Police Numbers
We now move to the statement by Kenny MacAskill, on 1,000 additional police officers protecting our communities. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his 10-minute statement; I therefore ask that there be no interventions or interruptions.
14:35
This Government’s commitment was to provide 1,000 extra police officers during this parliamentary session. That is the pledge that we gave at the Scottish election and we have delivered on it.
The latest published figures show that as at 31 December 2009, there were 17,273 police officers in Scotland, which is an increase of 1,039 since March 2007. A visible police presence is a key part of our drive to make Scotland’s communities safer. Those additional officers are working right now to keep our streets safe. Just last week, the chief constable of Strathclyde released figures showing that there has been a decrease of more than 10 per cent in the overall amount of recorded crime in Strathclyde, with significant inroads being made into tackling violent crime. Nationally, recorded crime is now at a near 30-year low and clear-up rates are continuing to improve.
In delivering 1,000 additional police officers we consulted, discussed and agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland that the officers would be phased in over the four years of this parliamentary session: 150 in 2007-08, 462 in 2008-09, 189 in 2009-10 and the final 201 in 2010-11. Those additional officers are being delivered at a time when a large number of officers are retiring from the service due to there having been a recruitment bulge in the late 1970s. Some 3,603 new officers have been trained at the Scottish Police College since March 2007. I am grateful for the efforts of chief constables and the Scottish Police Services Authority in recruiting and training that huge number of officers.
The Scottish Government has already met in full the costs of 801 officers who were recruited by the end of March this year and we are absolutely committed to continuing to pay for those officers during 2010-11. On the final 201 officers who are to be recruited during 2010-11, we have made it clear to police forces that we will provide the funding when the additional officers are in place. Meanwhile, police funding is at a record level of £1.4 billion in 2010-11. Additional calls for funding have been met, including funding fully the new pension arrangements, which means that police forces no longer have to meet the costs of pensions from their annual running costs. Police funding is now £235 million a year more than the previous Government provided, which is an increase of 20 per cent. All that is at a time when we are facing £500 million cuts in planned expenditure this year.
Let me be clear: this Government is providing the costs of the recruitment, training and salaries of the extra 1,000 officers. That is extra funding specifically to recruit those 1,000 extra officers and it should not be used for any other purpose. That has always been our position. It is the position that we have laid out in each budget that has been passed by this Parliament. It is the position that I have laid out in public, it is the position that I have laid out in private, and it is the position that I laid out when I met chief constables on 18 January. My message to them was simple: we have provided the funding that is needed to recruit 1,000 additional officers, so it should be used to recruit the 1,000 officers that we pledged to deliver.
At that meeting, chief constables also shared their concerns about future budgets. They have heard the dire warnings coming from United Kingdom parties of cuts to come and, like me, they are worried. We have already had to live with cuts of more than £500 million. We will have the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s £6 billion cuts programme, which will be announced on Monday; we will have the emergency budget on 22 June; and we will have the comprehensive spending review in the autumn. Decisions on the future size of the budget for the police in Scotland will be taken once we know the scale of the Westminster cuts and the effect that that will have on the overall size of the Scottish budget.
I appreciate the efforts that have been made by police forces in meeting and exceeding efficient government targets in recent years. It is now more important than ever that all opportunities for efficiency are taken and that any waste or duplication is removed. That is why the Scottish policing board is working closely with ACPOS in developing the efficiency agenda.
While we are planning budget stability in 2010-11 with no further cuts in this financial year, we do not yet know what will be delivered for future years by the Westminster Government. What we do know is that we have record numbers of police officers on our streets. We have provided funding for 1,000 additional police officers, and it should continue to be applied for that purpose this year. That is what communities across Scotland want and what they have a right to expect. Obviously, we await the impact of the Westminster cuts to come.
That is what I discussed with chief constables and I want to make it absolutely clear that that was also the message that was delivered by Scottish Government civil servants.
The President of ACPOS, Chief Constable Pat Shearer, has made it clear that
“Civil servants acting in their official capacity and in support of the Minister, advised that the funding had been made available specifically for the purpose of enhancing front line policing services. It was understood that it would be allocated to forces only for that intended purpose.”
I agree. That is and remains the position.
I am proud of the achievements of the Scottish police service. I know from my regular meetings with chief constables that excellent work is being done across Scotland in bringing police officers closer to the communities that they serve. The benefits of that are already emerging, with reduced crime rates. With the serious and organised crime task force, we are seeing a renewed focus on the fight against serious and organised crime. Only this morning I was in Haddington to be briefed by and to congratulate Lothian and Borders Police on operation erase—a large-scale operation that has targeting drug dealers operating in the Musselburgh area and beyond. The dealers who were arrested in their homes this morning will be the first of many in East Lothian and further afield.
