Police Numbers
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3726, in the name of Richard Baker, on police numbers.
Ever since the Scottish National Party came to power, the Parliament has sought to hold it to its manifesto commitment for 1,000 more police officers in Scotland. This is not simply a debate about numbers; it is about a clear promise to communities in Scotland that that commitment on extra police would be kept when so many of the Government's manifesto commitments have been jettisoned. However, trying to get clarity from ministers on the commitment has been like trying to nail blancmange to a wall. By September 2007, the SNP had moved away from the pledge of 1,000 more police to
"the deployment of the equivalent of 1,000 additional police officers".
When the cabinet secretary was asked, on "The Politics Show", how many police officers there would be, he said:
"I find that, actually, a rather silly question. The number will, you know, be whatever that will be."
The Parliament, and others without, has ensured that the Scottish Government returned to a commitment of 1,000 more police officers. Alas, though, even now it has been necessary to seek further clarity from ministers on that pledge. Yesterday, they published a police force projection study that they said showed that the target would be met. The cabinet secretary attacked what he called doom-mongers—unlikely as it may seem, the phrase "doom-monger" may have been aimed in my direction. All I can say in response to the cabinet secretary is "Physician, heal thyself", because it was not me but the cabinet secretary who, when asked by Colin MacKay,
"Will there be 17,265 officers by 2011?"
said no.
At a recent First Minister's question time, the First Minister, in his best Tony Soprano impersonation, issued me with a dire warning that I would have to apologise to Parliament on the issue. I am afraid to say that no such apology will be forthcoming—not because I seek to follow his example in failing to apologise for the Government's litany of broken promises, but because we had to raise our concerns about the fact that the cabinet secretary said in the interview that the target of 1,000 more police than in May 2007 would not be met.
In the SNP amendment, Mr MacAskill returns once again to the issue of 1,000 extra recruits, but 1,000 recruits 1,000 more police officers does not make. Between 1999 and 2007, the previous Scottish Executive delivered 1,500 more police officers to create a record number of police in Scotland. When the cabinet secretary talks of record numbers, that is nothing new—we achieved that and we are proud of it. However, to do that over eight years, nearly 7,000 new officers were recruited.
It is still not clear to us from the projection study that the level of planned recruitment will result in 1,000 extra police officers. If the cabinet secretary is so confident that it will, why does he not simply sign up to our motion? His projection study predicts that the lowest possible number of new officers that there will be is 10 more than we refer to in the motion, so it should have been easy for him to sign up.
Perhaps I could put it on the record. Will there be 1,000 more officers? Yes.
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has made that clear commitment, but it raises the question why he could not sign up to the motion, which would have made that absolutely clear.
Labour councillors in Strathclyde, through the good offices of the Strathclyde police board, are investing the funds of their own councils to put more police on the beat there—nearly 200 extra officers. We have not even said in the motion that the extra 1,000 funded by the Scottish Government should be above and beyond that.
The extra recruitment in Strathclyde shows that a postcode lottery on police recruitment is opening up, with recruitment forging ahead in Strathclyde, while in Grampian, recruitment targets are having to be scaled back by some 60 officers—the First Minister may care to reflect on that. I am sure that it will become clear that Grampian is not the only force to be affected in that way.
It is important that those who come forward to join the police now receive exactly the same level, length and high quality of training that have been the hallmark of the Scottish police. Reports in two newspapers in November raised serious concerns about pressures on training provision.
On this crucial issue, it is time to have a clear strategy for delivery. Today, the cabinet secretary said yes but three weeks ago he said no. For too long, with the mibbes aye, mibbes naw approach that has been taken, it has seemed as though Kenny Dalglish rather than Kenny MacAskill has been in charge of the pledge. That is why we wish to see new, independent scrutiny, not simply of the reporting of the figures but of the projection study and the plans to make the pledge a reality. Despite all the statements about the projection study, and despite the comment that Kenny MacAskill has just made, the amendment in the name of the cabinet secretary still does not bind the Government to a clear target. It simply refers to the projection study. If the cabinet secretary has moved on from that, we welcome that.
However, on that basis we cannot support the Scottish Government's amendment; nor can we support the Conservative amendment, which is merely an addition to that. The Liberal Democrat amendment is not only a more accurate reflection of the history of the issue; it is far more productive in looking forward, and we are happy to support it.
If the SNP cannot accept independent scrutiny of its progress on the issue and cannot make a clear commitment, doubts will remain. In any event, it will still be the job of the Parliament to hold the Government to account on this key pledge—it is clear that the pledge will not be kept unless we do so. We are gratified that, on this occasion, our debate has resulted in further information and, hopefully, the clarity that we seek from the Scottish Government. Nevertheless, we will continue to press the Government to keep its pledge on police numbers. That is why we have brought this debate to the chamber today.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government must ensure that there are 17,265 full-time equivalent police officers by March 2011, calculated on the basis currently used by the Chief Statistician in the reporting of the official Police Officer Quarterly Strength Statistics, for the SNP's stated manifesto pledge for 1,000 more police officers to be met.
I welcome this debate on police numbers. I am extremely grateful to Richard Baker for bringing it to Parliament, particularly as it gives me the opportunity to set out the good news about how the Government is delivering on its promise to put more police officers on our streets and in our communities.
Following the publication yesterday of the police force projection study, we can say not only that recorded crime is at a 25-year low and police numbers are at an all-time high, but that the SNP Government will deliver 1,000 additional recruits; that the total number of police officers will be 1,000 higher than in 2007; and that we will go further by using the three Rs of recruitment, retention and redeployment to maximise the number of officers on our streets and in our communities. We will do all that despite our inheriting a spike in retirals and the lowest level of police recruitment since devolution.
Therefore, although I welcome the debate, I am a bit surprised that Richard Baker wanted a debate celebrating the Government's success on police numbers. Over and over, he told anyone who would listen that we would never recruit 1,000 additional officers. He was a doomsayer and a Jeremiah, but that argument is bust. Over and over, he told anyone who would listen that the head count would never go up by 1,000 officers. Now, that argument is bust, too. He needs to learn that saying something over and over does not make it so. In four quarters, we have seen four increases and we now have record numbers of police officers in Scotland.
