Police and Fire Reform
The next item of business is a statement by Kenny MacAskill on police and fire reform. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:54
The Government has made real progress in building safer and stronger communities. Crime is now at a 35-year low and detection rates are improving, helped by the 1,000 additional police officers that we have put into communities. In the past decade, significant steps have been taken to improve fire safety. That success is under threat from cuts by the Westminster Government, but the Scottish Government will not sacrifice those hard-won gains. The reforms that I will set out give us the best possible chance of protecting what we value the most and of keeping Scotland safe and strong.
The reform is made against the backdrop of those Westminster cuts, but it is also the right thing to do. With less money to spend, we need to ensure that there is no decline in the level of services that our communities receive. Any nation has to evolve and change if its services are to be fit for the future. The current structures date from 1975, which was before the internet, mobile phones and any number of measures that have allowed us to steadily reduce criminality. However, crime will always be with us and people will always want to feel safe in their daily lives, so we need a structure that suits the world as it is today.
Yesterday, the First Minister set out the programme for government, which is an ambitious programme that has at its heart the creation of a new single Scottish police service and a new single fire and rescue service. The reasons for that course of action lie in the Christie commission report, which studied how our public services could be adapted to modern needs while retaining our social democratic values. The report and the ideas that lie behind it have been recognised across the public sector. The reforms will mean that we can protect and enhance police and fire and rescue services for all communities, urban and rural; sustain those services for the long term; and strengthen governance and accountability. That is ambitious, and we will depend on the professionalism, experience, knowledge and skills of the people in the services.
I recognise the powerful message that has been sent out by Chief Constable Kevin Smith, who will lead the reform on behalf of the police service as the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Yesterday, he said:
“As the leaders of the service we are now firmly behind that decision and it is our responsibility, our duty, along with the Scottish Government, to make this work for the people of Scotland and the men and women of the Scottish Police Service.”
I know that people in the services will, as Chief Constable Smith has done, rise to the challenge and shape and deliver new services of which we can be proud and which build on our existing strengths. In the police service, ACPOS, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, the Scottish Police Federation, the Scottish Police Services Authority and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency are looking forward, not back, and are determined to work constructively with Government to deliver an effective and efficient new Scottish police service. In fire and rescue, all eight chief fire officers and the Fire Brigades Union are looking forward, not back.
I know that the journey is at times challenging—change is always a tough call—but it is a journey that the whole of Scotland is on. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities faces the same challenges as the rest of us face in delivering good services with less money and it has its own concerns. I trust that, together, we can deliver the change as smoothly as possible. I welcome the constructive approach of all the agencies that are involved.
The status quo is not sustainable. We cannot afford to keep doing things eight times over. To do nothing would mean going down the route that has been taken south of the border, where there is no alternative strategy, leading to massive reductions in police numbers and an attack on terms and conditions. The arguments for a regional model did not stack up. It would have been cumbersome and bureaucratic and would not have delivered the same benefits as a single service will—the worst of both worlds. That left the single service option as the best way forward.
We have not taken the decision lightly. It was taken after sustained dialogue with stakeholders and partners in every part of Scotland; after thorough and sustained engagement with people at all levels in the services and with councils and the public; after thorough consideration of all the available evidence; after learning from what others have done, including through an international summit on policing; after a consultation that showed no clear consensus, but which showed strong support for reform; and after the electorate voted overwhelmingly in the Scottish Parliament elections in favour of reforming services.
Over the summer, my colleague Roseanna Cunningham and I went around Scotland, visiting every police force and fire service and discussing the issues with officers and staff at all levels. We saw the diverse best of Scottish policing and fire and rescue, including local services, specialist support for responding to serious threats and genuine engagement with communities. Single services will safeguard and improve all of that.
Some people have expressed legitimate concerns about single services, centralisation, governance and accountability, each of which will be addressed in our proposals.
For a start, centralisation will not happen. We will improve local services and strengthen links with communities; reduce costs and overheads; eliminate duplication, ensuring things are done once, not eight times over; deliver some services in different, more effective and efficient ways; and provide what is needed and maintain the visible presence of services in every part of Scotland.
