures. More than 6,000 hours of public contact will be lost each week and police control rooms are to close. That is more than just an inconvenience for people; it is indicative of a wider problem: the new police service does not recognise how important community policing and public trust are to reducing and preventing crime.
The mantra from the Government members of 1,000 extra officers no longer fools many people. Having more officers benefits no one if it is an illusion because they are unable to get on with the roles that they have been trained to do. Just now, we have a police service that values community interaction and says, “Our door is open to you if you need us or can help us.” Police Scotland proposes to turn its back on our communities, lock the station doors and say, “Don’t even bother trying to come and see us.”
We come to closing speeches. I call Alex Fergusson with a tight four minutes.
16:43
The topic is no trivial matter, as most members’ speeches have shown. However, it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the police, as some members have tried to imply. We are talking about the closure to the public of a third of our police stations and significant reductions in opening hours for many more. Unlike some members, I have had a lot of emails about it.
The Scottish Government may want to wash its hands of the proposal and say that it is an operational matter for the police, but it will affect communities throughout Scotland and the SNP Government cannot and should not continue to ignore it.
As a Scottish Conservative, I believe that justice is best and most effectively delivered locally and that the Government is failing to support local policing. The Government should at the very least make it clear to Police Scotland that the closures should be reconsidered. Instead, all that we have had is characteristic bluster from the cabinet secretary and rather limp figures from the First Minister.
Police Scotland is a creation of the Government that my party did not support. We expressed concerns that the single police force would encourage centralisation and that the Government’s legislation would neither enhance nor protect local policing. I believe that those concerns have been fully justified.
The Scottish Government told the Parliament that the single police force would not result in centralisation, yet we now face the closure of front desks across the country and of regional control rooms. The Scottish Government told the Parliament that, by reducing duplication, the single police force would protect front-line services. I must ask: what could be more front line than the front desk of a police station?
As has been highlighted, there were clear flaws in Police Scotland’s consultation process. Some of the footfall analysis was carried out in 2009, since when a number of stations have closed. In my region, which is Dumfries and Galloway, the Dalry, Gretna, Moffat, Machars and Thornhill police stations are set to close to the public—without any analysis having been done—simply because they do not have a permanently staffed front counter. I argue strongly that the presence of those stations gives the community a huge feeling of security and reassurance.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not when I have four minutes—I am sorry.
The removal of those stations will have a seriously negative impact on the affected communities.
I fully accept that some stations that are earmarked for closure are not exceptionally busy. In my constituency, Dalbeattie, Kirkcudbright and Newton Stewart are set to lose public counter provision, and a significant reduction in hours is proposed for the stations in Lockerbie, Sanquhar and Annan in the wider region. Those stations are the interface between the public and the police in Dumfries and Galloway. It is not as if they are not being used. In the 13-day review period, Dalbeattie received 82 visitors over 10 days, Kirkcudbright had 105 visitors and Newton Stewart had 110 visitors in 12 days.
Let us be honest—we have all been here before. Relatively recently, the Scottish Court Service proposed the closure of a third of Scotland’s sheriff courts, including that in Kirkcudbright, in my constituency. As with the proposals for court closures, the closure of police stations to the public flies in the face of the local delivery of justice. As with the court closures, the consultation process has been flawed. As with court closures, the SNP Government is failing to stand up for local communities.
In the debate on court closures, I made the point that people are already putting up with an enormous amount of inconvenience to play their part in ensuring that justice is done. The Government is undermining people’s willingness to do that. It did so with court closures and is doing the same with the station proposals.
I argue strongly that increasing centralisation is no way to encourage people to engage with our justice system, and it is most definitely not in the interests of local justice. I support the motion.
16:47
I will refer to the substantive motion from the Labour Party and to the SNP amendment in my name, but a subtext from the Opposition parties has run through the debate, and I will refer to that, too.
The motion refers to counter closures. Christine Grahame gave the clear position on what the police want to be done and why that is common sense. Colin Keir confirmed that we have heard a lot of manufactured outrage in the chamber. Indeed, we have heard a lot of cant and something that is, if not hypocrisy, not far off it, given what is happening south of the border.
The real facts are as stated by Christine Grahame. I found Kezia Dugdale’s speech rather bizarre. Perhaps, on her travels, she interacted with the inspectors in Portobello, Craigmillar and Howdenhall.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Perhaps Kezia Dugdale would like to intervene to tell me the names of the inspectors at those stations.