The cabinet secretary earlier gave a definition regarding the way in which police numbers will be worked out. That was a different definition from the one that he has repeated several times before. Can we take the latest definition as the final definition of the Government's position on the matter?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We inherited from the Liberal Democrat-Labour Administration the lowest level of police recruitment since devolution. We also inherited a record number of retirals. Despite that, we are delivering 1,000 additional recruits and are committing to in excess of 1,000 additional police officers come 2011 than we inherited in 2007. That is a good news story. However, doubtless, Richard Baker will wish to continue with his doomsaying.
I simply pose a question. We certainly want the Scottish Government to put those additional police officers on the beat. If the cabinet secretary is so confident about that today, why did he say just three weeks ago that the total figure would not reach 17,265 officers? Is he saying that the figure will be at least 17,275, which is the bottom of the range that is set out in the projection study?
We inherited a frankly dreadful situation—the lowest level of recruitment since devolution and a record number of retirals, with more than 2,300 officers projected to go. Despite that, the Government is committing, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and our additional officers will be on the streets.
Richard Baker continues to plough on, but the fact of the matter is that we are delivering. Looking at the faces of Richard Baker's colleagues, I do not think that they are too admiring of his having brought the issue for debate this morning. I suspect that they feel that, a little like the grand old Duke of York, he has marched his Labour colleagues up to the top of the hill only to find 1,000 police officers waiting for them at the top.
As members know, on 31 March 2007 there were 16,234 full-time equivalent police officers in Scotland. In our first budget, the Scottish Government funded our pledge to recruit an additional 1,000 police officers over this session of Parliament. We have also provided police authorities with sufficient resources to maintain the numbers with which they started, including £20 million in 2009-10 to cope with the bulge in retirals that we inherited and £55 million in 2008-09 to 2010-11 for police and fire pensions, which were dropped on us by Westminster.
Now that we are at around the midway point in our first term in office, we can project what the impact of that investment will be. The police force projection study uses published statistics, together with forecasts from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. There is always some uncertainty in making projections about the future; therefore, we have modelled variations in the number of officers retiring and leaving the service. As a result, the report cites a range of figures. However, the study clearly shows that the number of police officers in March 2011 will likely be at least 17,275 and possibly as high as 17,484.
Because of the Government's investment and the work that it has undertaken in partnership with the chief constables, I can say with confidence that we will see the number of police officers rising by 1,000 or more. The Jeremiahs and the doomsayers will just have to accept that. I can also say with some confidence that Richard Baker now needs to march his weary troops back down the police numbers hill. I suggest that, the next time that he is tempted to march them up it, he should remember that saying something over and over again does not make it so.
I take pleasure in moving the amendment in my name and confirm to Mr Baker that we will recruit 1,000 additional officers. There will be 1,000 additional officers in 2011. The Government is delivering on its commitment to the three Rs and is providing a visible police presence in our communities.
I move amendment S3M-3726.1, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:
"notes that police officer numbers are at a record high; welcomes the findings of the Police Force Projection Study that show that by March 2011 police officer numbers will have increased by more than 1,000 over the March 2007 level and will reach between 17,275 and 17,484 officers; commends the Scottish Government for its investment in funding 1,000 additional recruits; further commends the eight Scottish police forces for delivering additional police officers, and calls on the Scottish Government to continue to maximise the total number of police officers through a combination of recruitment, retention and redeployment."
At least we now know where we are. I like to think that I am regarded as a fair man and a person who will adopt a reasonable approach to all the difficulties that we run up against. However, I am slightly impatient that this matter is before the chamber again, although I can see the justification behind the Labour Party's raising the matter following a far-from-clear statement from the cabinet secretary some three weeks ago that caused doubts to arise in all our minds. Nevertheless, I pay credit where it is due. The situation has been clarified today beyond peradventure. I congratulate the cabinet secretary and, at the same time, encourage him to be as forthright and as clear on other subjects in the days ahead.
We were promised the projection study, which duly arrived and which has clarified events to an extent. People who are less cynical than me might regard it as a passing coincidence that the document arrived on our desks yesterday morning, after Mr Baker's motion had been lodged. However, I appreciate the fact that, at times, I can be a little cynical.
Let us return to the history of the matter. As I say, Labour was perfectly justified in raising the issue today. However, its record with regard to the 1,000 additional police officers is perhaps not so praiseworthy, bearing in mind the fact that, in last year's budget deliberations, it did not come up with any constructive suggestions in that regard. I pay tribute to the fact that the Liberals acknowledged the point at that stage.
The projection study stands up to reasonably robust scrutiny. Nonetheless, I take the point that there seems to be an imbalance in the recruitment numbers throughout Scotland. That is something that Mr MacAskill and others may have to address, but it can be sorted out. Another issue of concern is that—despite the arguments about the changing financial climate, which I accept—the figures under the retention heading of the three Rs might not be as comfortable as we might think. However, that issue will take its course.
Certainly, the recruitment element of the equation is highly satisfactory. Tulliallan seems almost to have set up a production line that is turning out new, effective police officers. On the streets, there is a positive improvement in the visibility of police officers—Glasgow city centre is a classic example. That is not just my view, but has been put to me by members of the public.
Is the member aware of the situation with Grampian Police? Its projected figure of 98 additional officers is welcome, but that does not compare well with the 138 extra policemen that the force received over the period of the previous parliamentary session. Does the member agree that, although the figures are welcome, they should be kept in perspective?
I have already underlined the point that an imbalance exists in the recruitment figures around the country. The Grampian Police figure is less than satisfactory. I hope that the cabinet secretary, along with the force's police board and chief constable, will take measures to resolve that situation. I accept that that is an issue.