On accountability, we will create a strong formal relationship between each of our 32 councils and the services. A designated local officer will have significant delegated authority to work with the council and other partners on shaping and delivering services. At present, only 146 of the 1,222 councillors in Scotland have a formal role in the governance of services and under our proposals that number will increase significantly as more elected members have a say. Local services will continue to be delivered within a flexible national framework.
On national governance, legitimate concerns were expressed, particularly in relation to policing. However, there will be no political interference. We will ensure clear separation between ministers and the services by establishing new independent bodies to hold the chief constable and chief fire officer to account and, crucially, ministers will not be able to give instructions to the services on operational matters. The Lord Advocate will retain his crucial role in overseeing the investigation of crime and ensuring the independence and impartiality that we need in a democratic society.
We depend on the people who work in the police and fire and rescue services in countless ways. They are one of our most important assets and we need to protect them. Existing staff and officers will move to the new organisations when they go live and terms and conditions will be protected at the point of transfer.
Single services are the best option to ensure that our communities remain safe and strong. Last week, at a summit convened by the Scottish Government, we heard from six countries where single services work effectively and a seventh where a single service is imminent. This Government is ambitious for Scotland. If Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Northern Ireland and Norway can have successful single services, so can Scotland.
Today, I am publishing a further consultation paper that sets out proposals for how the new single Scottish services will work in practice and which seeks views on the detailed legislative provisions that we will bring forward to Parliament. The reform of police and fire and rescue services means that we will be able to save £130 million a year while maintaining the visible presence in our communities that has resulted in crime rates at a 35-year low and fire deaths that are almost 50 per cent lower than they were a decade ago. I give a clear commitment today that we will refine those proposals and develop the detail with a range of partners, including local government, over the coming months.
Reform is needed to maintain the excellent services that the people of Scotland receive from our police and fire and rescue services. Our proposals give us the best chance of protecting and improving the crucial community-based police and fire and rescue services that are so valued in and so essential to our communities. Our proposals will sustain local services, strengthen the connections between the services and the communities they serve, and enhance national governance.
I note the broad support for single services across this Parliament and welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that members might have.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions. The questions are somewhat oversubscribed, so it would be helpful if questions and answers were as succinct as possible.
The cabinet secretary indicated that the last reorganisation pre-dated mobile phones. Sadly, although we now live in a mobile phone world, I am incapable of working out how to switch my phone off, so I apologise for what looked like discourtesy in dashing from the chamber—it was, in fact, simply idiocy, for which I apologise to the chamber.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and welcome the fact that he has now confirmed what his planned approach is. I am sure that he will acknowledge that Labour’s position has been to argue strongly in favour of single police and fire services. I therefore think that we must be concerned about the continuing level of uncertainty and anxiety among the broader public, which was revealed in a poll that was published yesterday. It showed that, at this stage, a majority are against the proposal, although, curiously, Liberal Democrat voters are less hostile to it than any other voters—I am not sure where that takes us.
I mention that because I want to stress to the cabinet secretary the importance of telling us not only what he will do but how it will be done. If I have a regret about his statement, it is that that detail is lacking, because we need detail on how he proposes to manage services during the transition period and how we will keep people safe under the new structures.
In particular, what is the timescale for the establishment of these services? Will the cabinet secretary identify in more detail—I think that this goes beyond officer level—how local accountability and community responsiveness can be developed? In the light of the information in the draft business case, which has concerned the FBU in particular, that there are cuts of £35 million in the budget for firefighters, will he confirm that front-line police and firefighter numbers will be sustained at current levels? If so, how will that be funded?
Obviously, the funding issues will be subject to comment by my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth in the spending review. However, the whole purpose of the proposal is that we think that it is essential that we introduce change, to preserve police numbers and to ensure that we preserve the integrity of the fire service in the face of these financial challenges. I welcome Labour’s support for single services. I know that it is long standing, and we have now got on to the same page.
Johann Lamont raises the issue that the devil is in the detail. We have made clear today the direction of travel: there will be single services. However, we still have to drill down into the detail of some issues and flesh out the proposals. There are various options, which is why there is a further consultation on the detail. We will work in conjunction with partners in fire and rescue, in the police and in other political parties in the chamber and, indeed, in local government to ensure that we consider the options. For example, there are various options in relation to the national board of governance for the police authority. The board could be similar to the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland. Equally, the Scottish Police Federation has suggested that some members should be elected. We are happy to discuss the issue with all those partners and work out what we think is best.
