Reform of the Police and Fire and Rescue Services
The next item of business is a statement by Kenny MacAskill on the reform of the police and fire and rescue services. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his 10-minute statement and therefore there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.
14:04
I want to set out for Parliament the Government’s ambitions for improving the performance, local accountability and financial sustainability of Scotland’s police and fire and rescue services.
Once again, I pay tribute to the outstanding contribution made by our police and fire services to our communities on a daily basis. We have delivered 1,000 additional police officers in our communities, which has helped to achieve the result of a 32-year low in recorded crime. We have also seen fire deaths in Scotland continue to fall over the long term. Those are real successes of which we should all be proud. However, in order to maintain those successes in the face of unprecedented budget cuts from Westminster, the status quo is no longer tenable.
The current configuration dates back to the 1970s. Structures need to be able to cope with the challenges of the 21st century. Accordingly, we need to look at how we structure effectively our police and fire and rescue services to protect the front-line delivery that is essential to our communities. It is not simply about financial challenges; it is also about providing appropriate accountability and enhancement of service. All three criteria require to be met and addressed. Change is demanding. It is not without cost or challenges. We require to take time to get it right, but change we must. Police and fire services are not alone; the challenges go across the public sector. It is for that reason that the Christie commission was established, and the results of the consultations that I set out today will be submitted to the commission to inform its wider work.
I will recap what has been done to date. Last year, the Government formed two representative sub-groups of the Scottish policing board and the ministerial advisory group on fire and rescue. Drawing directly on input from senior police and fire and rescue officers, that early work confirmed that the status quo in both police and fire services was not tenable and provided some options for change.
Policing and fire services in Scotland have, historically and correctly, happened by consent. That is how we want the position to remain and is why we are consulting. There has been some limited public comment, but it is appropriate that we should widen the debate. We wish to see whether we can reach a consensus as a country on the structures for our fire and police services for the 21st century. Therefore, I am announcing plans for consultations on the future options for both the police and fire and rescue services. The consultations will commence early next month. The consultations will be separate for each service, but run in conjunction with each other. In both there will be three options: eight services, but with enhanced collaboration; a regional structure with fewer boards; and a single service.
First, I will deal with fire and rescue. The Government believes that there are compelling arguments for having one service. The options of an enhancement to eight boards or a regional service with fewer boards appear not to meet the criteria of appropriate financial savings, improved accountability or an enhanced service. Collaboration to date has proved challenging and has not delivered the scale of efficiencies required. In reality, the current structure of eight fire boards simply does not lend itself to the most effective collaboration across boundaries. Although a model with fewer regional boards will deliver some returns, it is unlikely to achieve all the desired outcomes. Unnecessary duplication will still exist and local accountability will be further diminished.
In our view, a single fire and rescue service with a national framework and standards will be best at reducing unnecessary duplication and cost and making sure that maximum funding is channelled to the front line. Having one service provides the opportunity for greater accountability locally and improved service in our communities.
We need to reduce headquarters bureaucracy and provide more autonomy to the front line. There are fears about centralisation, but having one service provides an opportunity to give more power to local stations and local authorities rather than joint boards, one of which can cover up to 12 local authorities. All our communities, irrespective of their postcode, would have access to the full range of Scotland’s fire and rescue capability and all our firefighters, wherever they are based, would have appropriate access to the training and equipment that they require.
In the 21st century we face a variety of complex and difficult challenges, not all of which are financial, and all areas must be resourced to meet them. Some have argued for a blue-light service incorporating the fire, police and ambulance services. In my view, that case has not been made and there is significant opposition from within those services to such a scheme. We will seek greater co-operation where appropriate but we are not persuaded of the case for a single blue-light service.
That said, we wish to reach as wide a consensus as possible and the consultation provides an opportunity for those otherwise minded to try and persuade us. However, let me be quite clear: any alternative option would require to make those financial savings, meet the need for accountability and provide an enhanced and improved service.