We need to consider where the credit is due for the increased figures. Frankly, I think that credit is due to members on the Conservative benches. With all due modesty, I point out that, if we had not put pressure on the Scottish Government last year, we would not be in the position today of knowing that we will have a minimum number of 1,000 additional officers.
This is a serious issue because the primary duty of Government is to ensure the protection of its citizens. It has been proved beyond peradventure that safety and security are provided by having police officers actively patrolling the streets. As a result of the input of my colleagues on the Conservative benches and as a result of the Scottish Government's recognition of the realities of the situation, we are on course to achieve that increase. That can surely only be a satisfactory situation.
I move amendment S3M-3726.1.1, to leave out from first "commends" to "further" and insert:
"notes that this figure has been achieved as a result of the funding secured by the Scottish Conservatives in the 2008-09 budget negotiations;".
I will begin, if I may, with Mr Aitken's second-last point, which was about the seriousness of the issue. The debate is not just a numbers argument: it is about holding the Government to account on an issue that is very important to the public. Today's debate should never have been necessary, but the blame for it lies entirely with the Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
We all know that the SNP's reputation as a party that made manifesto promises that it never intended to keep was first established in the debate on police numbers—an issue that was first raised by our then leader, Nicol Stephen—and has become entrenched with its breaching of other key pledges on student debt, local income tax and class sizes.
Let me remind members of the sorry history of the SNP Government's obfuscation on police numbers. The SNP's 2007 manifesto said:
"we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police".
That was very clear. However, the manifesto pledge that was put before the nation was recalibrated shortly after the election. In the famous phrase, Kenny MacAskill said:
"our commitment is to deliver … the equivalent of an extra 1,000 officers".—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 406.]
As a consequence, the word "equivalent" might acquire a new meaning in the "Oxford English Dictionary". However, the phrase was repeated on various occasions, notably by the First Minister on 5 September and 4 October 2007. As Richard Baker has already mentioned, Mr MacAskill also said, in his "silly question" comment, that
"The number will … be whatever that will be. Whether the number will be 16,201 or 16,222, I don't know."
As a result of its embarrassment on the issue, the SNP Government was forced to increase police funding to support 1,000 police officers above the established number. However, two further questions need to be asked, which echo points that other members have already made. First, does the cabinet secretary's pledge—I am grateful to him for redefining it once again this morning—exclude the increased officer numbers that are being paid for by redeployment within forces such as Strathclyde Police? Does the pledge go above increases that are being paid for by other people, or is it a simple comparison with the 2007 figures? Secondly, in the retention figures—which Bill Aitken rightly raised—is there any progress or improvement in the 30-plus scheme?
The answer to Mr Brown's question is quite clear. We are committed to recruiting 1,000 officers and we are committed to there being 1,000 more than the figure in March 2007. It is straightforward and simple.
The answer to the question is obviously that the number does not take account of any additions. To be precise, the additions that Strathclyde Police have made are part of that 1,000 figure; they are not over and above the Government's commitment, as some of us might have thought.
In any event, the position should have been pretty straightforward. If the cabinet secretary had earlier defined the matter as he did this morning, there would have been no problem. The pledge should have meant that we would have 17,265 officers by the end of the session, but no—that was not the case. On 3 March this year, Kenny MacAskill said that there would not, after all, be an extra 1,000 police by 2011. He said that that was not the target that the SNP had set itself, which was to have 1,000 additional recruits. Apparently, the promise did not account for the 2,000 officers who are due to retire by 2011. Once again, the cabinet secretary could not say what police numbers would be in 2011. Even in the cabinet secretary's amendment today, the matter is not as clear as it was in his speech.
I genuinely welcome the police force projection study, which—as Bill Aitken rightly said—was carried out rather hastily after a rather confusing interview. I welcome the news that 450 extra recruits have come out of Tullliallan this year. I have recently visited the Scottish Police College and I much admire its work. Until March I had thought, to be frank, that we had moved on from the issue. Let there be no mistake that achievement of the 1,000 police officers pledge—in the precise terms that are laid out in the motion—is the job of the SNP Government and no one else. Richard Baker was quite right to lay down the challenge. If the SNP Government has no concerns about the issue, why does it not agree to the motion in the terms that the Labour Party has laid out? There is no real reason why the Government should not do so, given that the motion matches exactly what the cabinet secretary has said today.
The Government has the tool of workforce planning to deal with the problems, which are exactly those that have confronted us in recruiting more social workers, nurses and—when I was a minister—teachers. The SNP should stop redefining, qualifying and recalibrating its pledge. The SNP is in government and Parliament has given it the tools, so it should not need any excuses or circumlocutions. The police do not want this distracting and rather boring issue and the public want to continue to see more police in their communities. It is time for the SNP to stop messing about and to deliver.
I move amendment S3M-3726.2, to insert at end:
"; notes the Police Force Projection Study carried out by the Scottish Government estimating that police officer numbers are likely to be between 17,275 and 17,484 by 31 March 2011; notes that the SNP's attempt to alter its commitment to the delivery of the equivalent of 1,000 officers would not have achieved this result; welcomes the fact that the Scottish Government was forced by opposition parties and public opinion to firm up its commitment; regrets the Scottish Government's repeated efforts to confuse and obfuscate the figures, noting that, as recently as 3 March 2009, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice cast further doubt on the Scottish Government's intention and ability to achieve the target, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to retain skills and expertise in the police force through appropriate workforce planning and ensure that police officers are working effectively and visibly in Scotland's local communities."
We now move to the open debate.
I welcome the opportunity to support the Labour motion in this morning's debate.
There is no doubt that crime and antisocial behaviour are issues that dominate many of our constituencies. We see—as I have seen in Cambuslang and Rutherglen—community facilities that have been vandalised, pensioners afraid to leave their homes and families who have grown up in an area feeling intimidated, and there is no doubt that such matters are of grave concern. We must stand firm alongside our communities in combating such crime and antisocial behaviour.
