Aberdeen Forensic Science Laboratory
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-2957, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, on Aberdeen forensic science laboratory. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the proposals made by the Scottish Police Services Authority for the closure of the forensic science laboratory in Aberdeen; welcomes the direction issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the authority in May 2008 that it should engage in fresh consultation with interested parties; considers, with regret, that the authority's consultation document published in November 2008 amounts to no more than a further case for closure; believes that the authority has thereby appeared to suggest that the conclusion of its consultation has already been determined in favour of closure, and further believes that the continued provision of forensic services to Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary by the forensic laboratory in Aberdeen is one of a number of options worthy of proper consideration in a meaningful consultation process.
On 18 December 2007, staff were called together to be told that the Scottish Police Services Authority had launched a review of forensic services with a view to advising ministers to close the forensic laboratory and fingerprint unit in Aberdeen. The people who attended the meeting report that the authority's director of forensic services, Tom Nelson, was apologetic, not about the proposal to put an excellent service out of business but about being obliged by leaks and rumours to tell staff of the plans
"before a decision had been made".
The cavalier approach to consultation has continued since then. In every action, senior managers of the SPSA have reinforced the impression that they have already decided that they want to close the Aberdeen facilities. A business case, which was prepared last February and made public only as a result of a freedom of information request, made clear the authority's intention to close Aberdeen and use savings arising from the closure to build a new forensic laboratory in Dundee.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice approved a new build in Dundee in May last year but told the authority that there should be a "full, frank and transparent" consultation on plans to close the Aberdeen laboratory. Even after his comments, senior management acted as though there were only one option for the future of forensic services in Scotland: a two-centre model, starting with the closure of the Aberdeen laboratory.
More than a year after the first announcement, the staff union—Unison—has yet to be consulted. Promises by Mr Nelson and his chief executive to publish a formal consultation paper have not been kept. The document that the authority produced in November offers not options but more arguments for closure. It is entitled, "Delivering forensic services to north and north-east Scotland: Addressing the key questions", but it raises more questions than it answers. Ministers have received a copy of Unison's response to the document, which reflects the expertise and judgment of forensic and fingerprint staff in Aberdeen. I hope that ministers have had the opportunity to read the response, which addresses the key questions of why SPSA management is so determined on closure and what effect closure would have.
The staff's case is simple: forensic science is vital in the fight against crime and the service that is provided from Aberdeen to Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary is second to none. The excellent performance of the Aberdeen service is a model for the close partnership working that the SPSA says it wants to encourage.
Staff and their union have campaigned vigorously against the closure proposal. An electronic petition launched by Unison attracted more than 2,000 signatures in a matter of weeks, and the petition was formally lodged with the Scottish Parliament this week. Many of the people who are affected by the closure proposal have taken the opportunity to come here today to speak to MSPs and to hear what ministers have to say.
On Tuesday morning, colleagues from across the north-east and I met the Minister for Community Safety and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to express our concerns about the flawed consultation process. Kenny MacAskill was clear: he said that no decision had been taken, either by ministers or by the SPSA, and that the new convener of the SPSA board would be asked to review the consultation to date to ensure that all relevant information had been fully taken into account.
Colleagues left that meeting under the impression that, for the first time, there was some prospect of a fair and balanced review of the process by a new and impartial convener. How shocking it was, then, to hear the SPSA's director of forensic services on Radio Scotland this morning.
"I want every pound spent to have a significant return for the communities of Scotland,"
said Mr Nelson, reasonably enough,
"and therefore I want to make sure that where we invest that money we will get that return."
Mr Nelson continued:
"I believe that will be through a merger of the Aberdeen and Dundee laboratories into a new purpose-built facility in Dundee, to allow us to provide that excellent service to the whole of the north and north-east of Scotland."
There was not much sign in those comments of a review of the consultation. Has Mr Nelson told ministers yet that he believes that the only way forward is to close the Aberdeen laboratory?
I assure my colleague that he and the staff in Aberdeen have the full support of the staff of the forensic service in Edinburgh. Although there are no plans as yet to close the Edinburgh service—the cabinet secretary has said to me in a letter that there are no "current" plans—we believe that Edinburgh could be next on the hit list. The staff, the unions and the local MSPs will fight vigorously to ensure that that does not happen.