With regard to policing, the debate is different and distinct. Again, we will consult on three options—after all, many of the arguments made in respect of the fire service apply to the police—but it is quite clear to us as a Government that the option of the current eight forces with enhanced collaboration will not provide the savings necessary or the enhanced service required to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
That leaves the options of a single force or a regional model. Significant arguments have been made for a single force but questions remain over accountability in the absence of local boards and the centralisation of services. Some have argued for a regional model but many questions remain unanswered, in particular whether there would be any significant savings or service enhancement and how accountability would be improved with fewer and more remote boards. That is why we wish to consult: which model meets the criteria of financial savings, improved accountability and an enhanced service?
In a single force model, the savings can be significant, which is necessary in these financial times. Such a model can also provide a better service locally, devolving more decision-making control to local commanders who know and account to their local communities. However, there are understandable concerns about accountability and centralisation that have to be answered.
There have already been suggestions by, for example, the deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police, who has proposed a model in which local authorities attain more accountability than that which exists through joint boards. It is also argued that having one service in fact provides more autonomy for local areas. However, those arguments have to be made and won.
A regional model with three or four forces has some legitimacy. However, those who favour that model will need to demonstrate that, with the retention of so many back offices, the required savings can be made; that, with even more remote joint boards, accountability can be provided; and that improved service can be provided across all forces.
The consultation provides the opportunity for those who support a particular option to make their case and address their doubters. They have to demonstrate that the option in question will make the savings, provide the accountability and enhance the service.
The status quo is no longer tenable in both the fire service and the police. The Government believes that there is a compelling case for a single fire service but we will strive to reach a consensus. As for the police, a strong case has been made for a single service but concerns about accountability need to be allayed. There is an argument for a regional model but significant efficiency challenges have to be overcome. In a country where we pride ourselves on policing by consent, we hope that the consultation provides us with an opportunity to reach a consensus. Let us decide as a country on the structures of our police and fire and rescue services to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues that were raised in his statement. I have exactly 20 minutes for questions, after which I must move to the next item of business.
We believe that change is essential in our police and fire services to ensure that they are fit for Scotland in the 21st century and to maximise investment in front-line services in every part of Scotland. That is why Iain Gray announced in October our support for a single national police service and a single fire and rescue service.
Why are we still waiting for the same clarity from the cabinet secretary on the issue? We know that he and his officials have researched and discussed the matter for months. Consultation is needed on the detail of how we move forward, but surely our police and fire services need more clarity now on their future structure, given the budget pressures to which the cabinet secretary referred and the urgent need to protect investment in the front line.
Today, the cabinet secretary has—rightly—made clear his preference for a single fire and rescue service. Why cannot he do the same for our police service? He appears to be consulting on continuing with eight forces while ruling out that option.
When will the consultation process end? Will the cabinet secretary make clear before the election in May whether he supports a single police force for Scotland? Surely to fail to make clear his position would be to fail to provide the leadership that we need on this crucial issue for our communities’ safety.
I welcome Richard Baker’s support for our position on a single fire and rescue service. The consultation will last for the normal period of three months. As for the Scottish National Party’s position at the election, that will be decided by those who are in charge of that.
The police and fire services are distinctly different—we have seen that in the arguments that a variety of officers have made in public. Scotland has always prided itself—correctly—on policing by consent and not by diktat. We do not wish to go down the Labour route of dictating to the police; we will try to reach a consensus.
I would have thought that Mr Baker would welcome the opportunity for a consultation, so that we could reach a consensus—as a Parliament, I hope, and perhaps even in the Labour Party. On the airwaves today, Eric Milligan—a Labour councillor—denounced the one force option. I have received letters on the matter and, in the Dundee Courier, the Labour MP Tom Docherty opposed the abolition of Fife Constabulary. I would have thought that Labour would welcome a consultation, so that it could perhaps even achieve a consensus itself, before we sought a consensus in the country.
I thank the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of his statement.