I will continue to have constructive and straightforward dialogue with the police to ensure that Scottish policing is in good shape to face whatever challenges may lie ahead. This Government is committed to a well-resourced police service and to providing increased police visibility in our communities. We were elected on a pledge to provide 1,000 additional police officers: we have delivered on that pledge. Whatever cuts the UK parties inflict on Scotland, our commitment to our police officers and the safety of our communities will remain. We will continue to work with the police to make Scotland a safer and stronger place to live.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues that were raised in the statement. We have around 20 minutes, but not a second longer.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the statement.
The fallout from the now infamous Scottish policing board meeting shows that Scottish National Party ministers have put senior police officers and civil servants in an impossible position. For over a year, our police forces have made it clear that they cannot maintain the SNP pledge to provide 1,000 extra police with the budgets that the Scottish Government has allocated to them. They have said that at a time when the Scottish Government budget was increasing and before any spending review down south—[Interruption.]
Order.
How does it help the situation for the Government to withhold funding from police forces, which the cabinet secretary has threatened again today, when forces are already struggling with their budgets? Is it now the cabinet secretary’s position—[Interruption.]
Order. I am sorry to stop you for a moment, Mr Baker. The cabinet secretary will have an opportunity in due course to answer the question. Until then, members should refrain from answering it.
They have the wrong answers, too.
Is it now the cabinet secretary’s position that having 1,000 extra police in two different quarters of this session of Parliament means that the SNP’s promise has been kept, even if numbers reduce after that? Surely that renders it meaningless. One thousand recruits have been funded, but in order to increase overall police numbers by 1,500 the previous Executive had to recruit some 4,000 officers.
Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that the statement from ACPOS this morning confirmed the fears about the sustainability of police numbers? Instead of getting his excuses in early, will he now agree to publish a new projection of future police numbers to give an accurate independent forecast of what they will be? This sorry episode shows that the Scottish Government has been caught red-handed trying to fiddle the figures on police numbers. The Government has been brought to book by our most senior police officers.
A variety of matters were included in that rather rambling question from Mr Baker. Let me do my best to address them. In referring to the statement that was issued on behalf of Pat Shearer, the ACPOS chair, a man to whom I spoke this morning, Mr Baker spoke of an “infamous meeting”. In his statement, Mr Shearer did not speak of an “infamous meeting”, but said:
“The meeting referred to in the Herald article ... is one of many meetings involving Ministers, Officials of the Scottish Government and police officers at the highest level. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice hosted this meeting, initiating discussion and listening to Chief Officers’ views on a wide range of issues affecting policing. Such frank and open dialogue with the Cabinet Secretary has been most welcome.”
Mr Baker’s definition of full and frank discussion may be infamy, but that is certainly not the definition of the chief police officers in Scotland.
Mr Baker talked about the 1,000 officers. Let us be clear: you have stood in the chamber and have narrated elsewhere, Mr Baker, that we would never as a Government deliver 1,000 additional officers. We have delivered more than 1,000 officers, which is a target that you said we could not meet and to which you did not even aspire when you sought to be elected—
Order. Pease speak through the chair, cabinet secretary. I ask all members to speak not directly to each other but through the chair.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I turn to cuts. I refer you again to the statement that was issued on behalf of the chief officers in Scotland.
Mr Shearer has described the meeting that has been mentioned not as an “infamous meeting” but as a dinner chaired by the cabinet secretary. He went on to say:
“The situation is exacerbated by the uncertainty of the future budget allocation to Scotland and we have sought and received a firm commitment from the Scottish Government that it will keep the police service advised as to funding implications”.
Rather than attacking the Scottish Government, the member should be berating his colleagues south of the border, who got us into this mess and imposed £500 million-worth of cuts, and addressing his complaints to a Tory-Liberal coalition that seeks to impose more.
I finish with the penultimate paragraph of Mr Shearer’s statement, in which he says:
“What is clear however is that all parties are working together and share a common interest in providing the best Policing service possible for the communities of Scotland.”
If only that applied to the major Opposition political party in Scotland.
The meeting in question may or may not have been ”infamous“, but it certainly evidenced a clear level of mistrust between senior members of the police force and the Scottish Government.
