The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-11114, in the name of Graeme Pearson, on policing.
15:09
It is with some disappointment that I feel the need to move this motion. It is my belief that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has abandoned his responsibilities in relation to police reform. He is tired and lacking in ideas, and he gracelessly refuses to listen, leaving a private power struggle between officials.
The real empathy that a human being in uniform can demonstrate towards members of the public has always been key to policing in Scotland. That humanity in the administration of law and good order remains, to this day, the foundation of policing by consent. It enables police officers to walk any street in Scotland, confident in the knowledge that they can deliver on their duties for the community. I have witnessed at first hand the impact on my community of such an approach to policing. I am in awe of the truly inspiring work that constables, sergeants and inspectors bring to my streets.
It is in that light that I speak to the motion in my name. Few subjects are more important than the need to ensure that policing throughout Scotland is delivered with full consent and in a way that takes cognisance of the public’s needs, particularly at times of crisis, rather than for the convenience of powerful senior executives, civil servants and politicians. This Government’s approach to the creation of a single police service has been inspired by the latter approach and blind to the former.
Scottish National Party members have been quick to remind me of statements that I made in my previous life as a chief officer in the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. I therefore remind the cabinet secretary that I expressed my views on precisely the principles that I have outlined, along with my commitment to a single police service for Scotland, more than seven years ago, when we first met, at Paisley police office.
I was disappointed then at the cabinet secretary’s lack of interest in the concepts, and I feel let down by him now. He seems to speak with no one and to take notice of or advice from no one. His incompetent handling of the Megrahi affair, corroboration, stop and search, and office and control room closures has been characterised by his view that everything is someone else’s responsibility.
The cabinet secretary’s absence from the debate on armed police was, in my view, the final straw. The long-running controversy around the arming of police officers is firmly his fault. He stood aside as chief constable and chair fought a silent war—pressing issues lost in a fog of egos and misinformation. A chief constable leads the service, delivering policing; the Scottish Police Authority should hold him to account for what he does, what he intends to do and how the service performs. With officers being allowed to bear Glock 17 firearms while on routine duties on our streets, none of those responsibilities was properly discharged. Mr MacAskill sat in his office, uninterested, asking, “Crisis? What crisis?” He said that the public were unconcerned—we know that that is not the case.
With office closures and the loss of 2,000 support staff jobs, the billion-pound police service in Scotland has developed in a haphazard fashion. Reviews by Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary for Scotland and the SPA, along with academic and media commentary, tell a worrying story about stop and search and the police use of firearms.
How do we deliver true governance? One reason for setting up a single service was the cabinet secretary’s view that the eight police boards were ineffectual. I agree, and I see from Vic Emery’s agenda piece in The Herald yesterday that the SPA chair seems to have got it, to some extent. He acknowledged that good governance had not been on display over the past two years.
I and others have been commenting on governance and operational independence, but only now are key officials beginning to face the issue. Statute does not recognise the concept of operational independence, but I would expect the chief constable to be unfettered in his ability to decide on crisis and emergency responses, while being sensitive to the need to obtain board approval for his policies going forward.
The cabinet secretary’s plea has been that he was avoiding political interference. That does not wash. If he had been so concerned about political interference he would not have engaged in a private briefing on arming the police outwith the knowledge of his chosen board members. I discovered only yesterday that the meeting was not even minuted.
I am left with the unfortunate impression of a politician keeping his fingerprints off, but nevertheless interfering with, policing. Whether or not it is true, that perception does not feel like open government.
At no time have I or my party criticised police officers. My criticism has always been aimed at the absence of action from the cabinet secretary to ensure that the authority has delivered on its remit or to address the failure of a costly SPA to properly demand of the chief constable full and timely briefing on policy issues.
The public have raised concerns, and so have politicians and academics. Even police staff and officers have begun to raise reservations. Therefore, to insist, as some members on the Government benches do, that it is much ado about nothing indicates a distance from reality that is worrying and reflects a preoccupation with politics and independence instead of governance and police scrutiny.
Because of that, the SPA board—I am one of the few members in the chamber today who has attended one of its meetings—has spent considerable time reviewing reports, rather than challenging the chief constable on options for the future to obtain the kind of information that true governance delivers. The board had no notion of the change in the firearms policy or its impact. The board had no notion that more than 600,000 people in Scotland were being stopped and searched. Only after those things became public knowledge did the board become aware that such impacts were being felt throughout Scotland. That is not governance, accountability and scrutiny, and it does not deliver policing by consent.
No one in this chamber has more respect for the police than I do. The officers on the streets have had a difficult and challenging time, particularly with the reforms that we have seen. I supported reform against a great deal of pressure from senior officers and others. The cabinet secretary may guffaw, but he is well aware of the support that I have given to the concept throughout the past decade.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The saying dates from Roman times, and people may feel it a sad reflection that it still has relevance today. Who watches the watchers? Let us apply that principle to our day-to-day management of what is now a powerful national organisation and one that I wish to be a success.
I hope that, in the years ahead, the service will meet the expectation that our communities will be well policed and that the weakest and poorest among us will be able to rely on it to deliver for them. I know that the service faces major challenges and I admire the executive for facing those challenges, but it does no one any good to continually suggest that all is well, that there is no crisis and that those who administer the law are the ones who are best placed to judge how to deliver it.
I expect the first question on any cabinet secretary’s mind to be about how to deliver true and effective governance of Police Scotland. The fact that that issue has not been at the forefront of the cabinet secretary’s mind in the past 18 months saddens me and is why I lodged the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that all fundamental changes in the way that Scotland is policed should be properly debated and that meaningful consultation, including with the Scottish Police Authority board members, should be carried out prior to any policy decision being taken; notes with concern the absence of any meaningful contribution from the Scottish Police Authority ahead of recent policy changes on stop and search, the allocation of routine police duties to armed officers and target setting; recognises that it is necessary for Police Scotland to police by consent and that this is in the interests of public safety and confidence in the police; believes that the responsibility for the accountability of Police Scotland lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who told the Parliament on 27 June 2012 that “the Scottish Police Authority’s ability to hold the chief constable to account for the policing of Scotland is wide ranging and allows the authority to scrutinise and challenge the chief constable on all of his or her functions and roles and on all aspects of policing”, and, in light of the cabinet secretary’s failure to provide effective governance of Police Scotland in delivering public accountability, calls on him to resign from his post.