There is no doubt that, in doing so, we look to Parliament's and the Government's responses. A few weeks ago, a debate on community policing showed the many advantages of increased visibility of the police in our towns and cities, and we heard about how community policing is reassuring for many of our families and citizens. There is no doubt that communities want us to back up the measures that councils have introduced and the actions that their antisocial behaviour units have taken to combat crime and antisocial behaviour, but there is also no doubt that more police on the streets and a more visible police presence provide reassurance.
From that point of view, I note the publication of the police force projection study and the cabinet secretary's announcement that he believes that the number of police officers will reach 17,275 by March 2011. However, the projection study has to be closely examined, because there are some questions about its methodology. As Richard Baker said, the previous Executive successfully managed to put 1,500 additional officers on the streets, and that was done on the basis of there also being 7,000 additional recruits. The figures in the projection study show 3,500 recruits going through Tulliallan so, on a like-for-like basis, that will give 750 additional officers. It seems to me that the cabinet secretary has made some optimistic assumptions about retirals.
The member obviously does not believe the statements that I have made that there will be 1,000 recruits and that there will be 1,000 more police officers than in March 2007. If the matter is of such concern, why did the Labour manifesto commit to not one new recruit? Would we not be in an awfy state if Labour was in power and not us? There would not be 1,000 recruits and we would be going backwards.
Labour delivered 1,500 additional officers in the eight years in which it was in power. The SNP is beginning to show itself as a party that said anything to get a vote in the 2007 elections. That is the issue that is before the Parliament today, and that is why people will scrutinise closely the projection study and the methodology behind it.
The SNP is beginning to make a name for itself by dropping election pledges like confetti at a wedding. It told students that it would dump the debt, but it went back on that promise. It told first-time buyers that they would get £2,000 grants, but that was ditched, as well. It told Scotland that it would introduce a local income tax, but that has also been dumped. Some people quote the cliché that politicians will say anything to get a vote. To me, the SNP is becoming the embodiment of that cliché. It is getting politicians a bad name. We are beginning to see signs of that. An opinion poll at the weekend showed that the SNP has fallen behind for the first time since 2007.
There is no doubt that the matter is a serious one that deserves proper scrutiny. The cabinet secretary has given us a projection study, but my projection is that, in the weeks and months ahead, the people of Scotland will begin to see through the false promises of the SNP.
Zero. Zilch. Nil. Nada. That is the precise number of additional police officers that Labour promised in its 2007 manifesto. Indeed, the statistics that were released on 3 March on police officer quarterly strengths show that police numbers were in decline in the first two quarters of 2007, before we came into office. Despite that, we are on track to exceed our target of 1,000 extra police officers. If Labour did not promise a single extra police officer in its manifesto, why is it suddenly feigning interest? As we heard from the cabinet secretary, the SNP Government has also successfully dealt with the significantly higher than expected numbers of police officers who are leaving the force through retiral, resignation or ill health. Labour did nothing to prepare for that.
Labour must apologise for misleading voters on police numbers. I am sorry that Mr Baker has decided that Labour will not do that today. He has consistently told voters that we have broken our manifesto pledge even though there is no evidence to back that up. Voters have been deliberately misled.
It is great that Labour wants us to hold on to our manifesto commitments, although it is a shame that that does not apply to our commitment to an independence referendum.
I did not say the things that Mr Gibson suggests I said. Unlikely though it might be, perhaps he can provide some enlightenment. Why did Mr MacAskill clearly say in an interview three weeks ago that the target would not be reached? Why did he say that if that was never going to be the case?
The information that Mr MacAskill required was not available. It is available today, and Mr Baker has already heard it.
As for the Liberal Democrats, in 1999, I asked the then Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, what plans he had to increase the number of police officers. His response was that increasing the number of police officers does not reduce crime—a lawyer and politician who seemed to think that the police have no deterrent effect and do not reduce crime by catching criminals.
We heard a rather bizarre intervention from Mr Rumbles, who said that the previous coalition introduced 138 officers to Grampian in eight years but that we are only introducing 98 officers in four years. Apart from the fact that on an annualised basis that represents more officers, the 98 officers will be in addition to the 138 that he mentioned. Mr Kelly made similar points in his speech. I say to him that the previous regime may have introduced 1,500 officers when it was in power, but we are adding to that. Labour and Liberal politicians seem to be unable to comprehend that.
Of course, Labour did invest in additional police officers. I recall that, when Parliament met in Glasgow, Angus MacKay went on television to announce that £10 million had been found to fund 300 additional police officers. That was great news, but he did not say that in that year, non-domestic rates would for the first time be imposed on police buildings. The sum that was raised was £10 million a year.
There were 16,234 police officers when we took office. As the cabinet secretary has made clear, an additional 441 officers are already in post. In one town—Largs—in my constituency, five additional police officers started on the beat in December. This year, they will provide 10,000 additional hours of policing for the people of Largs, which will help to reduce crime and the fear of crime.
What would have happened if Labour was in power? We should consider what is happening south of the border, where police numbers are falling, as detailed in The Times on 24 February. Recorded crime in Scotland has fallen to a 25-year low, and violent and drug-related crime is already low. All eight Scottish police forces recorded less crime in our first year in power than in Labour's last year.
Funding for the police is at record levels. In 2008-09, it will reach £1,082 million, increase to £1,115 million in 2009-10 and to £1,150 million the following year. Since we took office, Labour has repeatedly, and tediously, accused us of breaking our manifesto promise. If anything, ministers should be commended for their Stakhanovite overfulfilment on the four-year plan. That has come despite the necessity to find for police and fire service pension commutations an extra £55 million that should have come through under Barnett consequentials. We have heard little from Labour politicians about that because they never want to criticise their bosses in London.
The SNP met police pay in full. We gave them the full 2.5 per cent increase while the police down south got only 1.9 per cent. The feeble excuse from Labour's London bosses was that the measly £27 million that was involved would stoke inflation. How hollow that silly comment now sounds. It came from a United Kingdom Government that will put VAT up again by 2.5 per cent in January and which put 2p on fuel duty in December.