I thank George Foulkes for those remarks.
Have ministers told Mr Nelson that the consultation so far is supposed to be under review? It appears that he has not heard that.
I have invited Vic Emery, the new convener of the SPSA board, to meet MSPs at Holyrood next Tuesday afternoon. We will put all our questions to him, but I hope that Fergus Ewing can tell us tonight whether the views of Mr Nelson are those of the SPSA and whether he believes that there can be a fair and balanced consultation when the responsible officer of the authority is so emphatic in his belief that closing the lab in Aberdeen is the right thing to do.
The final decision will not be for Mr Nelson or even Mr Emery to make; it will be for ministers. Of course, it is open to ministers to call a halt to this whole sorry consultation process today. If they will not do that, I hope that they will at least recognise the strength of the case for the continued development of forensic services for the north of Scotland, delivered from Aberdeen—whatever advice they receive from the SPSA. I hope that ministers will reject all closure plans for any of the laboratories that serve Scotland.
We now move to the open debate and speeches of four minutes. I remind members that it is their responsibility to keep an eye on the time.
I should declare an interest, although it is not a pecuniary one. Before becoming a member of this Parliament, I helped to provide some of the forensic services in question. The SPSA document that Lewis Macdonald mentioned indicates that the antecedents of the organisation were a series of laboratories set up on an ad hoc basis. Even today, not all of the forensic science services in Scotland are delivered by the SPSA. There is nothing particularly wrong with that.
The SPSA is a creature of this Parliament and successive Governments. It was set up by the previous Administration with the support of what has become the current Administration, and there is no objection in principle to its existence. However, it has had a tough baptism: the people who have led it have not had the best hand of cards to play, but I suspect that objective observers might feel that they have not played their cards well at all.
We are having this debate because last May, following an abortive consultation, the cabinet secretary determined that further work needed to be done on the SPSA's proposals for the delivery of forensic sciences services—fingerprinting as well as laboratory services—for the north and north-east. Like other members, I took an active interest in the issue and got involved in considering how we might address it. However, I was disappointed that no consultation document per se was produced, in spite of what I thought were fairly firm assurances by the SPSA's senior staff that that would happen.
I am disappointed that what was produced was a document that should just have been called, for example, "10 reasons to close Aberdeen" or "Why we should justify our original proposals". It does not take a balanced look at the issue at all. Indeed, if members look at the document, they might think that the current services in Aberdeen are being provided in totally inadequate facilities and that the services are less than adequate. The direct opposite is true: the SPSA has had the capital investment to provide proper facilities and further capital investment has been promised by both Grampian joint police board and Northern Constabulary police board. That further investment of £600,000 or so has been put on hold as a consequence of the current exercise.
Had some of the other authorities in Scotland had the foresight and the commitment to forensic services that existed in the north-east, we would perhaps not be in the state that we are in. As far as I am aware, no one suggests for a minute that laboratory services and forensic science services in general should not be provided out of Dundee, and I welcome that investment, but I do not think that it should be made at the expense of the level and quality of service in the north-east, with all the uncertainties that that has caused. Indeed, in terms of the intangibles that much of this debate should be about—it is not just about numbers—Mr Ewing suggested in the previous debate—
I am afraid that the member's time is up—I am sorry.
I first wrote to Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, about this issue 11 months ago, in February 2008. I have had meetings with the chief executive of the SPSA, the director of forensic services and the staff, union representatives and management at the forensic lab and fingerprint unit. I have met Grampian's chief constable and, along with MSP colleagues from the north-east, I met the cabinet secretary on Tuesday.
What I want to say at the outset—I hope that the minister is listening, because this is the crux of the matter—is that if I believed for one moment that what the SPSA proposes would benefit the efficient detection and prevention of serious crime in the north-east I would be the first person to support it. I said so to the staff, the management, the chief executive and the director of forensic services at the SPSA. However, it soon became obvious to me that the SPSA proposed to move to Dundee simply to make best use, from its perspective, of the money that the Scottish Government made available to it. Its proposal was not about increasing the service to the police in Grampian; it was simply a cost-cutting exercise to fund the SPSA's new build in Dundee.