In my speech, I reported the concerns of 200 of my constituents, who also happen to be the cabinet secretary’s constituents. Will he really ignore the views of the people whom he seeks to represent?
Kezia Dugdale might do herself a favour if she interacted with Inspectors Hardie, Clyde and Bowie—that might do her some good and she might learn what is happening on the ground.
We have an outstanding police service in east Edinburgh, which we should not traduce. Kezia Dugdale knows as well as I do that officers in that area have dealt with the discharge of semi-automatic weapons.
Backfilling has been raised, as has the 101 number, which Sandra White dealt with eloquently. One reason why the 101 number was introduced was because of the difficulties that people had in being able to access a number when they were not in their home locality. If someone was from Grampian and they were in Glasgow, what number did they call? If they were in Lothian and Borders and were visiting Dumfries and Galloway, what was the local number?
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Perhaps Siobhan McMahon would like to tell me what the number was, prior to 101, that people dialled in Lothian and Borders.
I did dial 101 in that particular locality only a few weeks ago, and I was told not to report the crime on the phone but to go into the local police office, which I do not understand. Why was that?
Members: Oh.
Order.
First, I will just advise the member that the number for Lothian and Borders—[Interruption.]
Order, please.
The number was 311 31 31.
Equally, there are incidents that the control room quite correctly says must go to a police station—such as, understandably, incidents of a sexual nature or assaults. Such incidents would have to be dealt with by the police station—those are the facts that are dealt with, without the manufactured outrage.
There is a subtext here, so let us realise that and refer to it. We know that we have a better together campaign in the chamber, as indeed we have outwith it, in which we have unity between the coalition partners of the Tory Government and its Liberal Democrat allies along with their Labour colleagues.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
We know that their better together campaign is about working together—[Interruption.]
Order, please.
We are seeing a traducing of the police service south of the border. In some ways, the police have to answer and account for any omissions or commissions, but let me say that I have a high regard for the police service south of the border.
What is shameful is that matters that have affected the police service south of the border should result in a traducing of the police service north of the border. People should have more support for a police service that has served us outstandingly. It has a considerable record and should not face being challenged when we have a 39-year low in recorded crime, when we have the lowest number of homicides since records began and when we have a 60 per cent drop in violent crime and in knife carrying since we came into office.
Would the cabinet secretary look at the motion again and acknowledge that we do not seek to denigrate police officers in any way? What we criticise is the cabinet secretary’s responsibility for policy in future.
There are two factors there. Perhaps Mr Pearson would like to comment about whether we are in fact taking power back here. Mr Pentland said that the Scottish Government should take back ownership of Scottish policing. I thought that we had decided in this chamber that that would not be the position that any justice secretary would ever have, whether that would be me or my successors. If Labour is changing its policy, it should tell us. I have to say that I think that that would be a wrong step. It would not be appropriate and we will not be heading in that direction. If I am wrong, Labour should perhaps tell us.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
The cabinet secretary is approaching his last minute.
Equally, we have to say that we have an outstanding police service. Let us be clear: whatever the substantive motion has been, the subtext has been to trash the outgoing and on-going service of the Scottish police force.
What we have to remember, as we face a better together campaign, is that Labour is now considering its position on universal services. It is considering whether matters that we viewed as sacrosanct should be jettisoned: whether tuition fees should be reimposed; whether bus passes should be removed; and whether free personal care should be taken away. That is shameful enough on its own, but when those who went through higher education pull up their drawbridge and seek to take away that opportunity from those following, they should hang their heads in shame.
Equally, I have to put it on record that those who served with honour and credit—as Mr Pearson did—ill-serve themselves to trash and traduce the record of their successors, who serve the Scottish police force and their communities magnificently well. [Interruption.]
Order. I call Elaine Murray to wind up—six minutes, please.
16:53
I intend to—[Interruption.]
Order, please. If I have to call for order again, the time will come out of the closing speech, and that is not acceptable.
Dr Murray.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I intend to address the issue of policing in Scotland not south of the border, which Mr MacAskill frequently referred to in his diversionary tactics. Scottish Labour supported the creation of a single police force. We believed that it could provide the most effective and efficient use of policing resources, especially at a time of financial constraint, and that it could enable all parts of Scotland to benefit from specialist units that smaller units in particular would not be able to maintain.