Similarly, responsibility for police complaints could go to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, or to an expanded and enhanced Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland. Again, we want the best possible solution.
I give a commitment that the direction of travel is set for single services. However, some important matters still have to be described. We will discuss those matters with all partners, but decisions have to be made within a reasonably short timescale. The consultation will last for eight weeks, because we wish to bring in legislation that will get the proposal through next year.
In terms of spending, the show has to stay on the road and, as I say, we will continue to fund the services. The reason why we are making these changes is because we know the financial challenges that we face. If we do not change, the alternative is the scenario south of the border, where 32,000 officers are to be lost—2,000 to 4,000 are to be lost in Greater Manchester—and there is an attack on the terms and conditions of rank-and-file police officers through the Winsor review. This Government will not do that.
I thank the cabinet secretary for providing an advance copy of his statement.
We have consistently said that, with any restructuring of the police and fire services, the priority must be to retain a visible and effective police and firefighter presence on our streets. We have also said that a system needs to be put in place to ensure that local accountability is protected and, indeed, enhanced, but I am not entirely convinced that the proposals that have been outlined today will do anything to make those services more accountable to the local people whom they serve. Does the Scottish Government think that elected police commissioners would be a way of achieving that goal?
The cabinet secretary indicated that savings of £130 million could be achieved from the reforms. What systems does the Government plan to put in place to ensure that those savings are delivered?
Those matters will be dealt with. It is essential that we make the savings to get through the challenges that we face. That is the backdrop. We have always said that we must make a virtue of necessity. Change is necessary to avoid the scenario that is being played out south of the border, but equally, in making change, we should get the best possible structures. I do not think that anyone would suggest that the political fix of 1975, whereby 49.5 per cent of the Scottish population are in one particular police or fire service area, is the ideal scenario, so we will change that arrangement and ensure that the savings are delivered.
On accountability, I know how strongly the Tories feel about elected commissioners. We are not persuaded by that, and will not go down that route. I believe that the direction in which we are travelling will provide a greater level of accountability. Every local authority will have the opportunity to have its own police board or its own police and fire board if it so wishes. That is why our proposal is of great interest to Councillor Parker down in the Borders.
We have also had discussions with Orkney Islands Council. At present, Orkney Islands Council has two councillors on the northern joint police board, who go to the police headquarters once a year. Under the new governance structures, every councillor in Orkney will sit on the police board. The divisional commander will come to the council to provide councillors with explanations. Rather than have a situation in which police boards are not—with the exception of Strathclyde police authority—particularly well funded or resourced, councils will be able to fund and provide the backdrop and bureaucracy that will allow them to do their job. Our proposal will provide better accountability than exists at present.
Before I call the next member, I reiterate that, unless we have short questions and short answers, a number of back benchers will be disappointed because I will be unable to call them.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement.
On local accountability, I welcome the fact that more councillors will have a formal role in the governance of the service than at present, but will the cabinet secretary give an assurance that, after consulting others, we will move towards the most consensual model of local accountability possible?
Yes. Some councillors have suggested that some councils may wish to share their boards. That is a matter for them. We are saying that the building block in the proposed legislation will be each constituent local authority. I give the member that guarantee. How local authorities wish to operate thereafter is a matter for them—we will not direct them on that. I give the assurance that the pyramid structure for accountability will be based on 32 individual local authorities.
Dave Thompson (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. I am not entirely happy with it, but he can make me a lot happier by telling me that the backroom jobs in information technology, human resources, finance and legal services, which can be carried out anywhere in the country, will be spread around Scotland. In particular, will some of those jobs be in the Highlands and Islands?