The views of Grampian's chief constable and its joint police board, as service users, are extremely important in this case. As the MSP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, my duty is to represent the best interests of my constituents. I have to take notice, as do ministers, when the chief constable makes it clear that the proposal to move the service to Dundee will have a detrimental impact on the effective detection of murders and other serious crimes in the north-east.
I was pleased to hear last May that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice had said that the SPSA should engage in a fresh consultation with interested parties. In my meetings with the chief executive of the SPSA, I was assured that that consultation would include different options for the future of the service. I was outraged by the consultation document that was produced in November, because it outlined just one option and gave 10 spurious economic reasons for closing Aberdeen down. In a letter that Lewis Macdonald and I received from Kenny MacAskill, we were told that that document was not actually a "consultation document" and at our meeting with him this week I was pleased to hear him say that he has "parked" that flawed document—although I am not quite clear what he meant by that—and asked the new chair of the SPSA to re-examine the whole issue, but I was disappointed to hear him say that he would not ask for the production of a new consultation document that would examine several options for the future delivery of the service, one of which must be the continued use of the base in Aberdeen.
It is clear to everyone that the SPSA has only one objective: to close down the Aberdeen laboratory and move its services to Dundee. Lewis Macdonald made that point absolutely clear in his radio interview this morning. Everyone involved in the Aberdeen service—staff, management and, most important, the service users—say quite clearly that the closure would have a detrimental effect on the excellent service that is currently provided.
I remind the minister that he cannot ignore the unanimous view that has been expressed by MSPs of all parties from the north-east. The Government has a real responsibility in the matter. The cabinet secretary will make the final decision; he must make the right decision. As far as I am concerned, if the chief constable is telling him that the proposal is bad for Grampian Police, it follows that the proposal is bad for my constituents, who rely on the effective performance of the police service. I urge the minister to listen to the common sense that has been said to him tonight.
I commend Lewis Macdonald for securing this important debate and for including members of all parties in the discussions that have preceded it.
At stake is the future provision of a state-of-the-art quality forensic science service for north and north-east Scotland. The service allows its highly skilled personnel to assist the police in crime detection primarily by using their expertise, backed up by modern equipment and technology, to identify the perpetrators of the crimes that the police seek to solve.
As Mike Rumbles said, if we thought that closing the Aberdeen forensic laboratory and fingerprint unit and centralising forensic services for the north of Scotland in Dundee were part of a well-thought-out and unbiased proposal that would give that part of Scotland the world-class service the SPSA aspires to provide, I am sure that this evening's debate would not be happening.
The more I have read and heard in recent months, the more concerned I have become that the proposal to close the Aberdeen lab is not based on the result of meaningful consultation with all key stakeholders. The SPSA has not weighed up the positives and negatives of the case and considered alternative solutions. The closure is, rather, an ill-thought-out proposal, driven solely by economics, to support the business case that has been put up by Dundee.
In May last year, I was pleased when the Cabinet Secretary for Justice directed the SPSA to engage in fresh consultation with interested parties. Like others, I was assured that the consultation would be full, frank and transparent. I was therefore as dismayed as everyone else to see the new document, which professes to address the key questions surrounding the delivery of forensic services to north and north-east Scotland, albeit that it is not meant to be a consultation paper but a means of focusing the discussion. Far from addressing the issues in an open and unbiased manner, the document merely expands on the reasons for closing the Aberdeen laboratory and fails to consider any other options. It gives the impression—not the correct impression, I hope—that the SPSA has a closed mind and will not look at other possibilities.
There appears to have been no meaningful consultation. We know that the unions have not yet been formally consulted, although that is about to happen. We do not know whether the procurator fiscal or forensic pathologists in Aberdeen and Raigmore have been asked for their opinions. We do not have an up-to-date view from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, although we know that Grampian Police is very much against the proposal to close the Aberdeen lab and Northern Constabulary has serious concerns about it.