Of course, Labour members will never give the SNP credit for anything. If we invented a cure for cancer and brought it to Parliament, given their visceral hatred of the SNP and what we stand for, which is to give Scots more control over their own national life—shock horror!—their instinct would be to vote against it.
I commend the cabinet secretary's amendment.
It is almost always a pleasure to follow Kenny Gibson.
I support the motion in the name of my colleague Richard Baker. Last night, when I was thinking about what I would say in the debate, I made a number of assumptions. I assumed that the debate was unlikely to be consensual, that passions would be high on all sides, and that charges would be hurled and thrown back. It seems that my assumptions have been proved correct.
The subject of the debate caused me to cast my mind back to the events of April and May 2007. I recalled some of the more striking proposals in the SNP manifesto, including a local income tax, the cutting of the pupil teacher ratio to 18:1, and the cancelling of all student debt. Those proposals were all uncosted, they all lack intellectual coherence, and they are all wanting any real financial resilience. At the time, I wondered how on earth the SNP, if it won, would be able to give those pledges practical effect. Ironically, that same puzzle has proved to be beyond the SNP ministers who are in charge of those policy areas. The solemn and binding promises have evaporated.
However, when I read the section entitled
"A stronger focus on safer communities"
on page 58 of the SNP manifesto, I thought I had found a popular policy that might actually have been thought out and costed. It stated:
"we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police and will encourage Chief Constables to focus these new resources on community policing."
There were no ifs and no buts and no hedging of bets by the man who would be First Minister. An unconditional and unambiguous promise was made—a solemn, if not historic, concordat with the people of Scotland. However, we have heard the present First Minister's present Cabinet Secretary for Justice this morning, and I am afraid that he has not been persuasive, to say the least. I say to him that mere assertion is not enough, no matter how loud it is.
Over the months, the cabinet secretary has bobbed and weaved, ducked and dived, and bluffed and blustered. He has been the very model of an SNP cabinet secretary. When I listened to him trying to explain his party's shifting position on police numbers and attempting to invest its position with a degree of certainty, I was reminded of the old saying, "He used to be indecisive, but now he's not so sure." His flip-flopping would be laughable if it were not so serious. People in my constituency and in constituencies throughout Scotland want more visible and readily accessible police officers in their communities.
During the previous Labour-led Executive's period of office, we delivered 1,500 additional police officers. People want their communities to be safer, but they also want their political leaders to be straight with them. I say to the cabinet secretary that the talk of the equivalent of 1,000 additional police officers in September 2007 cut no ice with my constituents in Glasgow Anniesland. Mr MacAskill's new wheeze of a police force projection study, which was announced by his ministerial colleague Nicola Sturgeon—it is ironic that it was announced in a debate on a Labour motion on the Government's broken promises—has left voters in Scotland similarly underwhelmed. Projection studies do not offer additional protection to the decent majority—more police officers on the beat do. More police officers on the beat are required.
Mr MacAskill would do well to heed the warning of the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, Norrie Flowers, whom The Herald of 5 March quoted as saying that
"Neither the public nor police themselves will be conned on officer numbers. We all know what the promise was after the last election."
That promise was that, by 2011, there would be 17,265 officers in Scotland. Mr Flowers was absolutely correct. Kenny MacAskill needs to stop showering the people of Scotland with more excuses than an alleged fraudster under police interrogation would.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry—I am in my final minute.
Kenny MacAskill needs to deliver. If he does not, apologies, excuses and projection studies will not do. The electorate will deliver its own condign community punishment and sentence in May 2011. I support the motion.
I am delighted that, despite what Mr Butler has just said, he does, in fact, support Kenny MacAskill's amendment. He notes that police numbers are at a record high and welcomes—grudgingly—the findings of the police force projection study, which show that police officer numbers will increase by 1,000 to between 17,275 and 17,484 officers. To be fair, I do not think that he commended the Scottish Government for its investment in 1,000 additional recruits, but I am sure that he had it in his heart to do so, particularly for the sake of the recruits and the forces that they will work with. Furthermore, he commends the eight Scottish police forces for delivering additional police officers and calls on the Scottish Government to continue to maximise the numbers of police officers through a combination of recruitment, retention and redeployment. That is what I have just heard, and I welcome it.
I have listened carefully to my colleague Nigel Don in the Justice Committee; he is usually a fount of good sense. However, why does his cabinet secretary keeps changing his mind from week to week? How can we believe someone who does not know his own mind from one week's end to the next?
I know what I have just heard, what I see in front of me and what that means—and I know that it is exactly what everybody wanted it to mean. That is why we are struggling to find other things to say.
I point out to Mr Butler, and others who have spoken about the rise in police numbers over the previous eight years, that the numbers of police officers on the streets did not significantly increase. Indeed, it is possible that they did not increase at all, as the Justice Committee has been told many times, because the police unfortunately had to do a good number of other things in their back rooms. That is not a criticism of the police or of those who produce the work for them to do. It is clear that the number of police officers on our streets dropped significantly in the public's perception, and that problem is now being addressed.
I would like to address a few other issues in my remaining minutes. When Mike Rumbles made an intervention earlier, I thought of the distribution of police officers among the different forces. As a North East Scotland regional member, I would of course like to see the maximum possible number of police in Grampian and Tayside—other members would make cases for their regions—but I say to the cabinet secretary that we need perhaps to reflect on the distribution of funds among the forces over a period of time to ensure that it is consistent with what we are asking the forces to do. That is not a criticism of the current numbers, which may be perfectly right. However, we need to check periodically that funding and, therefore, police officers are reasonably distributed. We also need to reflect on the additional resources for community wardens, albeit that they are within the control of local authorities, because we need to ensure equity and fairness throughout Scotland.