The Scottish Conservatives agree that it is appropriate to review the structure of fire and police services. I will certainly not defend historical police force structures if that means sacrificing more police officers who could fight crime on the streets. One police force and one fire service are preferable, if we can protect or enhance local accountability. We would achieve that by establishing directly elected local police commissioners. Operational matters would be for the police, but they would be accountable to those locally elected commissioners. Does the cabinet secretary support the establishment of locally elected police commissioners to ensure accountability? If not, how will he protect local accountability?
We do not support the proposed elected commissioners, which all ranks of the police service uniformly oppose. We do not seek to replicate that proposal.
That said, I welcome and agree with John Lamont’s point that the nub of the debate on the police is accountability and fears of centralisation. How do we ensure that areas do not lose services? How do we prevent power from going to the centre and retain it at the grass roots? The deputy chief constable whom I mentioned has contributed significantly to the debate. As has been mentioned, opportunities exist in relation to the fire service, which could be replicated, as the deputy chief constable has said. Local authorities could have their own police and fire boards, of which every councillor could be a member. That would allow every councillor to have an influence, unlike the current position, in which seven out of eight of our councillors are not members of such boards.
John Lamont is correct to flag up that the issue is accountability. We accept that there is a strong case for one force and that the understandable doubts that remain will have to be overcome. We know that legitimacy would otherwise be given to other options.
The cabinet secretary’s statement today was notable in not providing even the vestige of a figure on which to base the Government’s principal assertion that establishing a single fire and rescue service and a single police service is the wizard wheeze way in which to save money. That is not particularly surprising given that the earlier claim, reported in the press, that £194 million would be saved by setting up a single police force was widely rubbished, and the Government had to undergo the humiliation of being forced to remove the figure from the interim report that went to the recent Scottish policing board meeting. The idea of a single Scottish police service is bad in democratic principle; bad for local communities and local policing; and bad in general terms for Scotland. Today, we do not even have a consultation paper; we have just a promise to publish consultation papers next month. Was there ever such an admission of a shambles in the making?
Does the cabinet secretary agree that policing is in essence a locally delivered service? Will he—these are his words—demonstrate savings and provide the Parliament with a detailed breakdown of where the claimed savings will come from, explain their effect on police and civilian staff numbers, and say whether he has any independent validation? Can he give the chamber the figures for the cost of change? If not, why not? Will he outline to whom the proposed new police service and fire and rescue service will be responsible, what input there will be from local authorities and other partners, and how a service that is essentially local in nature can possibly be delivered by one centralised service?
A variety of matters are involved. I will try to deal with them all.
Robert Brown asks whether policing is local or national. The answer is the same as the answer to the question whether policing is about rapid response or the bobby pounding the beat: it is both. The police have to be local because that is fundamental to the safety and security of our communities. In the 21st century, we face significant challenges. Even in this country and this chamber, we know the threat of terrorism. That cannot be dealt with locally; we have to ensure that we deal with it collectively, just as we do with serious and organised crime. We know that crime does not respect local boundaries or local communities. As I said, policing is both local and national.
The fundamental point that Robert Brown and John Lamont raised is accountability. That remains an issue. There has to be validation. We will embark on pursuing that in parallel with on-going matters in terms of the consultation. We will undertake further drilling down into the figures. The figure of £200 million that was released has been disputed. I will not say that the figure is pound perfect in any way, but I can say that significant savings can be made by a move to one force. We can argue about the amount, but significant savings can be made.
The status quo is not tenable. If we were to follow the Liberal Democrat line and the status quo were to remain, we would end up in the position of people south of the border. I remind the chamber of the position of Greater Manchester Police under the Liberal coalition south of the border. It is to lose a quarter of its 12,000 staff, including front-line officers. A total of 1,387 officers and 1,557 civilian posts could go. On Monday 15 November, the chief constable announced that 750 civilian employees and 309 officers would go by 2012, with more to follow, and that, by the financial year 2014-15, there would be a 23 per cent reduction in employee numbers.