15:19
We have discussed policing many times in the chamber over the past 18 months. The Parliament and three committees debated the legislation at length before it was overwhelmingly approved by the Parliament, including all Labour members. I have taken part in many debates and have answered hundreds of questions, and the First Minister has been asked about policing on numerous occasions. The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing has met on 22 occasions. At the local level, there are now 360 councillors who have a say in policing—an increase of around 150 per cent.
Policing is subject to more effective scrutiny now than ever before, and the debate must be seen against that backdrop. I appreciate that members want to ensure that the new arrangements are working well, and they are.
We had to establish a single service to protect policing from Westminster budget cuts. Reform ensures that our policing continues to perform excellently. Scotland is a safer place; officer numbers are high; confidence in the police is high and rising; and crime is at a 39-year low. In Scotland, we have the best possible police service.
Members should compare the situation here with that south of the border, where policing has been devastated by successive Governments. More than 14,000 officers have been axed since 2007, and numbers are now at their lowest since September 2001.
If that is the case—if there is that causation—why did crime in England and Wales fall 15 per cent last year, and why is it at its lowest point since records there began 33 years ago?
Crime in England and Wales has not dropped as far or as fast as it has dropped in Scotland, but the decline in police numbers is significant and huge. Numbers are predicted to decrease by 11 per cent, although Mr Pearson’s colleague Yvette Cooper suggested that a 12 per cent cut in police spending would be manageable. The Winsor reforms have been imposed on the service and morale is, unsurprisingly, at rock bottom. Following a record low turnout for a national peacetime election of 14.9 per cent, police and crime commissioners were introduced at an estimated cost of £100 million, which could have paid for 3,000 officers—it has been a disaster.
I appreciate that members had concerns about some officers carrying firearms on routine duties. The overwhelming majority of officers—more than 98 per cent—are unarmed. Only 275 of our 17,318 officers are authorised to carry weapons. As they are divided across five shifts, only a small number will routinely be on duty at any one time.
The chief constable has listened to concerns, and I believe that the proposals that were announced last week address those concerns while ensuring that armed officers can still be deployed quickly whenever required.
The reviews by HMICS and the SPA that are under way are crucial, not simply to this issue but to more fundamental questions about how policing engages with the communities that it serves and how we strengthen policing by consent. I welcome the action that the chief constable has taken on those difficult issues, but some members are still not satisfied.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Not at the moment.
That is not only my view, but the view of Niven Rennie, the president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, who said this week:
“I would have thought the fact that our Chief Constable … has taken account of public opinion … would be welcomed and applauded … Despite this, the misreporting and political point scoring continues.”
We see more of that again today.
During the passage of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, members from across the chamber rightly stressed the importance of there being no political interference in policing. We listened, and we placed that principle at the heart of reform. It is central to the way that Scotland is policed and to the way that we want it to be policed. Members would understandably be horrified if we did anything else. That is exactly why the chief constable should not be directly accountable to me or any other politician and why he is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority. Mr Pearson appears to want to roll back from that.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
In a minute.
Let me be clear: operational independence is different from accountability. The chief constable is solely responsible for decisions to enforce the law, but he is accountable—in our case, to the SPA—for those decisions.
I am disappointed by Mr Pearson’s motion and I fundamentally disagree with it.
Policing should not be used as a political football, and Mr Pearson should stop traducing the police and the SPA, undermining the morale of officers and staff, and attempting to score cheap political points at the expense of thousands of hardworking officers and staff who cannot answer back.
We have—
Will cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am coming into my last minute. [Interruption.]
Order.
We have come a long way since the early stages of reform and the arrangements are now much more effective. The SPA stands for not simply holding the police to account but strengthening the very principle and practice of policing by consent, which is something that we can all support.
We should applaud the continued strong performance of our police and recognise that Police Scotland, working with the SPA, is listening to concerns and acting on them. Unlike Mr Pearson and his colleagues, this Government will never use policing as a political football to score cheap points. We must not undermine officers and staff.
This week, Brian Docherty, the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, expressed grave concern about some politicians engaging in point scoring. That is exactly what we have seen today, and it is especially disappointing at a time when policing has been widely praised following the outstanding policing of the Commonwealth games, the Ryder cup and, of course, the referendum.
This is a time to celebrate Scottish policing, not to castigate those who serve us with such distinction. I reject the terms of Mr Pearson’s motion and propose an alternative.
I move amendment S4M-11114.2, to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert:
“acknowledges that policing in Scotland continues to perform excellently and, despite UK Government cuts, reform has ensured that crime remains at a 39-year-low, violent crime is down by almost half, crimes of handling offensive weapons are down by 60%, homicides are at their lowest since records began, police numbers are 1,000 higher than they were in 2007, compared to more than 14,000 officers being axed since 2007 in England and Wales, and confidence in the police is high and rising; recognises that Police Scotland listened to public views and opinions about stop and search and armed police and adjusted its approaches accordingly; further recognises that the current Scottish Police Authority and HM Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland scrutiny reviews will enhance the way that policing relates to the people and communities it serves; notes that, during the passage of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, members from across the Parliament stressed the importance of ensuring that there is no political interference in policing, and, following a period where Scotland’s policing has been so strongly in the international spotlight at the Commonwealth Games and Ryder Cup, calls on the Parliament to recognise the very positive impact of Police Scotland and to congratulate officers and staff for their excellent work.”