I draw members' attention to operation Lochnagar. That major Grampian Police operation will remind us why we need policemen. According to the latest data that I can find, which are a few days out of date, Grampian Police has, over the past few weeks, pursued 102 drug search warrants, taken 151 folk into custody, visited 150 addresses, seized £77,000-worth of drugs and 15 weapons, visited 88 licensed premises and detected some 35 other crimes. That reminds me why we need police officers.
I will give examples of other things that are happening in the Aberdeen area. An intelligence-led operation on four break-ins to houses in the Rosemount area of west Aberdeen has led to a man being taken into custody. There was a sudden death in Mastrick—such events are always sad, of course, but they happen—and there has been a case involving reckless conduct with a firework in which a youth was taken into custody and eventually charged. I mention those examples simply because such things happen pretty much every day in our cities and towns. Who do people want to see when a house has been broken into, there has been a sudden death, or there has been an incident involving assault or violence? They do not want to see a local council official—however well meaning that official might be—but a police officer. That is why it is important that we maximise the number of police officers in our forces, and especially on the streets and facing our communities.
It is vital that governing parties are held to their manifesto commitments, and doing so is the job of Opposition parties. No pledge by the SNP has been more widely expected and accepted than its promise to put 1,000 extra police officers on the beat. Perhaps that is not quite correct. What about the young couple who voted for the SNP because it said that it would give them £2,000 towards their first home? What about the pensioner who voted for the SNP because it said that it would abolish the council tax? What about the young family who voted for the SNP because it said that it would match Labour's school building programme brick for brick? What about the construction workers who have lost their jobs because the SNP has dithered on how it will fund capital projects? I could go on and on about the promises that the SNP Administration has broken, but we are focusing on police numbers today.
We know from what has been said this morning that the SNP has difficulty with numbers. It promised to put 1,000 more police officers on the streets. That promise was made to the people of Scotland and to the Tories to secure their votes for last year's budget—some may say that it was made to them to buy their votes. Despite the promise, the cabinet secretary told the press this month that he cannot give a total for the number of police officers who will be on Scotland's streets in 2011. We have heard much about that this morning.
The cabinet secretary said in Scotland on Sunday that providing 1,000 more officers than in May 2007 was not what the SNP promised. In the same article, he said that the SNP promised "1,000 additional recruits". A few months ago, the SNP said that what it had really meant was additional policing capacity—the equivalent of 1,000 officers.
Perhaps the cabinet secretary needs to be reminded again of what his manifesto said—Robert Brown and other colleagues have also quoted from it this morning. It clearly states:
"It is essential that we have sufficient police on local streets. That's why we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police".
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry; the member has just arrived in the chamber, so I will carry on.
There were no fudges in the SNP manifesto about "additional capacity" and no clarifications about "new recruits". The SNP can change its mind and its words all it likes but, unless drastic action is taken, it is set to break another promise—the promise of 1,000 more police on the beat. I am aware that the cabinet secretary intervened this morning to try to clarify the position, but why should we believe him today when his statements over recent weeks and months seem to change weekly or whenever he is questioned on police numbers?
My constituency is within the Strathclyde Police boundary. The Strathclyde joint police board is keen to develop its community police numbers, so let us look at the figures in the official statistical publication. I have read the minister's letter to the Justice Committee convener and the police force projection study. I am sorry that I have to disagree with the convener and I hope that he will not hold it against me at future committee meetings, but I do not believe that the study stands up to scrutiny at all. It comes with the health warning in the cabinet secretary's letter that
"The actual figure will likely be different from this because retirements and leavers cannot be predicted precisely and because police authorities do not have to stick to their forecast of recruitment."
It is the job and responsibility of Government to ensure that it can make predictions that are based on figures that it is happy to stand with. In other words, the study is just a wish list that has been prepared to try to get the cabinet secretary out of a hole.
Richard Baker pointed out that, because Glasgow City Council wants there to be police on the beat in its area, it is funding nearly 200 officers. However, the number of police officers in Strathclyde has declined since March 2007.
I ask members to please support the Labour motion tonight, to hold the cabinet secretary to account and not to accept any of the fudges in the amendments.
Police numbers have been the subject of intense speculation and debate throughout this session of Parliament. The Government's story has changed so many times that it has been difficult to keep track. Its manifesto promise of "1000 more police officers" has since been described ambiguously and selectively by Kenny MacAskill as "an additional policing capacity",
"the equivalent of 1000 new police officers"
and "one thousand additional recruits". I am delighted that the Government has finally bowed to public opinion and cross-party pressure to firm up its commitment to provide 1,000 new police officers and end the constant speculation. I also welcome the results of the police force projection study in the hope that it will finally open up the Government's previously undefined numerical target to proper scrutiny and accountability, and, more important, ensure that Scotland gets the extra police that it needs.
Serious questions remain about the Government's conduct in the matter, particularly regarding why it has had to issue a press release nearly two years after the election and under cross-party pressure, claiming that it only now knows for sure that it can fulfil a manifesto promise that has held cross-party support since the beginning of the session. The press release attributes the prediction of the target being successfully reached to increased recruitment as well as investment in police authorities, allowing them to maintain current officer numbers. It mentions in particular £20 million of recent investment to cope with a bulge in retirals. Surely factors such as the projected number of retiring officers should have been taken into account before the manifesto commitment was made, not as an afterthought to be shored up with additional funding on an ad hoc basis while the Government flip-flops between policies trying to determine exactly how many more police it can deliver.
To use Kenny MacAskill's words, although the announcement did in many ways "confound the doom-mongers" who said that the Government would not meet its commitment, it did so only because, as recently as 3 March, it appears that the Government was still unsure as to exactly what its commitment was. In future, the Government should be more careful about making promises when it is unsure of the detail of their fulfilment. That is why the Scottish Liberal Democrat amendment calls for a quarterly update of the police force projection study to ensure that the target is met and that future police numbers are maintained.
Now that the Government has finally firmed up its commitment, it is time to look at the next step and, vitally, at how those valuable new officers will be deployed as a visible presence in our communities and on our streets. That is what our voters want. Before the 2007 election, the Scottish Liberal Democrats also pledged to deliver 1,000 new police officers. Part of that pledge was to recruit two new community police officers for every council ward in Scotland—a total of 706 officers.