We also know that the KPMG report of 2003 and the Noble report of 2004, which have been much quoted by the SPSA, recommended new builds at Dundee and Glasgow but did not recommend any closures. The KPMG report stated that the human resources costs alone involved in relocation, even before considering the damage to service provision through loss of experienced staff, would be prohibitive. While I fully accept that new facilities in Dundee and Glasgow are needed—that is not in dispute—I fail to see that a proper assessment has been made of the impact of closing Aberdeen. The Aberdeen lab currently provides an excellent service to the whole of the north of Scotland and has received significant investment in its facilities. Indeed, finance and plans are available for co-locating all crime and major investigative and specialist support services on a single site in Aberdeen.
I agree with my colleagues that the consultation process so far does not inspire confidence that it will lead to unbiased recommendations to the Government from the SPSA, and I welcome the fact that a new board convener of that organisation is to be asked to review the consultation to date and carry out any further consultation with stakeholders that he considers necessary. I hope that the minister will put it on record this evening that no decision has yet been taken on the future of the Aberdeen lab and that nothing has been ruled out or in.
There are many factors to be considered, and of course they include costs, but the ultimate goal must be the best possible forensic science provision to give the best possible support to our police in their pursuit of criminals.
I congratulate Lewis Macdonald on securing the debate and on his work, as the constituency MSP, for the laboratory in the campaign to secure its future and repel the threat of closure. It has been a cross-party campaign, as is evident from the speeches that have been made in the debate.
What has made clear to me the compelling argument for keeping the lab open is not just the concerns of Grampian Police and the Northern Constabulary and the quite unequivocal statement of Colin McKerracher, the chief constable of Grampian Police, on the detrimental impact that closure would have on solving crime across the north of Scotland, but the passion, commitment and ability of the staff in Aberdeen. Along with their trade union, Unison, they have made a compelling case against closure in the context of a totally inadequate consultation process. I point to the excellent vision for the future for the service in the north that the staff produced in the excellent document called "Building on Success"—it is a successful laboratory, as members have said—and the excellent documents produced by the fingerprint unit and the forensic laboratory staff that provide a real map for improving the service in Aberdeen that will benefit the service throughout Scotland.
The contrast between those excellent documents and the one from the SPSA is that the latter is not a consultation document at all and it does not add much to the debate apart from a sense that we will not be able to change the SPSA's mind. On that basis, it is regrettable that the cabinet secretary has not done more to ensure that the consultation process is adequate and working.
What has taken place as a consultation has been totally inadequate. Of course, it has taken place against a backdrop of organisational turmoil in the SPSA, which gives me no more confidence in the proposed plans. I believe that the Northern Constabulary was not even consulted. Although I hope that the cabinet secretary and the minister will ensure that the lab does not close, if it is closed on the basis of a totally flawed consultation process, that will be even more detrimental, destructive and wrong.
As Lewis Macdonald said, Tom Nelson of the SPSA said:
"I want every pound spent to have a significant return for the communities of Scotland".
I argue—I think that we are all arguing—that if that is to be true for the north of Scotland, the Aberdeen lab must be kept open because it is delivering an excellent service now and helping to tackle and solve crime now.
Mike Rumbles is right: this comes across as a cost-cutting exercise. I believe that the cabinet secretary has said that there is no budgetary pressure to close the Aberdeen lab, so surely there is no argument for its closure at all, because its closure would diminish the ability of our local police to solve crime—and I cannot believe that services throughout Scotland would benefit from its closure. I hope that the minister and the cabinet secretary will recognise that, will ensure that an excellent facility remains open and, in doing so, will ensure that a decision that would hamper the tackling of crime in our community does not go ahead. I hope that the lab in Aberdeen can build on its success and on the passion, commitment and abilities of its staff.
I, too, thank Lewis Macdonald for securing the debate, and emphasise that there is cross-party Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party and Conservative support for the services.
At the meeting that we had with Kenny MacAskill and Fergus Ewing on Tuesday, neither sought to defend the consultation document.
We believe that the consultation is deeply flawed. As Mike Rumbles and others have said, possible future models for the service were not offered in the consultation document although they had been promised, and the case for the closure of the laboratory in Aberdeen has been torn apart by the two response documents from the staff and the trade union. No proper case has been made, and the only reason is cost—the financial argument. There is a lot of anger at the deficient, defective proposal to close the facilities—anger from the staff, from police, from members of the police board and, tonight, from MSPs.