15:26
It is important to stress at the outset that since Police Scotland was formed more than 18 months ago, front-line police officers have worked tremendously hard to keep us safe from crime.
At the same time, those same officers have had to adapt to seismic organisational and cultural change against a backdrop of Chief Constable Sir Stephen House taking a number of controversial policy decisions with far-reaching implications. That has resulted in the new single police force attracting the attention of politicians and the public for the wrong reasons.
The chief constable’s policy on stop and search and the deployment of armed police officers to routine incidents, coupled with the closure or reduction in hours of dozens of police station front counters earlier this year, have been the subject of extensive criticism and deep concern.
It is significant that only after the decision on police station front counters was taken was there a belated consultation. Despite opposition, the proposals were still approved. The chief constable’s unilateral approach undermined the process of meaningful consultation and accountability that is central to our democracy.
There is an important point here that the cabinet secretary does not seem to understand. Politicians’ comments about and criticism of the lack of transparency and accountability are not political point scoring, as Brian Docherty, the chairman of the SPF, ill-advisedly suggested recently. Rather, such criticism is fundamental to the role of elected members of the Scottish Parliament.
Furthermore, although the rank-and-file officers did a splendid job policing the Commonwealth games, many MSPs have received complaints about the unfavourable conditions that those same policemen and women were subjected to and about how those grievances were handled.
More worryingly still, a survey by the ASPS of senior front-line police staff found that 11 per cent of those questioned felt that they had been bullied or intimidated. The survey also indicated a prevailing culture of targets, which certainly has implications in relation to stop and search and road traffic offences.
Consequently, the Scottish Conservatives firmly believe that, following the merger to form Police Scotland, it is essential that police staff and officers have a mechanism that offers them the means to raise legitimate concerns without fearing for their job security, where those concerns can be voiced anonymously, heard and treated seriously.
For that reason, my amendment calls for the creation of a whistleblowers hotline similar to the one that is currently in use for the national health service, which is also a critical front-line service.
The motion refers to the lack of any “meaningful contribution” from the SPA on the arming of police officers. It is totally unacceptable that the SPA, as the principal body that holds Police Scotland to account, was not consulted more widely on the standing firearms authority before the policy was introduced. It is little wonder that the SPA chairman Vic Emery has expressed concern that the body’s
“scrutiny role is very much after the fact.”—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 21 August 2014; c 481.]
The situation self-evidently cannot be allowed to continue. It is unacceptable and a dereliction of duty for the cabinet secretary to seek to absolve himself of any responsibility to address such a deeply worrying state of affairs.
The deployment of armed police to routine incidents has been a particular source of concern for the public. Indeed, the lack of transparency in decision making in Police Scotland erodes trust in the single force at a time when the police need to retain and increase that trust in local communities and throughout the country. That is the policing by consent to which the motion refers.
The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party has sought to be constructive in our scrutiny of Police Scotland. That includes making positive suggestions for improvement, such as introducing a whistleblowers hotline or employing retired police officers in schools to free up other officers to return to the front line.
The call in my amendment for the cabinet secretary to “consider his position” is not made lightly. However, when the general public’s trust in Scotland’s law and order enforcers is in danger of breaking down, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
The member must conclude.
It is the cabinet secretary’s duty to ensure the effectiveness of the checks and balances that should guarantee the enforcement of essential accountability for and transparency of policy decisions that are taken by the chief constable of Scotland’s single force.
I am afraid that the member must close.
In that respect, the cabinet secretary’s stewardship has been totally inept.
I move amendment S4M-11114.1, to leave out from “responsibility” to end and insert:
“establishment of a whistleblowers’ helpline for police officers and staff would help achieve this objective; considers that the ultimate responsibility for the accountability of Police Scotland lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and believes that, in view of his inept stewardship of justice issues, including policing in Scotland, the cabinet secretary should now consider his position.”
We are very tight for time this afternoon. If members wish to speak in the debate, they must press their request-to-speak button. Members must stick to a very strict four minutes.
15:32
Graeme Pearson, in his opening speech, asked, “Who watches the watchers?”, and his motion mentions responsibility, accountability, scrutiny and challenge.
I would like to remind members of what existed before the current structures. I served on Grampian police board for 13 years before coming to the Parliament, and I was told by a Labour councillor when I first joined the board that his party put on boards and regulatory committees the folks who were “the dross and the awkward squad that we canna control in other committees”.
Police boards were the sole bodies scrutinising the forces at that time, and according to that Labour councillor they contained “dross and the awkward squad.” I disagree with that, because there were many good people on police boards. However, many boards failed dismally in watching the watchers and ensuring that the chief constable was held to account. That was evident in some of the final audits that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland and Audit Scotland carried out jointly on police forces and boards, which were extremely critical of the scrutiny situation that existed.
The only board and force that came out fairly well—I can only say “fairly”—was Grampian. The reports on the rest made for very grim reading indeed.
What do we have now? As the cabinet secretary said, we have 360 councillors on local policing boards. We have the Scottish Police Authority and the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which the Parliament wanted to establish. There is more scrutiny of the police force now than there has ever been.
Does the member agree that the fact that there are now only five or maybe six Labour members in the chamber and the fact that only half the afternoon has been devoted to the issue show more clearly than anything that this is purely a political stunt?
You are approaching your final minute, Mr Stewart.
I agree that it is completely a political stunt. I would go much further, because I agree with Brian Docherty that this is about “point-scoring politicians” interfering in operational matters.
When the public have been unhappy with situations, there has been a fairly quick reaction. On stop and search and arming of officers, there has been a quick response from HMICS, the SPA, local policing boards and the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing—the entire shebang. We are about to see the changes to which those concerns have led. That is the right way to deal with things, and it shows the right level of scrutiny, challenge, responsibility and accountability.
Come to a close, please.
From some members, we have seen flip-flopping on the issue to create instability and to interfere and point score.
I am afraid that you must close.