Some of those are operational matters, which ultimately will be for the chief constable and the chief fire officer—whoever they are—to determine, but I assure the member that his premise is quite correct: there is no requirement for a fandabidozi new headquarters to be built for the police or the fire service. Equally, there is clear acceptance that many of the jobs can be located anywhere in the country. I give him the assurance that we have discussed with the SPSA why it is in the best interests of Scotland and the service for some jobs to be spread around the country. I assure him that the opportunity that he seeks will be there—and will, I think, be taken—and that we will ensure that jobs in the police service and the fire and rescue service are not centralised in one place but are shared across the country, when that is appropriate.
The outline business case puts the costs of transition to a single force at £161 million. Will those costs have to be met from existing justice budget lines?
Will the cabinet secretary guarantee that the project teams that will take forward the work on single police and fire services will include people from the front line so that they can bring their undoubted expertise to developing a sustainable model?
Yes, I can give that guarantee. I do not think that I made it clear in my statement—I apologise for that—that I met Chief Constable Smith, the president of ACPOS and chief constable of Central Scotland Police, who will take the work forward. He will lead it with support from officials and will take advice from local government and political parties. The front-line expertise will come into play there.
We recognise that there is a transitional cost. I assure James Kelly that it is factored in. I also assure him that, in working out the outline business case, we examined Treasury guidelines and followed all the criteria. The numbers have been crunched and, although we realise that there is a cost to get to where we need to be, the savings thereafter will be significant. At a time of economic austerity, £130 million per annum cannot be sniffed at.
In his statement, the cabinet secretary said that he would establish new independent bodies to hold the chief constable to account. However, the consultation document, which I have just got my hands on, says:
“the Scottish Police Authority, will ... hold the Chief Constable to account.”
What are the other independent bodies?
Every local authority will have its own police or fire board. It will be for each council to decide whether it wishes to have separate police and fire boards or an independent police and fire board. For example, Orkney Islands Council has made it clear that it always sits as a unitary council and will not have sub-committees.
The legislation will specify 32 local authority police and fire boards to which divisional commanders will be accountable and which will also be able to request the attendance of the chief constable or chief fire officer. Equally, to deal with governance and the separation of powers from the Government in St Andrew’s house and from me in particular, there will be a Scottish police authority, which will hire and fire the chief constable and hold them accountable.
I learned little from the statement, which was silent on complaints and the cost of change, disingenuous on senior officers’ views, contradictory on the Christie commission, and misleading on consultation. If the cabinet secretary starts with such a catalogue of misrepresentations, how can we believe a single word of his promises for the future? Will he turn over a new leaf and enter the next, crucial phase of consultation with his ears and mind open?
I assure the member that I will. The work, particularly on the police, will be driven forward by Chief Constable Smith. It is now over to him and I am grateful to him for agreeing to lead it. Arrangements will be made in Central Scotland Police, as he will give his full time to the project. Matters will be dealt with similarly in relation to the fire and rescue service.
As I said to Johann Lamont, there is a great deal of detail still to be specified, because a lot of it is operational. My statement was about setting the political direction of travel. We have to make decisions on other aspects, and there are a variety of choices on some matters. The Government does not have a set view on those. We will be happy to listen to the views of COSLA and Opposition parties on issues such as how police complaints should be investigated and dealt with or how the board of the Scottish police authority should be constituted. We look forward to consultation and discussion on those points. Ultimately, we will vote on them here.
Structures are fundamental in the debate but, ultimately, people want to be assured that service delivery is at the heart of any reform. How will communities throughout Scotland benefit from the reforms that the cabinet secretary outlined?
First, the reforms will increase local authority accountability so that the police will be accountable in Orkney, not in Inverness, and in the Borders, not at Fettes Avenue. I believe that that enhances local accountability.
Equally, we must recognise that the world in which the police and the fire and rescue service operate has changed, not only because of the internet. The fire and rescue service needs to be able to deal with a variety of catastrophic incidents, changes in climate and, indeed, terrorism—never mind the challenges that the police face with the internet and serious fraud. We must be capable of dealing with such challenges everywhere.
At one stage, we deluded ourselves that terrorism never occurred in Scotland. Sadly, we experienced the Glasgow airport incident. There are some who sadly seem to think that terrorism might occur in Scotland but only somewhere along the M8 corridor. We cannot possibly give such an assurance, nor can we prepare only for that eventuality. We have to be able to deal with such incidents everywhere.