Following last month's debate, I think that I speak for everyone in the chamber when I say that we agree on the excellent value of community policing. Now that it is clear that the officers will be available, I hope that the Government will consider—perhaps the cabinet secretary will answer this point when he sums up—the two officers per ward option and that other parties will get behind that plan. Although there is value in the Labour Party's suggestion of increasing the number of community wardens, they should not be seen as a cheap substitute for community policing.
I welcome again the results of the police force projection study and call for a constructive cross-party dialogue with the aim of fulfilling the ambitions of the valuable framework for progress set down in last month's community policing report. I hope that members will support the Liberal Democrat amendment and the Labour motion.
The debate has been useful for a number of reasons, but perhaps it is most important in again highlighting the role of the Scottish Conservatives in bringing 1,000 more police officers on to the streets of Scotland.
Although we welcome Labour and the Liberal Democrats to our way of thinking, it is important to record that in government, the Labour and Liberal parties failed to recruit enough police officers to make Scotland safer. With rising crime rates during its term in office, my Conservative colleagues continually asked the Lib-Lab pact to employ more police officers. Under the Labour-led Executive, crime and offences rose by 8 per cent and, according to the Scottish crime survey in 2003, only one in four crimes was recorded by the police. Despite its best efforts during the 2007 election campaign and since then in opposition, its eight years of failure cannot be spun away.
Will the member take an intervention?
I want to make some progress.
Labour and the Lib Dems talked about how they had a record number of police officers in Scotland, but the truth was that only 147 were walking the streets of Scotland at any one time. We should also not forget that, when they had the opportunity to support extra police going into our communities in last year's budget, Labour and the Liberal Democrats sat on their hands and abstained. They had a perfect opportunity to repent, show the errors of their ways and vote for extra police, but they chose not to do so. We cannot trust Labour and the Liberal Democrats when it comes to making our communities safer.
I turn to the Scottish Government. In its 2007 manifesto, the SNP proposed 1,000 more police officers. However, by the end of 2007 it had changed its mind and decided that the 1,000 new officers would be made up not only by extra recruitment but by the creation of equivalent police officers—not new additional police officers but equivalent police officers. Thank goodness for the budget process that allowed the Scottish Conservatives to pressure the Scottish Government to provide the 1,000 newly recruited police officers that it promised in its election manifesto.
It was our job as an effective Opposition party to ensure that the SNP honoured its election pledge of 1,000 extra police officers, which was set to be ditched at one point. It is the SNP's job now to ensure that those 1,000 extra officers are delivered by 2011. That is the minimum that the SNP must achieve if it is to justify the trust that it was given when its first budget was passed. We secured the additional funding to recruit those extra officers; the SNP must now deliver them.
However, the SNP Government should not stop there. It must do more to ensure that our police force is freed up from paperwork to allow officers to get on to our streets and serve our communities.
Thanks to eight years of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, an increasing burden of administrative and procedural bureaucracy has come to consume more and more of police officers' time, keeping them away from the front line of crime fighting. That situation is not of the SNP's making, but it must do more to set our police free to do their job, rather than setting criminals free from our jails. We need to take the handcuffs off the police and put them on to the criminals.
The Scottish Conservatives are clear that more police out in our communities are needed to provide a visible deterrent and to boost public confidence. Traditionally, communities throughout Scotland would have had the reassurance of a local police officer as an integral part of their neighbourhood, building up relationships and reducing the fear of crime. The Scottish Government needs to do more to reduce crime and the fear of crime.
Labour did not promise a single extra police officer during the election. The Liberal Democrats and Labour failed in government. There is only one party with any credibility on this issue: the Scottish Conservatives, with our pledge of additional police officers. That is why I urge the Parliament to support the amendment in Bill Aitken's name.
This has been a rather rumbustious debate. Throughout the debate, the tenor from Labour in particular but also the Liberal Democrats to an extent seemed to be, "It's no fair." Well, it's a fair cop, guv: there will be 1,000 additional recruits delivered by this Government and there will be 1,000 additional officers beyond what we inherited in March 2007. The doomsayers will just have to accept that and get over it.
Mr Baker made a variety of points. He went on about recruitment in Grampian. Let me be clear: we have record numbers of police officers in Grampian. On Monday, it was my pleasure to be briefed about operation Lochnagar, which Nigel Don mentioned, and to meet some of the young recruits—to which the Scottish Government had committed—who had been involved in operations to make their communities in Torry and elsewhere safer and stronger. Labour and the Liberal Democrats should acknowledge and welcome that good-news story.
Mr Baker also went on about training. Yesterday, I met Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation, who told me that the SPF has no problem with how matters are being dealt with at Tulliallan, which Robert Brown mentioned. If anything, the problems at Tulliallan are a result of the success of squeezing through the current number of officers; such problems go with the volume and capacity being delivered.
Yesterday, the Scottish Police Federation said:
"Whilst police recruitment is ultimately a matter for Chief Constables the Scottish Police Federation is aware government is delivering the necessary funding (for the 1000 extra police officers)".
Indeed, ACPOS said last year:
"All eight Scottish Police Forces are working very actively to recruit the thousand police officers that are to be directly funded by the Scottish Government. They are also recruiting to replace officers who are expected to retire within the current financial year … Forces recruited 697 officers during 2007/2008 and are planning to recruit 1648 officers during the current financial year".
That is the situation. We are delivering on our manifesto promise.
It is all very well for Mr Kelly, Cathie Craigie and others to say how important police officers are and for Bill Butler to emphasise the importance of policing in Anniesland but, as Bill Aitken pointed out, let us remember that the Labour manifesto committed to not one new or additional police officer being recruited. Under Labour, not only would we not have 1,000 additional officers or 1,000 recruited officers, we would be facing the retiral spike of 2,300 officers.