That has got to stop.
Members must keep strictly to four minutes, please.
15:36
Like other members, I welcomed last week’s announcement by the chief constable that he had jettisoned his policy of deploying armed police officers on routine duties. However, like many people, including many of my constituents, I wonder how the situation arose in the first place, why the checks and balances were not in place to ensure that such a controversial decision could be made without consultation or discussion, why the Scottish Police Authority did not intervene, and why the Cabinet Secretary for Justice stood aside and passed the buck.
Several weeks ago, a retired police officer informed me that he had observed armed police officers attending a contretemps between some street drinkers on Whitesands in Dumfries. On 2 August, Peter Lenthall, a retired Army officer from Penpont, observed an armed police officer in Dumfries supermarket, not attending an incident but buying his supper. Mr Lenthall, who has extensive experience of firearms, instantly recognised the weapon as a Glock 17. He approached the officer, expressed his concern and inquired how many rounds of ammunition it contained. The following Monday, Major Lenthall received a visit to his home by a sergeant, who told him that the change of policy had been approved by the cabinet secretary. Major Lenthall was then asked to sign a piece of paper, which he refused to do. Since then, another constituent has observed another armed police officer shopping in a different local supermarket. How was that ever considered to be acceptable?
It is not just the decision to change policing policy that has caused outrage; it is the way that it was done. I am sure that Dumfries and Galloway is not the only part of the country that is concerned about what is felt to be the imposition of the former Strathclyde Police’s policies and targets on the rest of Scotland. The relationship between the public and our police in Dumfries and Galloway has always been good.
Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary was well respected, and there was much concern about and opposition to the creation of Police Scotland. I supported a single force, but I was told—and I told other people—that local accountability would continue under it. However, local accountability in Dumfries and Galloway is simply not the same as it was. Many of us feel let down, and we almost feel as though we have let other people down. Unless the issue is addressed, there is a real danger of loss of confidence in the police, which would be extremely sad, as our local police at all levels do an extremely good job—they are absolutely exemplary.
The Labour motion asks the cabinet secretary to resign. I certainly do not do that lightly, because I am always happier playing the ball than the man. I know that those on the Government benches did not like the reference to the cabinet secretary’s decision on the release of al-Megrahi, but that was highly controversial, as everybody will remember, and it was hurtful to many of the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.
Then there is the cabinet secretary’s role, or lack of it, in the closure of police counters and control rooms, the latter again without local consultation. When Mr MacAskill came to Dumfries, he refused to meet the 30 staff who were losing their jobs at the police control room in the town.
In one of his most disgraceful speeches in this Parliament, he dismissed, insulted and trivialised the genuine concerns of Opposition politicians who were wrestling with a problem surrounding the proposal to abolish the requirement for corroboration in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and then he capitulated and did what we had been asking him to do and remitted the issues for further consideration.
The cabinet secretary has stood aside when communities and politicians have expressed concern over court closures, stop and search and the routine deployment of armed police, always excusing his inaction on the basis that those issues were operational matters for the police. I am sorry to say that the cabinet secretary does not seem to understand the difference between interfering and taking responsibility and showing leadership. If he is not able to do that, perhaps he should be considering a change of job.
15:40
I am afraid that four minutes is far too short to debate the 203 words in the motion that Graeme Pearson, the Labour justice spokesman, has put before us. Let us take words 7 and 8, and discuss what Mr Pearson calls “fundamental changes”. Those are operational matters that were in place long before Police Scotland was created—in police forces all across Scotland and south of the border.
The role of the Scottish Police Authority board was created to hold the chief constable to account, not to micromanage the chief constable, as Mr Pearson would like it to do. Mr Pearson and his Labour colleagues chose to ignore that and are calling operational matters policy decisions, to undermine Police Scotland. Stop and search was a policy that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats supported, yet today they use that important tool in Police Scotland’s toolbox to undermine the excellent work of police officers working to make our streets safe.
As for armed police officers in our streets, Mr Pearson has been found out. We heard it: we know now that the Labour justice spokesman wanted a standing authority for his officers to carry firearms when he was director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency.
I believe that Mr Pearson should consider his position as a member of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. I could replace him easily, Presiding Officer, and I shall explain why. The motion lodged by Labour’s justice spokesman attacks the Scottish Police Authority for failing to hold the chief constable to account. Let me remind the chamber who has the remit to scrutinise all aspects of policing in Scotland. The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing has that remit. If Mr Pearson thinks that he has failed, he should reconsider his position.
The motion from Scottish Labour tells us more about that party than it tells us about Police Scotland. The motion is about Scottish Labour members wanting to micromanage our police officers. They did it when they were in charge and they want to do it now that they are in opposition. It is not about political interference from Scottish Labour; it is much more than that. It is about Labour politicians wanting to tell our police officers how to do their job. Labour members did not have a clue then, and they do not have a clue now.
I remember a North East Scotland MSP who was Labour justice spokesman—he has left the chamber now—supporting police reform at the time. Scottish Labour believed then that the change was essential to ensure that we had policing fit for Scotland in the 21st century and to maximise investment in front-line services right across Scotland. That is what Police Scotland and the cabinet secretary have achieved.
I understand why the Scottish Conservative amendment says nothing about elected police commissioners and why Margaret Mitchell did not say anything about that in her speech. It was another of the Liberal Democrats’ great ideas for getting elected, but people just cannot trust the Liberal Democrats on policing. One would think that Labour members would know that using Police Scotland as a political football will get them nowhere—exactly where the Liberal Democrats are today.
If someone should resign, it is Graeme Pearson, a member of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing who thinks that the role of that committee is to be a political tool to attack Police Scotland at every opportunity, in the media and here in the chamber.
I will be supporting the cabinet secretary’s amendment to the motion. There has been no fundamental change in the way that police operate.
You must conclude.