On Tuesday, we were pushed towards the new convener of the SPSA, Vic Emery, whom I know and who is a very capable business leader. However, the SPSA already has an entrenched position on the issue, which we have heard about this evening. The truth is that, if we expect the SPSA to change its mind, even under a new chair, we should not hold our breath. The simple fact remains that the buck stops with the ministers and the ministers should reject the closure plans. It should be a simple decision. I urge the ministers to read thoroughly the case for retaining the Aberdeen forensic and fingerprint services, which is contained in the two documents that I mentioned.
The decision is simple, because closing the Aberdeen laboratory and moving to Dundee will lead to a deterioration in the service that is provided. Closure will damage the fight against crime in the north-east and in the north of Scotland. That is not just my view and the view of MSPs; it is the view of the chief constable of Grampian, of the Northern Constabulary, of the police board in Grampian and of experts throughout Grampian and, I believe, further afield.
The forensic service is vital to the future of the battle against crime in the north-east, and demand for the service is increasing significantly, year on year. Closing the laboratories in Aberdeen and Edinburgh and centralising services in Dundee and Gartcosh is not acceptable to me, or to the members who are in the chamber tonight; yet that is clearly the SPSA's aim. I say to the minister that that objective should be rejected, and it can be rejected only by the Government.
I, too, congratulate Lewis Macdonald on securing this extremely important debate, in which I am happy to take part. Nevertheless, I would have been much happier if we had not been having the debate for the good reason that the SPSA had carried out a good consultation and had justified what it was saying. Some of my colleagues have referred to a consultation that, to be honest, I have not seen. I have seen documents saying what the SPSA wants to do. I understand that those who manage businesses are entitled to a view on what they want to do; however, I have not yet seen a consultation.
In the document that the SPSA produced, there seems to be a hope. I cannot give the page number, as the document does not have page numbers. It states:
"In addition to retaining the full team of crime scene examiners in Aberdeen and Inverness, we will also ensure a scientific input in Aberdeen. Under our current proposals we will embed a forensic scientist in the Grampian ‘forensic gateway' to support the force"—
and so on. I question whether one scientist is enough to do that. Nevertheless, the germ of a way forward is in the statement that the SPSA will retain
"a full team of crime scene examiners".
I do not know quite what constitutes a full team of crime scene examiners—no doubt, those who are in the public gallery tonight could tell me—but it seems that the SPSA recognises that it needs to retain something in Aberdeen. We have all agreed that that is right, and it is certainly the case that what is retained should be retained in Aberdeen because some 60 per cent of the Grampian region's crime occurs in Aberdeen, despite the fact that it has only 40 per cent of the population.
It is not a question of how many staff should be retained in Aberdeen. The question is simply whether the service in Aberdeen and Grampian will be degraded. The chief constable believes that it will be.
I do not wish to disagree with the chief constable, whose view I endorse. I accept that that is what Colin McKerracher is saying. I am not in a position to disagree with him.
It seems to me that, if the SPSA recognises that it must leave a resource of whatever size in Aberdeen, it should also ask what facilities it would be economically possible to put beside it. It should look at the argument that way around. If it does, I think that it will end up with extremely different numbers from the ones that it has come up with, because it is not going to close the resource at all, which means that it is not going to get the savings that it says that it will. I suspect that the back-of-a-fag-packet calculations that have been used internally are totally spurious. I think that we are already beginning to see that.
The cost structures for the proposals have not been made available for scrutiny. They could have been made available to MSPs on a confidential basis—we see plenty of confidential information—but, as far as I am aware, no one has seen anything.
Equally, the analysis of the extremely expensive analytical machinery could have been provided. I have seen no costings or any other justification for having bits of machinery in one place or another. I suspect that that information would not even be private, as I am pretty sure that those who are skilled in the art know perfectly well what those numbers are and could provide them.
Overall, it seems to me that the SPSA has failed to take the issue seriously. It has simply decided what it wants to do. I must add that nothing that is being said this evening—I hope—is to derogate from the fact the Dundee facility needs to be revitalised. No one has anything against Dundee, least of all me, as the city is part of the region that I represent.