Does the minister not accept that our manifesto commitment was to increase the number of police officers year on year and that we stood on our record of 7,000 new recruits and 1,500 more police on the beat? It is interesting that, yet again, he tries to divert attention from his own manifesto, which is what is in question here.
The Government's position is quite clear: we are delivering on our manifesto commitment. Labour's manifesto commitment was for zero officers at a time when 2,300 officers will be retiring.
As Kenneth Gibson pointed out, the situation here contrasts with that south of the border. This Government recognises the service of our police officers. We did not seek to equivocate on paying them. We did not seek to renege on what should be provided as part of their salary. We stumped up and we paid up. Sadly, that is not reflected south of the border.
Although we are not getting Barnett consequentials to address the pension fund debacle that we face, the Government recognises the importance of the police service to the fabric of our communities. Despite not being given what is due and owing to our country from the Treasury, we are ensuring that our communities are protected by our police forces.
We inherited a spike in police retirals, with 2,300 officers due to retire, and the lowest level of police recruitment since devolution. We should contrast that with the Labour manifesto commitment to not one additional officer. Nevertheless, we are able to commit today: we are delivering our additional 1,000 officers into the community and we will ensure that there are at least 1,000 officers above and beyond the number that we inherited in March 2007. To answer John Lamont's fair point about doing more, we are not stopping there, given our commitment to the three Rs of recruitment, retention and redeployment. We will seek to retain valuable officers who might otherwise retire. That depends to some extent on the economic situation and the personal choice of those officers. Mr Aitken is quite correct about that. The study shows that there is flexibility about that.
Equally, we recognise that we have to redeploy officers, who give great service to our communities, away from sitting behind desks doing needless paperwork. Paperwork has to be done in every area of life, but far too much of police work is bureaucratic. We are freeing up front-line officers where we can.
The doomsayers should just get over it and recognise that the Government is delivering 1,000 additional officers into our community and that it is going to deliver 1,000 additional officers.
Given that the Government so enjoys subject debates and Government debates that, on many occasions, are to discuss absolutely nothing, it is a pity that we have had to use our Opposition time to extract from the Government its so-called commitment to delivering 17,265 officers, as promised in its manifesto. We will not allow the Government to hide behind the police force projection study and will hold it to account on its commitment to delivering the 1,000 police officers.
For so long, the Government has sought to condition our thinking on this issue. Perhaps we were mistaken. As Robert Brown said, perhaps the manifesto commitment was to deliver the equivalent of 1,000 more police officers. Perhaps the commitment was to set up a fund that would allow police authorities to bid for money to put police officers on our streets.
It is time for the Government to be open and accountable. When Alex Salmond was elected as First Minister on 16 May 2007, he said that this is
"a Parliament of minorities where no one party rules without compromise or concession."—[Official Report, 16 May 2007; c 24.]
This is an opportunity for the Government to deliver the principles behind those fine words.
I find it unacceptable that I had to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner, following the Government's rejection of my request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 for information on how it would deliver its police recruitment figures. I am delighted that the commissioner has upheld my request and I look forward to receiving the information by 23 March.
As I said in a recent debate, Labour members are reasonable and fair individuals. We simply want to be given the opportunity to scrutinise a minority Government. That is why I support Richard Baker's call for an independent report. That would give the Parliament an opportunity to appraise properly many of the challenges that face Government on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps the Justice Committee could assist the Government in the process.
That would also give the Parliament an opportunity to highlight the support that Labour councils throughout Scotland have given the Government on recruitment. My council—Glasgow City Council—has contributed to the recruitment of more than 200 police officers and yet we have heard not one reference from a Government minister on the subject. Perhaps the cabinet secretary might like to intervene. I am happy to let him credit Glasgow City Council for its contribution.
I have praised Paul Rooney before in the chamber in relation to a variety of matters, including policing and the Scottish Police Services Authority. This is a partnership. We have to work with chief constables, police board conveners and police boards. It is a pity that the Labour Party is still so negative and begrudging and that it just will not get on board. If Paul Rooney can, why can Paul Martin not?
That was yet another contribution of the sort that we have had to take from the Government today. That said, I welcome the commitment to and the fine words about Glasgow City Council.
Community groups in my constituency in Glasgow have told me of their concern that community planning budgets are being used to pay for police recruits. They have told me that that is to the detriment of many local projects, which are experiencing budget cuts. The groups welcome the deployment of recruits in their communities, but not to the detriment of local community projects.
Labour will support the Liberal Democrat amendment in the name of Robert Brown, which sets out eloquently the frustration that many members feel in trying to extract any clarity from the Government on its position. Once again, I am happy to give way to the cabinet secretary to enable him to say those magic words, "There shall be 17,265 police officers in Scotland by 2011."
I repeat what I said at the outset: we will recruit 1,000 additional officers and we will deliver 1,000 additional officers beyond the figure that we inherited in March 2007. That is a good-news story. Labour members should recognise and accept that.
Once again, we failed to hear the magic words.
Let me be clear that we will not take lectures from members opposite on police numbers. We not only provided additional officers when we were in government but gave them the legal remedies to do their job of attacking antisocial behaviour through the delivery of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. That act was widely acclaimed by police forces throughout Scotland, which said that it provided them with the toolkit that they required to fight crime.
Now that this Government is in power, it is making clear its intention to dismantle all the remedies that are available to our officers. New recruits have the thankless task of being governed by the hug-a-hoodie alliance of the SNP and the Tories. We will not support the Tory amendment. Its content reeks of this sad alliance's desperation for attention. It reminds me of a saying of the great Abraham Lincoln:
"I am a success today because I had a friend who believed in me and I didn't have the heart to let him down."
We are delighted to have extracted key information from the Government on its manifesto, but we have yet to extract one bit of information. I ask the cabinet secretary again to say the magic words that he will deliver 17,265 police officers. That is a pledge that we will hold him to.
I call on members to support the motion in Richard Baker's name and the amendment in Robert Brown's name.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—