There is no crisis. Today, Parliament needs to take the opportunity to congratulate officers and staff on their excellent work since the creation of Police Scotland.
15:44
One could be forgiven for thinking that the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 established Police Scotland. It did not. This Parliament established the Police Service of Scotland. However, on taking command of the national force, the chief constable swiftly presided over a rebrand.
Discarding the declaration of service in favour of a more commanding, uncompromising title was perhaps a premonition of things to come: armed police patrolling our streets; stop and search on an industrial scale, with hundreds of thousands of searches lacking a sound legal basis; and the dismantling of valued local services. Those controversies have sparked genuine public anger. The democratic deficit and formidable appetite for wider participation in decision making is clear to everyone—everyone except the justice secretary.
Police Scotland must openly welcome meaningful dialogue with the public and the SPA before it adopts a policy, not only once it is exposed by the press or politicians. Such engagement is one of the most important clauses in its contract with citizens. It is not a cumbersome requirement to be circumvented. Police autonomy cannot be limitless, and public consent is never unconditional, yet our justice secretary resolutely refuses to acknowledge that.
Back in the 1980s, Lord Scarman noted that the constitutional control of accountability meant that, although the police should exercise independent judgment, they were also the servants of the community and could not effectively enforce their judgment without the support of that community. However, the justice secretary is unperturbed about presiding over the erosion of policing by consent—the principal that the power of the police is derived from public co-operation, transparency and accountability. He seems untroubled that the foundations of our centuries-old, world-renowned policing model have been weakened by a unilateral shift to an enforcement model of policing that does not carry the support of the public, and by a poor governance model that has allowed the chief constable to draw more powers to himself.
Will the member give way?
I have little time.
The independent commission on policing for Northern Ireland examined how its single force could become rooted in and accountable to the communities that it serves, and the widely respected Patten report concluded that two words, “operational independence”, proved a significant barrier to ensuring that all public officials are fully accountable to the people whom they serve and their institutions. It argued that the philosophy of “operational responsibility” better reflects the need to still be answerable.
Fifteen years on, Scotland is caught in the same trap. Given the police’s extraordinary powers as a national force, they should be subject to unparalleled scrutiny. However, in the absence of codification of the chief constable’s scope and reach, he is all but exempt from any constraint.
You are in your final minute.
Time after time, the cabinet secretary dogmatically obstructs and extinguishes rightful debate by invoking those two words, “operational independence”. Today, he again offers us a one-dimensional view of policing, saying that bobbies on the beat and crime figures trump any legitimate concerns. That is a patronising, disrespectful and disingenuous response to a debate that is fuelled by local communities and their reasonable expectation of accountability in Scotland’s national force.
Of course, we all have the utmost respect for the hard work and dedication of our officers. However, until these problems are resolved, the SPA, Parliament and the public will continue to be excluded from Police Scotland’s decision-making process, forced to react after the fact, even when the force appropriates powers to itself. The justice secretary’s failure to challenge that, and his blasé reaction to the concerns of those we represent, show that until he leaves office there is no prospect of reform.
Please conclude.
The cabinet secretary has long outstayed his welcome. His charge sheet is long. He has presented members with a succession of ill-considered reforms.
You must close.
He is unfailingly out of step with public opinion.
I am afraid you must close.
The justice secretary should not be afforded the luxury of quietly slipping out the door.
15:49
I say to Graeme Pearson, who would not take an intervention, that the cabinet secretary took full responsibility for the decision on the compassionate release of Megrahi. I was here; Mr Pearson was not.
On the Tory amendment, I say to Margaret Mitchell that I agree with only one part of it, which is the part about a whistleblowers hotline. If she will forgive me for taking the credit, I think that I was the first to suggest that, in the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing.
On the Labour motion, I say to Graeme Pearson that some of his earlier scrutiny since the inception of Police Scotland had merit, but he has gone far too far and is now beyond the pale.
I have quotes from Brian Docherty, chair of the Scottish Police Federation, representing rank-and-file officers. He said:
“The chief constable is the right person to make decisions about policing in Scotland”,
not some
“point scoring politician.”
I wonder who that could be. No wonder Graeme Pearson is looking red.
Brian Docherty also claimed that MSPs had manipulated the issue of armed police to attack their political opponents.
Police Scotland has received 24 letters of concern on the issue of armed police. I have had four emails, two expressing concern about the headlines and two criticising me for claiming that I wanted to prevent the police being armed in life-threatening situations. Incidentally, those were from relatives of officers who had been badly injured on duty.
Today’s headline in The Herald is “Police chief anger over crime figure accusations”. Through his comments, we could no doubt feel his fury at Labour in particular—although not named. The chief constable said that Police Scotland analysts looked at performance figures “like hawks”. He also said:
“Why would I compromise 34 years in the police for my own self-worth never mind anyone else’s?”
The leader in The Herald is headed “Criticisms must be based on facts”. That reminds me of that excellent Mark Twain quote:
“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”
Of course, Labour did not even bother to get the facts. Armed police account for 2 per cent—referring to the national standing firearms authority—which is less than Graeme Pearson requested, as he has admitted at times, during his stint as director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency.
If the cabinet secretary had interfered across the remit of the SPA and Police Scotland, he would have rightly have been accused of politicising police operations. As for effectiveness in his post, despite my open and public disagreements with some of the cabinet secretary’s decisions, I have high regard for his skills during his time in post as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and before that, when he had Graeme Pearson’s job as a shadow minister.
I have considered the skills of the alleged cabinet secretary in waiting. It seems to me that Graeme Pearson is a one-trick pony, unable to focus on anything but his former colleagues. He did not lead for Labour in yesterday’s debate or even close on the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill because, I suspect, he knows nothing about it. He left it to his very capable deputy, Dr Elaine Murray. I suspect that, if Graeme Pearson were on “Mastermind”, he would not be able to select current Scottish justice issues as his specialist subject.