We also believed—this is very important—that economies of scale should release resources to strengthen local policing. Of course, there were always concerns about local accountability, although we were assured that it would be enhanced following the creation of Police Scotland. It was always difficult to see how this would work in the case of Dumfries and Galloway, which had its own force, but the arguments throughout Scotland that policing would be accountable to every local authority rather than to multi-authority police boards implied that, generally speaking, accountability to local government would be improved.
However, in the first six months we have seen increasing centralisation rather than the preservation and promotion of local policing. The wholesale destruction of employment in the police staff sector has contributed to the disappointment that is felt. Police Scotland stated in written evidence to the Justice Committee that it was expecting 800 jobs to be lost in 2013-14 alone; that will contribute £25.5 million to the required savings of £70 million for next year.
The chief constable told the Justice Committee last week that, although savings would be sought elsewhere, there was “no doubt” in his mind—given that almost 90 per cent of Police Scotland’s budget goes on staff costs—that
“as the years pass, there will be further reductions in the number of civilian staff.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 29 October 2013; c 3406.]
Those posts are being lost even before the number of control rooms is reduced. We are told that the decisions about the number and location of control rooms have yet to be taken, but part of the process of reducing the numbers of civilian staff involves closing police office counters—and the primary reason for those proposals is the SNP Government’s budgetary cuts.
Unison, as the union that represents police staff, believes that the police and fire reform exercise has been rushed, and that a massive de-civilianisation exercise—which is designed to reduce the budget rather than duplication—is in full swing. As Unison has consistently argued, posts in certain areas of the organisation must be backfilled by police officers to allow staff to be released on voluntary redundancy or early retirement schemes. The chief constable argues that there is no strategy to use police officers for backfilling, but that does not mean that it is not happening.
Redundancies are required because of duplication. Elaine Murray criticises the numbers that are being considered by the SPA. How many civilian posts does she think should go?
That is not my argument. My argument is that, while you dictate the number of police officers, you say when we come to discuss the number of police staff that that is an operational matter. There is a double standard in the way you treat staff in the police service.
The member should speak through the chair, please.
My colleague Graeme Pearson highlighted the use of police officers to deliver citations. We have heard it argued that that is police out on the streets, but people want to see police on the beat, deterring and preventing crime, not chapping on the door and delivering citations.
Christine Grahame implied that the counter closures were somehow releasing police, but that is not the case. The counter closure proposals have nothing to do with releasing police officers to give them time to work in the community. The jobs that will go are, again, civilian posts.
The argument that the counters that are being closed are not used is hollow too. Some might not be used, and in those cases there will be very little public resistance, but some are very well used. The Edinburgh Evening News—which is hardly an organ of the Labour Party—has pointed out that 100,000 visits are made every year to the 10 police counters that are proposed for closure in Edinburgh and the Lothians. A third of those counters are in West Lothian, as my colleague Neil Findlay pointed out.
The times of operation of other counters are being drastically reduced. We heard about counters in large stations in Glasgow that it is proposed will have their hours reduced from 24-hour opening to daytime only, many in unsuitable locations. The idea that the 101 number or social media can somehow replace the reassurance of contact with a member of police staff at a police office counter at a time of crisis is risible.
I was interested to hear what Kezia Dugdale told us about Kenny MacAskill’s constituents, and I was even more amused by the idea that he is, at the same time as boasting about an all-time low in crime, surveying his constituents about an increase in break-ins and anti-social behaviour.
The member is in her final minute.
I am pleased that Police Scotland has recognised public concern, and has agreed to extend the consultation period—or at least to accept and consider late responses—for another 30 days.
The revelations in the press last Friday that Police Scotland may be considering promoting some senior officers with pay rises of at least £8,000 is hardly going to increase the morale of the much-put-upon civilian staff. It is no wonder that so many of them are offering to leave on ER and VR schemes.
The cabinet secretary loves to argue that these are operational matters for Police Scotland. However, the Government cannot continue to claim credit for all the good news such as 1,000 more police officers—320 of which are paid for by local authorities—while distancing itself from the unpleasant consequences such as the loss of civilian posts and the police counter closures.
John Pentland was right to say that the Government needs to take responsibility for the consequences of its actions. It cannot claim operational distance on some issues and claim credit on the rest.