The status quo is not tenable. We can argue over whether there should be a single force or a regional model. Arguments about accountability have to be made in terms of centralisation, financing and performance across the remaining forces in relation to the regional model, as well as the accountability of remote boards—
Quickly, please.
We cannot stay as we are. If we do, we will end up with the redundancies that are happening south of the border.
We come to open questions. Many members wish to ask a question of the cabinet secretary. If questions and answers are kept succinct, I will do my best to get everyone in.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that I was employed by Strathclyde Fire Brigade for more than 10 years. That experience leads me very much to support the proposal for a single fire and rescue service. However, although it may be technically feasible to establish a single emergency fire control room, I do not believe that that would be desirable, particularly given the lack of resilience that comes with such a model. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the need for local knowledge and resilience across the country overrides any argument in favour of a single control room?
Yes, I do. Local knowledge remains fundamentally important. That applies in the fire service especially but it also applies in the police. A move to a single fire service does not mean that there has to be a single control room. As we have said, there have been difficulties with the firelink scheme. However, that matter will be reviewed, and whether we move to one control room is a separate issue. Many people have made good arguments that we need to consider sharing across services.
On Stewart Maxwell’s fundamental point, a single service does not mean that everything has to be centralised. We are conscious that the issue must be about decentralisation of powers to local commanders and local stations, and about ensuring that there is accountability locally. We have taken those points on board and they will be fundamental to the consultation.
In considering new structures for the police and the fire and rescue service, it is of paramount importance that we ensure the delivery of effective front-line services. We have seen the evidence for that in the past 24 hours with the firefighters who have put their lives at risk in Edinburgh and Dundee.
How will the consultation assess what is the right mix of support staff and front-line staff to ensure that we deliver safety throughout Scotland’s communities?
The consultation is to decide on the structure. Some of the aspects that James Kelly mentioned will be viewed as operational. It would not occur to me, nor to my colleague the Minister for Community Safety—nor, indeed, to any of our predecessors—to interfere with those matters. We have the ministerial advisory group. We have to go forward to a consultation on the structure.
On the issue of how fire officers do their work, we correctly leave that to those who are empowered in that area and who represent those on the front line. We will work in collaboration with fire officers and the Fire Brigades Union on those matters as we seek to reach a consensus about how we build on the excellent service in every rank.
On the back of the very sad fire deaths over Christmas and the new year—many, unfortunately, due to excess alcohol consumption—will the minister say how many more rescues were carried out over the festive period by our fire and rescue services?
I do not have that information to hand but I am happy to try to obtain it from the relevant sources and provide it to the member.
The Government echoes the comments of the chief fire officer of Strathclyde—perhaps it is a pity that other members did not heed them—about the problems of alcohol and the consequences not simply for the health service but throughout society.
I ask members to ask questions that relate directly to the cabinet secretary’s statement.
I am glad that the cabinet secretary has belatedly come to the chamber to allow Parliament some discussion on this important matter. The truth is that where Labour goes, the Scottish National Party follows.
The Scottish policing board and the ministerial advisory group have been discussing the possibility of reform for a considerable time. Despite asking, we have been unable to get hold of the papers that are being considered by those groups. Will the cabinet secretary now publish in full all papers considered by the two groups, and the papers that he considered, including all financial considerations and projections?
Cathie Craigie’s comments seem to be in direct opposition to the comments made by Richard Baker, but there we go—some things do not change.
We have already put the various minutes on the ministerial action group and Scottish policing board web pages. When we go to consultation we will be happy to make available any further information. There are groups working in collaboration, and we will be as open and supportive as we can be. We have taken on officials seconded from the Fire Brigades Union and staff from Lothian and Borders, Strathclyde and other forces. This is a matter on which we are striving to reach a consensus. It is a pity that Cathie Craigie cannot change the habits of a lifetime.
On the basis that there is at least a majority consensus that the status quo is not an option, will the cabinet secretary give support to the theory—which I know he supports—that the effectiveness of the front-line police service very much depends on the back-office functions that must be fulfilled? Will he carefully consider how those back-office functions can be sharpened up with respect to the impact that they have, and can some consideration be given to sharing the back-office functions of the police with other Scottish Government agencies and departments?