Ironically, by opening up this matter for debate and challenging the expertise and appropriateness of the justice secretary, Graeme Pearson has exposed his own inadequacies. I will leave it at that, although some say that, with his relentless undermining of Police Scotland, which he purports to support, he might just be settling some old scores.
15:52
I am sure that no one in Parliament needs to be reminded that policing by consent is the principle that underpins law enforcement in this country. Central to that philosophy is the confidence and trust in our police service that the public enjoy.
I have never doubted Mr MacAskill’s commitment to this country and to his post as Cabinet Secretary for Justice. It is simply, and unfortunately, the case that his time has come. Confidence and trust in the leadership that he provides to the criminal justice system and the accountability that he offers to Parliament have evaporated. I am sorry to say that it is now time for him to step aside.
I believe that we are witnessing the effect of an accumulation of poor decisions over several years—including, for example, the decision on use of stop-and-search powers, and the U-turn on corroboration—that have collectively led us to this point. For me, the cabinet secretary’s handling of the issue of armed police has been the straw that broke the camel’s back. I am staggered by how insensitive the cabinet secretary has been to concern from the public who have been faced with the prospect of highly visible armed police becoming a common presence on our streets. I am still confused, in fact, about whether Mr MacAskill shares that concern, and confided that view to the chief constable; whether he does not share that concern, and confided that view to the chief constable; or whether he just thinks that the question of the police carrying guns is none of his business.
MSPs questioned the cabinet secretary on the issue in the summer. I found his response to be both defensive and dismissive. Even if the cabinet secretary genuinely believes that the subject of armed police is not an issue for which he should be held accountable, does he not recognise the equally genuine public anxiety at the absence of any process of democratic accountability? The new national police service and the Scottish Police Authority are creatures of Mr MacAskill’s own making. He assured Parliament that the new relationship would be sufficient to provide the scrutiny and accountability that the public sought, yet it has fallen at the first hurdle.
Perhaps we should not be surprised, because when Audit Scotland reported on the process of police reform, the bill on which was taken through Parliament by Mr MacAskill, it revealed a horror show of poor decision making and inadequate leadership. As we all now know, a full business case for the merger of Scotland’s eight forces was never produced, despite Mr MacAskill’s officials specifically promising Parliament that that would be done. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent on buildings such as Bremner house that were never used. Again, that decision was taken not by the police but by the Scottish Government. Millions more were spent on staff redundancies, some of whom were subsequently re-employed, or were spent on—which is worse—removing posts that had, according to the chief constable, to be backfilled daily by serving officers.
According to Audit Scotland, the cabinet secretary’s failure to sort out the spat between Vic Emery and Sir Stephen House hampered the whole reform process, and it concluded:
“There have been difficult relationships between the Scottish Government, the SPA and Police Scotland throughout the reform process. Considerable work is now required to build mutual confidence, trust and respect.”
I do not believe that the cabinet secretary is the person to rebuild that trust, and I will conclude with one example of why that is the case.
Three of my constituents who are police staff are currently engaged in a long-running dispute over back pay. They won their case, but Police Scotland is refusing to settle and has employed a Queen’s counsel at what my constituents fear is greater cost than the amount in back pay that they are owed. When I wrote to the cabinet secretary to ask him to look into the case, I received yet another dismissive two-sentence reply. In different circumstances, I might have been prepared to accept the minister’s assertion, but his predilection for hiding behind the excuse of “operational matters”, for not facing up to or tackling difficult issues, and for sheltering in the shadow of the police’s reputation instead of leading policing in Scotland, leaves me in a position in which I simply have no confidence in him.
15:57
I would like to begin by reminding the Parliament of what the justice secretary said in evidence to the Justice Committee on 27 March 2012 at stage 1 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. He said that the bill
“defines and clarifies the operational responsibilities of the chief constable more than ever before by making it clear that only the chief constable has direction and control of the police service”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 27 March 2012; c 1225.]
He went on to say that the chief constable would be accountable to the Scottish Police Authority, not to the Scottish ministers, and that the bill provided the Scottish Parliament, for the first time, with the opportunity to scrutinise policing. There we have it—the reforms in the bill do not mean the cabinet secretary dictating to the chief constable. If that were the case, the public outcry would be overwhelming.
As has been said, armed police officers have been a long-standing feature of policing in Scotland; they are not new. As we know, Strathclyde Police had a standing firearms authority since February 2008. The decision on the deployment of firearms officers must be for the chief constable to make. We also know that standing firearms authorities are reviewed quarterly. Was the presence of armed police on the streets controversial? Yes. Was Police Scotland right to review it? Yes. Instead of that being welcomed, we have had continuing sniping. In addition, the fact has been ignored that the SPA has yet to conclude its scrutiny inquiry and that HMICS has not completed its independent review of the use of standing firearms authorities. That work can be described as, at the least, a work in progress.
On stop and search—which, again, is clearly an operational matter—let us not forget the role of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which took evidence on stop and search on 20 March, when Graeme Pearson was present. Assistant Chief Constable Wayne Mawson of Police Scotland said:
“Some sections of the media have reported it as a new thing; in fact, it is not a new thing at all. The reality is that stop and search volumes are down in the first year of Police Scotland. More searches were done under legacy force arrangements in total. They are down by about 4.6 per cent this year”.—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 20 March 2014; c 403.]
Since then, the SPA has done its job. In May, it reviewed stop and search and made sensible recommendations on the need for further training to ensure greater consistency, on proportionate use and on ensuring that people who are searched are made aware of their rights. I say with the greatest respect to Mr Pearson that that is surely a meaningful contribution.
The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which I have attended on more than one occasion, does a job of scrutiny, too, as we know. It is my recollection that, during consideration of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, the cabinet secretary was very flexible on the nature of parliamentary scrutiny and thought that that was a matter for Parliament to discuss and agree. Mr MacAskill is not a cabinet secretary who does not recognise the need for accountability.