We have seen no serious analysis of the situation and, until we have seen that, we will not believe that the SPSA is trying to make the right decision.
I am pleased to speak in this debate as a Highlands and Islands MSP, because moving the forensics lab from Aberdeen to Dundee will have a serious impact on the work of not only Grampian Police, but Northern Constabulary.
Some of the best-trained police civilian staff scientists have been employed in Aberdeen since 1969, which makes the lab, which does excellent-quality work, the second-oldest police lab in Scotland.
Northern Constabulary has serious concerns about the quality of service that might be delivered following the proposed move to Dundee. In a recent meeting with Northern Constabulary, SNP, Labour and Conservative MSPs heard fulsome praise for the hard-working and dedicated staff of the Aberdeen lab. The representatives of Northern Constabulary confirmed that an excellent service had been provided by the lab over the years and said that they were truly concerned about the uncertainty around the lab's future.
Nicol Stephen talks about the anger of staff. Before today, I had not met any of the staff. The concerns that I am raising come from the police officers and others in Northern Constabulary.
This is not only a debate about uncertainty about the proposed changes to this excellent service and concerns about delays in processing evidence due to those changes; it is a debate about a sham consultation that did not involve even Northern Constabulary or the unions.
The Aberdeen laboratory processes evidence from an area of 14,500 square miles, which is nearly 50 per cent of the land mass of Scotland. The lab serves more than 813,000 people from Unst in Shetland to Glencoe in the south.
It is true that investment has not been forthcoming in recent years for the Dundee lab and that its current site must be vacated by 2011—for its owners, Tayside Police. However, that investment should not be made at the expense of the custom-built, state-of-the-art, fit-for-purpose and highly valued forensics and fingerprint facility in Aberdeen.
In the Highlands, where major crimes are, thankfully, rare, volume crimes such as minor assaults and theft are of the greatest concern. During one week in November last year, there were three murder inquiries in Aberdeen, yet there was no backlog in the volume-crime services while those murders were being investigated. In other words, the murder investigations did not impact on the service that was provided to Northern Constabulary. That continuity of service simply could not happen if the lab in Dundee took cases from up to four different forces. Volume crime might be pushed to the back of the queue as more pressing, high-profile crimes came in.
On recent visits to Orkney and Shetland, I found that officers there have serious concerns about getting evidence to the lab in Dundee. At present, they can get a direct ferry or plane to Aberdeen, drop off the evidence and return to their station, often with the results, to continue their duties. If we add a trip to Dundee, they could be forced to stay on the mainland overnight, which will increase the costs and the time that is taken and might reduce visible policing on the islands.
As Brian Adam said, £600,000 has been set aside for the Aberdeen lab. I ask the minister whether he appreciates that Grampian joint police board felt it necessary to threaten the SPSA with freedom of information requests.
Sorry. The member's time is up.
The Minister for Community Safety, who will sum up the debate, also summed up the previous debate. If I heard him correctly, he said that what has really annoyed him since he became a parliamentarian is the taking of decisions by Government or public bodies with no explanation of the justification or no proper consultation. That concern is as valid in relation to the previous debate as it is in relation to the current one.
I commend Lewis Macdonald for bringing the matter to the Parliament's attention this evening. As a lowland MSP, like George Foulkes, I raise my concerns in support of my Aberdeen colleagues, but also because I am concerned about the Edinburgh service, which affects my constituents. Indeed, I also represent staff within that service.
As Lewis Macdonald said, when the SPSA staff were informed of the plans in December 2007, they were told that there would be an interim three-lab model. In effect, that would have meant the closure of the Edinburgh service. Subsequently, there have been apologies to staff and there has been clarification, but clarification that does not clarify anything is not sufficient for staff who still have a sword hanging over them.
I share many of the concerns that rural members have raised in the debate. One concern is about the effect of a reduction in on-call services on rural areas. One consequence of the closure of the Edinburgh service and its combination with the Gartcosh campus in Glasgow is that on-call services for the Borders and the south of Scotland would be affected considerably. I refer to Mary Scanlon's comments on drugs offences. I understand that the law allows a maximum of six hours between the time of arrest and the time when someone is charged for drugs offences. A constituent who has written to me states that it would be impossible to meet that requirement if the drugs were seized in Galashiels and the nearest forensic lab was in Glasgow.