The cabinet secretary will recollect the pressure under which he and his colleagues came from the Conservatives in the negotiations on the 2008-09 budget, in which the provision of an additional 1,000 police officers was a paramount consideration. I accept that the Government has kept its word in that respect, but now we must think of the future. Yesterday I received a report from the divisional commander of Strathclyde Police covering Glasgow city centre and the west end, which made excellent reading. There can be no doubt that, properly deployed, the additional officers have made a significant impact on crime and its detection, and have provided public reassurance. In the circumstances, it is essential that existing police numbers be maintained.
What action does the cabinet secretary propose to take to break down the atmosphere of mistrust that seems to exist between sections of the police force and the Scottish Government? Will he confirm, without equivocation, that 12 months from today there will be 17,273 police officers in Scotland, which is the current figure?
Bill Aitken has raised a variety of issues. I refer again to the statement by the chair of ACPOS, who makes it clear that the meeting that has been mentioned was one of many meetings and dialogues that take place involving me and others.
I know that Mr Aitken networks, but I should clarify the situation that I inherited. My predecessor, the then Minster for Justice, met chief officers initially, but thereafter regular meetings took place only annually. I meet chief officers twice per year, without officials. I have an open-door policy with them and meet them regularly, which is why the relationship between the Government and senior police officers is such that, on his retiral as senior assistant chief constable for Fife and the acting officer in charge of counter-terrorism, Allan Burnett chose to become a member of the party of Government. I welcome that move, which shows the deep trust in the Government that many officers have.
We should be clear about the current situation. We have the lowest recorded crime in almost 30 years, the lowest murder rate in the city of Edinburgh, Lothian and the Borders for 20 years, and the lowest recorded homicide rate in Glasgow and Strathclyde for 10 years. The Scottish Government has delivered those achievements in a time of financial austerity, with £500 million of cuts from Westminster and £6 billion of cuts due to come online.
Bill Aitken asked what the number of police officers will be next year. It will be 1,000 more than the number when we came into office.
Must all of them be SNP members?
What happens thereafter will be dependent on what Mr Rumbles’s and Mr Aitken’s parties do to preserve the people of Scotland from the deep cuts that were caused by Labour’s recession and which will be implemented with some gusto by a Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition.
I bet the justice secretary did speak to Chief Constable Pat Shearer this morning. I would have liked to have been a fly on that particular wall. The difficulty is that the ACPOS statement that followed that discussion is not quite the same as the quotations that are in The Herald. In that paper’s report, the chief constable is quoted as saying:
“we were told to hold off reducing staff numbers until after the autumn and the spending review.”
Does the justice secretary accept that as being the position of his Government? Can he explain it? Is not the only explanation that the SNP Government is playing politics with police funding, massaging the time of the spending so as to blame someone else for the problem, in the SNP’s usual way? Is the Government interfering in the autonomy of chief constables by preventing them from making sensible provision for next year? What is the current prediction for budget shortfalls in Scotland’s police authorities, including Strathclyde Police?
We have so far paid for 800 police officers up until the end of last year, with a further 200 to come this year. Is it expected that the chief constables will recruit a further 200 extra, making the total 1,200? If not, why were civil servants threatening to withhold the money for something that, after all, had already been achieved?
I will deal with the last question first. The Government has agreed to fund 1,000 additional officers. We consulted, we discussed, and we agreed with ACPOS that we would fully fund their recruitment, training and wages for the period. Eight hundred and one officers have come in, and the balance have to be funded. We expect that, if we provide the funding, that is what we will receive. That is perfectly legitimate and reasonable.
Regarding the other points, I did indeed speak to Mr Shearer this morning. It was a deeply enjoyable and lengthy conversation, with a variety of matters to discuss—
Members: Including?
Members should just wait, and they should note that the statement by ACPOS was issued not following our discussion, but last night. The conversation was subsequent to that. I do not know what Robert Brown is driving at.
I agree that there should not be ministerial interference in operational police matters. I have frequently had to stand here in the chamber and make that clear—for example to Labour members on the subject of absconds. I also recall that I received a letter from Mr Brown, who wishes me to have operational involvement on the use of Taser guns.
Policy involvement—not operational involvement.
How come I am criticised by Mr Brown, apparently for wishing—
Policy.
Order.
How come I am criticised by Mr Brown for wishing to direct the police on finance, while at same time he is insisting that I should have operational involvement on firearms? He has no consistency there at all.
Regarding what Mr McKerracher said, he did not make the quote. Mr McKerracher had other matters to say, not that. We are delivering matters.
I am extremely proud of our police officers in Scotland, and I am extremely proud to be a member of a Government that has delivered a record number of police officers in our communities, making Scotland safer and more secure.
We come to open questions, and we do not have long, so I ask for questions and answers to be brief.
Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that we are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees? Does he agree that Parliament should be uniting to fight the real threat to police budgets, which is the significant cuts to the Scottish block grant that are heading our way from Westminster?
Absolutely. It is for that reason that I regularly meet the chief constables and other stakeholders. They are concerned about what is coming down the line, and they would be better served if Opposition members were to rally with the Government and, indeed, with our police family and with justice departments that face expenditure cuts. It would have been helpful if they had helped us to oppose the £500 million of cuts, but it would be better if they came together now so that we do not get hammered with £6 billion-worth of cuts.
This afternoon we have heard an isolated view from a cabinet secretary who is locked in his ivory tower in Edinburgh. The reality on the ground is one of SNP budget cuts. Strathclyde Police, for example, has to make up a shortfall of £26.6 million from the 2009-10 baseline. Does the cabinet secretary agree that those are SNP cuts, and that they will undermine effective policing and will put public safety at risk?
No. On Monday this week, in my ivory tower—actually in a committee room in St Andrew’s house—I met the police board conveners. I had a pleasant and cordial meeting with Mr Stephen Curran, who has replaced the outgoing Paul Rooney as the Labour-nominated convener of Strathclyde police authority. I have to say that Stephen Curran made no mention of an apocalypse coming, although we discussed the huge implications for Government and Scottish police boards of the cuts that we have faced from the Labour Government south of the border and the cuts that are coming.
Does the cabinet secretary share my surprise at what is going on in the Parliament, given that Labour did not support the increase in police numbers in the first place and given that Andy Kerr lambasts the SNP in today’s Daily Mail for not making its cuts fast enough? Does the cabinet secretary share my view that if Labour were in power now, the police would be in a seriously sorry state?
That is certainly the case. As I said in my statement, there was a bulge in recruitment in the 1970s and we have had to ensure that we ramp up our approach. The lengths to which individual chief constables have gone are a great tribute to them. We have delivered 1,000 additional officers. Had we not done that and had we been left with the Labour manifesto commitment that was made during the 2007 election campaign, Scotland would be worse served and I fear that crime would be a greater problem in many of our communities.
It is sad that the SNP is managing to cut public services even though it has had the largest budget since devolution—[Interruption.]
Order.
This week’s press coverage on policing is of concern to me—it is obviously also of concern to the cabinet secretary and his chorus. There is confusion about civil servants instructing chief constables and threatening to reduce their budgets. That is not the normal way of doing business, to my mind. The cabinet secretary has been inconsistent in his answers. I ask again: who is in charge of the Scottish police service?
Ms Craigie will be delighted to know that at least it is not outgoing Labour ministers in London, who appear to have been incurring the ire of senior civil servants down south by doing a variety of things that seemed to benefit their constituencies.
We must ensure that we have a clear recollection of history. Labour fought an election with no commitment on additional police officers; we fought an election on delivery of 1,000 additional officers. Labour said that we could not deliver 1,000 additional officers, but we have delivered them.
Police officers the length and breadth of Scotland and south of the border remember that, notwithstanding the budget cuts that we have faced—
Who is in charge, cabinet secretary? Answer the question.
Order.
When a pay award was made, the Scottish Government implemented it in full and backdated it, whereas the Labour Government south of the border reneged on the contractual arrangements and the understanding that had been arrived at at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Police officers north and south of the border will not forget that.
In common with most people outside the Parliament, I was not terribly interested in that last exchange. I am interested in the question that Cathie Craigie asked: who runs the police service? I thought that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice set the parameters within which the police work operationally.
I suggest to the cabinet secretary that he should forget the width and consider the quality of the service. If he is correct to say that crime figures have fallen and clear-up rates have risen, he should concentrate on that and not on 1,000 policemen. Who cares how many policemen there are, provided that they get the work done?
There is validity to what Margo MacDonald said. However, the driver for and precursor to the matter was the fact that communities welcome a visible police presence, not simply because the police detect and deal with criminals but because, as we know, in Scotland the problem is not just crime but fear of crime. A visible police presence not only deals with criminals who perpetrate crime but helps to reassure good citizens who are worried about crime.
On the constitutional matter, let me explain the historical position on how the police service is dealt with, which the Government has not changed in any way. There is a tripartite agreement. Chief constables are appointed by and accountable to the local police board. As Ms MacDonald knows, the Lothian and Borders Police board is chaired by Iain Whyte, who is a member of Mr Aitken’s party. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice might fund matters, but there is a tripartite agreement between the chief constables, who have operational independence, the police boards, to which chief constables are accountable and which therefore must keep a check on chief constables, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in central Government, who is required to fund the service and to set broad outlines on policy and parameters.