Mr Pearson’s motion does not say it explicitly, but it is clear that as well as being unhappy with some of Police Scotland’s work, he does not think that the SPA is doing its job, either. Indeed, he has been reported in such terms in the newspapers. As we know, however, the SPA is required to place its annual report before Parliament. Its first report for the period to 31 March 2013 was published in November last year, but to my knowledge Vic Emery has not appeared before the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing since then. As a new report is, I presume, imminent, I encourage Mr Pearson to encourage the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing or the Justice Committee itself to take evidence on that, instead of indulging in his political antics today.
This is a dismal motion from a dismal Opposition. After the referendum, we were told by unionist politicians that it could not be business as usual, but today’s debate gives the lie to that. Let us recognise the cabinet secretary’s contribution to achieving record low crime rates, to building a modern police service and to preserving police numbers at a time of real pressure on public spending—and let us reject the motion.
We come to closing speeches. I call Annabel Goldie. Miss Goldie—you have a maximum of four minutes.
16:00
This short but useful debate has highlighted two issues that are in themselves separate but which are from time to time interwoven: first, the creation of a single police force and secondly, the position of the Scottish Government in general and the cabinet secretary in particular.
The creation of a single police force was never going to be without controversy, and anyone who thought otherwise was naive. Some people disagreed with the proposal and found it to be it fundamentally flawed. Others, including my party, accepted the concept, but recognised that substantive measures would be required to allay legitimate worries.
The concentration of so much power, control and authority in one organisation that happened to be the law enforcement body of Scotland was always going to raise significant issues. In the absence of those issues being addressed, my party declined to support the creation of a single force, but it is quite wrong to equate that position with saying that Police Scotland is intrinsically flawed and is not doing a good job.
The difficulty for Police Scotland, the chief constable and his officers is that having a single police force without external accountability to, say, elected commissioners makes it political, as night follows day. If Police Scotland’s accountability is to a quango—the Scottish Police Authority—which is in turn accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, how can Police Scotland be anything other than political?
The public, constituents and community organisations will raise their concerns with MSPs, and the only place to which we can bring those concerns is here to Parliament. We cannot say, “Oh no, we mustn’t do that, because the cabinet secretary and the chief constable won’t like it. That’s making Police Scotland a political football and interfering with police operations.” What complete and utter nonsense. That confrontational stand-off could have been avoided, bypassed and buffered by the introduction of elected commissioners. There is an accountability deficit, and the cabinet secretary has been in denial about it, through obstinately ignoring concerns and arrogantly dismissing critics.
Why does that matter, and what are the concerns? Let us start with stop and search. It has emerged this year that there seems to be an informal target culture in the single police force, which over a one-year period to the end of March conducted nearly 640,700 stop and searches. That figure is three times higher than the number of searches that were carried out by the Metropolitan Police in London, where the population is over 8 million. How can that Scottish response be proportionate? The issue was raised in Parliament, and action was instigated. Moreover, only after it was raised in this Parliament was the routine carrying of sidearms by some officers revoked.
Police Scotland has had many successes. However, the increase of 1,000 additional officers from 2007 levels was not down to the cabinet secretary, who wanted only 500 more. It was down to the Scottish Conservatives. I am in no doubt that the extra officers have played a major role in reducing crime levels.
That success neither eliminates nor mitigates on-going concerns about accountability, which have to be laid at the feet of their genesis: the cabinet secretary. Add to that what I view as the shambolic proposal to abolish corroboration, and regrettably—it is regrettable—I find the cabinet secretary’s stewardship of his portfolio unimpressive. I, too—and again with regret—urge him to consider his position.
16:04
As I said in my opening address, we have debated policing many times in the chamber in the past 18 months. As I have acknowledged, I appreciate members’ interest in ensuring that the new arrangements are working well. The time is right to stop scoring political points at the expense of the excellent job that the men and women of our police service are doing day in and day out. I regret that that has continued during this debate.
Margaret Mitchell criticised the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, Brian Docherty. He is elected by rank and file officers to represent their interests, so it is right that he should speak out for those brave men and women.
Elaine Murray traduced the Police Service of Scotland by defining its work as Strathclydisation while sitting next to a member—Graeme Pearson—who had many years’ continuous service in Strathclyde Police.
Alison McInnes also criticised. We remember that although she champions the Liberal Democrats’ community policing, the Liberal Democrats do not appear willing to pay for it when it applies to their own party conference.
Scotland is a safer place, and despite Westminster cuts, reform has ensured that crime remains at a 39-year low. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
Police numbers are 1,000 higher than they were in 2007, and public confidence in our police is high and rising.
In recent weeks, Scotland has been on the international stage like never before. The world has watched as the Commonwealth games, the Ryder cup and the referendum have been run free from threat, issue or incident. That is directly attributable to a police service that delivers excellence and in which we can have confidence and pride. That is what people in Scotland care about. To say that there is no policing by consent is wrong.
The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 established clear routes for scrutiny, engagement and oversight in Parliament in the chamber and, for the first time, through the dedicated Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. It established such routes at national level through the Scottish Police Authority, HMICS and, indeed, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. It did so at local level through local scrutiny boards with more elected members involved than ever before, as we heard from Kevin Stewart, and it did so at partnership level through emphasis on close engagement in community planning and the principles of joint working.
The appropriate checks and balances are in place and are working. We have seen the police and agencies respond through changes that the chief constable has made or through reviews that are to be carried out, and that are being carried out as we speak, by the SPA and HMICS.
There is always room for improvement, but that has been acknowledged by all parties, and work is under way to build further on the good relationships that have moved forward positively over the past 18 months. We are progressing that work against the backdrop of a system that we have built from the legislation that the Parliament overwhelmingly backed and which is working well. Let us collectively take pride in that and stop using our national police service as a political football.