This afternoon, I had cause to raise concerns about the operation of the SPSA because of the outrageously poor service that was provided to some constituents in another case. It seems that there has been a similar lack of consultation and lack of consideration of quality of service in Aberdeen as there has been in Edinburgh. I ask the minister to comment when he sums up on the fact that there have been, are there still are, concerns about the Edinburgh service. It is not sufficient for the SPSA to resolve a concern about one office. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that all parts of Scotland have the highest quality, world-class forensic services.
I hope that the minister, in providing assurances to Aberdeen colleagues, will also state categorically, for the benefit of my constituents, that the Edinburgh service will not close.
I begin by congratulating Lewis Macdonald on bringing the matter to the Parliament for debate. It is a good thing that he has done so, because it is right that we debate hotly disputed, controversial issues that affect people's lives.
I also commend members from all parties for speaking. There are clearly strong feelings on the issue. Rightly, all members—particularly members from the north-east—have expressed, on behalf of their constituents, their vehement views in defending their constituents' interests.
The matter goes beyond the interests of the north-east. Mary Scanlon alluded to a meeting, at which I was present, that took place with senior officers of Northern Constabulary. The Highlands and Islands are also directly affected. Mr Purvis and Lord Foulkes mentioned the national aspects.
Later, I will turn to some of the comments that members have made, but first let me set out, by way of general background, the facts in relation to the SPSA. It is important to set them out clearly for the record, because they have brought us to where we are today.
The Scottish Police Services Authority was established on 1 April 2007, following cross-party support in this Parliament. The purpose of the SPSA is to deliver more effective police support services, including forensic science services, in an efficient way. The first sentence of Nanette Milne's speech and her carefully couched language accurately summed up that objective.
The SPSA inherited forensic science laboratories in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow, which have been developed and adjusted over a long period and are, to varying degrees, no longer fit for purpose.
Surely the whole point of setting up the SPSA was to level up the service across Scotland rather than to level it down, but that is what the proposal is about.
I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the SPSA plans to diminish the level of service, so I agree with that as a general proposition.
It is clear to everyone that urgent investment is required. We are committed to ensuring that the SPSA provides the best possible service to all eight Scottish police forces, which is why the taxpayer, through the Scottish Government, is funding new forensic facilities as part of the Gartcosh crime campus and why we approved the SPSA's proposal to build a new facility in Dundee. As Richard Baker or Lewis Macdonald said, documents have been submitted by the fingerprint unit and the forensic laboratory. I have had the opportunity to read them, albeit relatively briefly. All welcome the fact that Dundee is to be upgraded—not least the police, who will reclaim part of their offices, which they need. So far as I have been able to judge, that is not in dispute. Investment is required, which the taxpayer is providing, and I believe that all parties support it. The new units will provide the SPSA with the tools that it needs to keep up with the demand for expert scientific analysis of forensic evidence. That is a good thing as it will, to use Mike Rumbles's phrase, level up services.
It would be foolish of any Government, when creating two excellent new facilities, to fail to consider the national picture, therefore such consideration is being attempted. All members have expressed the view, and I concur, that it is important to concentrate on the outcomes for the police service in Scotland and for the public in identifying and securing the conviction of criminals. The SPSA has a statutory remit that was set out, I believe, by us all in the previous session of Parliament.
Let me emphasise that no decision has been made to close the Aberdeen laboratory. It is essential to clarify that. Members who attended the meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on Tuesday are aware that he made that clear statement. Equally, the SPSA clearly states in "Delivering forensic services to north and north east Scotland" that it has no plans to move its scene of crime staff, who are embedded within forces and are under the direction of investigating officers. I think that that is also accepted and understood.
Does the minister nonetheless accept that the concern is that, in spite of the cabinet secretary's words the other day, the SPSA still appears to be advocating publicly the closure of the laboratory in Aberdeen? It is for that reason that members remain highly concerned about the direction in which the process is going.