That is a sensible point. As I mentioned in the statement, we considered co-operation across services. Although we are opposed to having one blue-light service as such, we recognise that co-operation between services is essential. There has been a great deal of co-operation to date, but there can be a great deal more.
We accept the point that Bill Aitken makes about back-office services. Much of that is a matter of operational balance, and it is important to get it right. We will be more than happy to take the issue on board and to try and ensure that those who are now building on the situation and who are dealing with the consultation also take it on board.
Grampian’s chief constable, Colin McKerracher, has said that merging the police forces into one would be a huge mistake, and, to use his word, that this debate is “dangerous”. Will the justice minister listen carefully to the concerns that are being expressed about policing by my constituents in Aberdeenshire, who say that the area would be ill served if what has been a long-held principle right across the United Kingdom—that policing should be local, not national—were to be wrecked?
I listen to all police officers, irrespective of their rank. I listen to the deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police, to the chief constable of Grampian Police, to the chief constable of Strathclyde Police and to the chair of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, which has made it clear that the fundamental argument is about what works—although the association is minded to support having one force.
The point that Mr Rumbles correctly makes is that local factors are important. We accept that accountability—which was raised by John Lamont—is fundamental, and we must deal with that. Those who support the option of having one force must allay fears that it will mean a negation of local matters. I do not necessarily think that it will, but that argument has to be won.
My interaction is not, in the main, with chief constables—except when I am doing my day job as cabinet secretary. As a constituency MSP, my interaction is with rank-and-file beat officers and inspectors, whether that is in Portobello, Leith, Musselburgh or Craigmillar. That is where power must go—as well as there being sharing of back-office services.
I have real concerns about centralisation. The Highlands and Islands are different, and our needs are different. The cabinet secretary has given assurances that the changes will not lead to centralisation and to loss of local control. Can he elaborate on the safeguards for local accountability that may be built into the new structures?
Cabinet secretary, I must ask you to keep it as brief as possible, please.
That is a valid point. Those matters have to be expanded on by those who promote the argument for a single service. We have to ensure that the structure provides more power at grass-roots level, especially to local commanders, who know their areas. If there is to be a single service, centralisation must be shown to mean that not everything is on one site; the fruits that come from centralisation must be shared around communities, wherever they may be.
Will the cabinet secretary outline for the Parliament his plans, or initial thoughts at least, as to how local accountability will be maintained if the SNP finally nerves itself to go to the electorate with either Labour’s radical policy of a single police service, which was announced last October, or with the more conservative option of a regional model?
As I said in response to Richard Baker, we are not trying to obtain consensus by diktat—although that may be the Labour position. There is a considerable argument for, and a lot of merit in, what has been put forward by the deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police, which provides an answer to Mr Butler’s point. Other suggestions or points might be made by other officers, whether they are in Strathclyde or in the north. That is why we are having a consultation. The arguments have to be won, because of people’s legitimate concerns about accountability and centralisation. We have to strive for consensus.
Margo MacDonald—very briefly.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, and happy new year.
Will the cabinet secretary say who will hire the chief of police, and who will fire the chief of police? Will the cabinet secretary take responsibility for that?
No. That is not the approach that operates in most other matters. I think that Deputy Chief Constable Steve Allen, of Lothian and Borders Police, whom Margo MacDonald will know, referred to the possibility of there being a board, predicated on the boards that will be based at local authority level.
The issue is another fundamental point that must be answered by the people who support the idea of a single force. If such points, whether in relation to protection from political interference or local accountability, cannot be answered by those people, I would have thought that the argument that aims to build consensus will fail, leaving another option. However, if people can succeed in answering those points, and given the position in relation to savings, I think that there will be success. That is why we are having a consultation. There is an answer, but it must be given and people must be persuaded.
That concludes the statement and questions on reform of the police and fire and rescue services. I apologise to the two members whom I was unable to call.