International observers from around the globe are taking an interest in our effective approach to police reform. There have been recent visits by colleagues from countries including Sweden, Serbia, the Yemen and the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, only this month, the Irish Parliament praised our reform and said that it was “impressed” by the SPA and that it will look at it in greater detail.
We are a long way from the problems that are faced by our colleagues south of the border, where policing is being attacked, the morale of officers and staff is at rock bottom, and the profile of police and crime commissioners—whom Annabel Goldie has championed for many a year—is raised more through their indiscretions than through their positive impact on communities. They come at the expense of officers on the beat. I am sure that people in England and Wales would rather have a bobby than a commissioner.
Under my watch, there should not be and there will not be political interference in policing, as is rightly enshrined in the legislation that Parliament passed.
The SPA stands not simply for holding the police service to account, but for strengthening the very principle and practice of policing with the consent of the people of Scotland. I believe that that is something that we can all stand for. In doing so, collectively we must give the SPA the space to fulfil the role that it is moving into, and ensure that it is supported by the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which acts to give the national police service the oversight that it deserves and which came from discussions between Graeme Pearson and me.
Once again, I ask Parliament to join the people of Scotland in celebrating Scottish policing. Graeme Pearson has managed to unite the SPF, ASPS and the chief constable—but more in sorrow than in anger, from their point of view. In the strongest terms, I reject Mr Pearson’s motion.
16:10
I open my closing remarks by saying that nowhere in the motion is there an attack on Police Scotland. The responses that have been made today from the Government seats have addressed a question that was never asked. I did not invite from the cabinet secretary any interference in policing nor any direction of the chief constable—in fact, I invited the very opposite. His having created the mechanism for accountability—the Scottish Police Authority—I expected the cabinet secretary to ensure that that authority fulfilled its responsibilities, and ensure that the chief officer and his executive were answerable to that authority, on behalf of the people of Scotland.
The cabinet secretary is quite correct that after some discussions in Parliament and outwith the chamber he agreed that we could create a scrutiny sub-committee. Without that sub-committee, many of the issues that we are now discussing would not have come to a head in the chamber.
It is right that when one lives in a family with imperfections, one should not ignore them but deal with them in an adult and mature fashion. That has been missing in the past 18 months to two years.
I am disappointed in Ms Grahame, who is well known for her sophistry.
Oh!
Instead of dealing with the issues that we have mentioned over the past 18 months, she has maligned the person who stands here to heal some of the wounds that need to be dealt with. [Interruption.]
Order!
Ms Grahame decided to attack me personally. I am sorry that she thinks that I am a one-trick pony. I have obviously been wasting my time for the past few years in the Justice Committee—
You’re not on it!
—and on the sub-committee. I thought that I had played my part in all the work that we did in those committees. I think that, on occasion, Christine Grahame appreciated my contributions, but our memories are short in that regard.
Kevin Stewart mentioned his 13 years on a police committee, which dealt with police board matters. It is right that many board members did their best in the circumstances, but there is no doubt that collectively we agreed that that kind of governance did not meet the needs of the 21st century.
I agreed that the creation of a new board, with strength and the ability to follow an investigative process, was the way forward. That was not delivered. The board has looked like a reviewing company—a company that receives reports and ticks boxes. When I attended a board meeting, after five hours I gave up the will to stay, and left to deal with other matters.
Operational independence is a concept. It is a concept that has been alluded to and which was played out in 1960. According to that review, operational independence was a concept that ensured that the police could investigate and report, and, in the context of England and Wales, prosecute suspects without fear or favour. It was never meant to be a principle that allowed a chief officer to conduct business according to his or her wishes without endorsement by some oversight body. The problem for working officers is that controversy will occur without public debate in a forum or a commonly accepted knowledge of what a police force exists to deliver.
There has been controversy about target setting. I attended a meeting at one of the police divisions with another committee member and spoke to the management. I was very impressed with what they had to say about their arrangements. As committee members, we were given direct and clear evidence that officers on the street felt under pressure to deliver on targets, to engage in stop and search and to conduct certain parts of the policing outcome. That situation needs to be known about and either endorsed by the authorities as the right way forward, or the chief constable must be persuaded that there is a different way to go about delivering business. That is what the board, not the justice secretary, exists to do. I have always accepted that.
However, equally, in this context, where the cabinet secretary indicates that he will not interfere, I am still left in a quandary: why does the chief constable report to him about carrying of firearms, but not to his own board? Christian Allard mentioned that the arrangement is already in place. I know from speaking to people from the northern joint police board that they had no knowledge that they had authorised the carrying of firearms on routine duties, and neither did those on the Strathclyde board.
Will Graeme Pearson give way?
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I will not.
Reform has always been a matter of controversy and it was always going to be difficult; there is no doubt about that. Much has been achieved by Police Scotland in the past 18 months of which we can all be proud. However, there is no saving grace in misrepresenting what we are trying to do in the chamber by holding the Government to account and asking it to deliver on the cabinet secretary’s promises to ensure that the Scottish Police Authority could hold the chief constable to account for policing. That is what we have tried to deliver over the past two years. It is frustrating that we have not managed to do that. [Interruption.] I hear Mr Swinney say that on the front bench. [Interruption.]
Order.
We have not managed that and because we have not done so we have lodged a motion, which is the only option left to us when we are not being listened to, our suggestions are being ignored and our approaches are being maligned and misconstrued. I hope that, after the debate, SNP members will return to their rooms and reconsider how they represent the matters that we have raised.
There is a question about falling crime. Crime is falling: I am pleased to live in a community that is crime free, and that crime across Scotland is falling quickly. However, members must bear it in mind that in America it is claimed that crime has fallen by 64 per cent. Huge falls in crime are also claimed across Europe. Therefore, we need to understand what we expect of our police service. I look forward to a police service that polices Scotland with the consent and the full confidence of everyone in the chamber, and that is delivered by the police authority on behalf of our communities.
Previous
Future of Scotland’s RailwaysNext
Scotland’s Future