I fully understand the view that Lewis Macdonald expresses. He is perhaps speaking on behalf of all the members who have made similar points. The SPSA understands that the process of engagement and consultation has been regarded as flawed and defective. When any one body or person is being attacked by a group of people, it is reasonable for someone to say a word in defence, otherwise the process becomes somewhat invidious. I have a list of 20 or 30 engagements and consultations. For example, I know that meetings have taken place with MSPs, chief constables and police boards. I could read them all out. There has been an attempt at consultation. I think that Brian Adam—
Will the minister give way?
I was just about to come to the member, but I am happy to give way.
The minister should conclude very soon. Quickly, please, Mr Adam.
No minutes were taken of the meetings to which the minister refers, and those who attended the meetings do not know what the outcome is. Will the minister please ask the SPSA to produce minutes of those meetings?
Very briefly, please, minister.
I am willing to go on for longer, if there is time, Presiding Officer. I do not know whether that is possible within parliamentary procedures. There are many interested people in the public gallery who would perhaps like to hear a little more.
I am prepared to accept a motion without notice from Mr Macdonald to extend the debate to let the minister finish.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.01 pm.—[Lewis Macdonald.]
Motion agreed to.
The floor is yours, Mr Ewing.
I am grateful. I was almost going to move a motion myself, which would not have been very parliamentary.
The paper is not a consultation paper; it is a question and answer paper. To characterise it as a consultation paper is perfectly understandable, but it is not a consultation paper. It clearly states that comments are being sought, and I am delighted that we have comments. Some members, such as Mr Don, mentioned specific aspects of the document, which is good. There is no time to go into all the submissions, but they plainly address every one of the 10 questions in great detail. Mr Purvis will be pleased to hear that we in the Scottish Government thoroughly endorse and support that process of rational analysis—it is the way in which decisions should be taken.
Once the consultation is completed, the SPSA, as the duly established agency—it was established by us all—will have to consider how to proceed. The cabinet secretary asked for stock to be taken and for a review to be carried out of the further work that is required to address the perceptions and fears that were raised at the meeting on Tuesday, today and elsewhere.
To address points that Mr Macdonald and other members made, I say that I understand that there will be meetings with Unison and many others in the remaining part of this month. I fully welcome and endorse that, as it is essential that the workforce representatives are fully and properly consulted. Once the SPSA board has finished its consultation, which is not closed and is on-going, it will be its legal responsibility to present proposals to the cabinet secretary. Various members have asked whether the proposals will include one option or more than one option. Plainly, the SPSA will read carefully the speeches that have been made in the debate.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I do not have much time, Lord Foulkes, so I am afraid that I will not.
I wonder whether—
I am not taking an intervention, so sit down.
The documents need to be considered seriously. I understand that the SPSA may not yet have received them all. Plainly, it must study them extremely seriously, and I am fully confident that that is exactly what it will do.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like to record a formal complaint and objection. Parliament agreed to give the minister as much time as possible. I have a perfectly reasonable question to ask. It is outrageous that the minister is not prepared to take an intervention.
It is up to the speaker to decide whether to take an intervention. Clearly, in this instance, Mr Ewing has decided not to do so.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I will return to the relevant parts of the debate. The matter is extremely serious.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I really must move to a conclusion, as time has already been extended.
The cabinet secretary will receive recommendations from the SPSA board in due course. That is the process, which I think follows of necessity from the fact that we set up an agency. The Parliament set the process; that is how the process operates. However, the SPSA proposes and the Scottish Government disposes. That, too, is the process. I accept fully that, as Nicol Stephen said—he speaks from personal knowledge—the buck stops with us. That is the nature of the job. When the cabinet secretary takes his decision, I am sure that he will accept the responsibility that falls with it.
I am extremely grateful to all members who made relevant contributions to the debate, and I thank them. I also thank those who have visited us from Aberdeen—they have come a long way to listen to this debate. I assure them that this matter is being treated with the utmost seriousness by the Scottish Government, as indicated by the cabinet secretary's requirement that stock be taken of the way in which the consultation process has been handled to date. We will ensure that their views are taken into account fully before any final decision is taken.
Meeting closed at 18:01.