Scotland cannot have only one whole-time fire station in Dumfries and Galloway and one in the north when we face challenges from, for example, flooding or chemicals or other issues. To make sure that every area of Scotland, urban and rural, north and south, is given a guarantee that it will get the best protection possible, we have to have a national service so that everyone gets the same benefits.
I welcome the announcement about the single police force and the cabinet secretary’s statement. I am sure that it was a difficult decision for him.
Although he is committed—
I am afraid that I need a question.
Although the cabinet secretary is committed to police staff, a number of support staff and firefighters will now have concerns. Will he be able to give them similar support?
I recognise that there is a police and fire service family, which includes those who have the office of constable and have a warrant card, and those who wear the uniform and go into fires. We recognise the service that is given, whether it is given by people who look after the office and make a cup of tea or by those who provide specialist services that only they can provide. Such matters are ultimately for the chief constable or chief officer, but the Government has a policy of no compulsory redundancies, and that is how we expect the situation to remain.
Is the cabinet secretary aware of the situation in Finland, which moved to a regional model only to move to single force a short time later? Is there a lesson there for the Opposition proponents of a halfway house, regional model?
Absolutely. That was the clear lesson from Konsta Korhonen whom I was privileged to hear at the conference that we had on international policing. As promoted by some, the regional model does not make savings or provide accountability or the necessary national service. It is only a halfway house. As was shown in Finland, if we go half the way, we will quickly have to go all the way. That is why the single service is best.
As I highlighted this morning, if Fife Council’s proposed cut goes ahead in next year’s budget, Fife Fire and Rescue Service will lose 20 front-line firefighters. If that goes ahead, I am concerned that Fife will go into a single service with one hand tied behind its back. Will the cabinet secretary say whether the transitional funding to which he referred could be used to ensure a level playing field for all fire services into the future?
I cannot comment on future transitional funding at the moment because it is subject to the spending review. My Cabinet colleague John Swinney will comment on that. As Roseanna Cunningham has said, we discussed the issue with the fire service. I spoke to local and national FBU representatives when the Cabinet went to Kirkcaldy on its summer tour. We are aware of the difficulties of the Fife situation and are working with local authority partners to make sure that we preserve the integrity of the service in Fife and elsewhere.
The commitment to protect front-line policing in our communities and the terms and conditions of serving officers will be widely welcomed. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need an independent scrutiny body with powers of intervention and investigation and the ability to draw matters to the attention of the Crown, as appropriate? If he creates that body, he will not only create a consensus in the chamber but build necessary public confidence across Scottish society.
Yes, I agree, and it is another reason why the proposed changes will be an improvement and give us the best possible police service. One of the arguments against moving to a regional model—indeed, one of the arguments against the current position—is that the police investigate complaints made against them. The investigation might be done by another force but it is done by the police. The new way will give us the opportunity to ensure an entirely independent investigation, subject to the caveat that we will not replicate the bureaucracy involved in how such investigations are carried out south of the border. I assure members that investigations will be entirely independent and could go through the PCCS or HMIC. We are more than happy to discuss the issue with members or anyone else, but I assure members that the independent investigatory service will be a significant improvement on what we have now.
I am going to call Margo MacDonald for the last question, but I need a very quick question and a very quick answer.
Oh, dear—thank you. The cabinet secretary said that more elected members will have a say and instanced Orkney as an example. Those people have legitimacy because they are elected. Could not that lead to some confusion as regards operations and the general strategic direction in that part of the country? The cabinet secretary also said that there will be no political interference. How can he presume that there will be no political interference, when elected members will have the right to question the local commander?
I am afraid that I need to call the cabinet secretary to answer now.
Okay. Can he also say who is going to tell the chief officer where to stop?
Neither at the level of the local board nor, indeed, at the level of the national Scottish police authority will there be the possibility of interference in operational matters. That said, the boards have a critical role in holding both the chief constable and the local divisional commander to account. That will be done at the local level with democratically elected members. At the national board level, the matter of elected members is still to be decided, but the board will have the legitimacy and authority to hold the chief constable to account. However, its members will not be able to interfere in operational matters. That has always been the case in Scotland and it will remain the case.