Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Official Report 1076KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

The next item of business is topical question time. In order to get in as many questions as possible, succinct questions and responses would be appreciated.

---

Police Scotland (Building Closures)

Presiding Officer, on behalf of members, I take the opportunity to welcome you back to your post.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Police Scotland is considering closing more than 40 police buildings. (S6T-01702)

Responsibility for the police estate is a matter for the chief constable and is subject to regular Scottish Police Authority scrutiny. The proposals are now subject to consultation, and I know that Police Scotland is keen to hear any local concerns.

The Police Scotland estate strategy, which was published in 2019, recognised that much of the police estate was outdated and underused. In delivering the strategy, Police Scotland has prioritised co-location with partner organisations in modern well-equipped accommodation, and more than 60 co-locations have, thus far, been delivered across the country.

In Aberdeen, it is reported that five stations—in Mastrick, Rosemount, Seaton, Whinhill and Torry—might close. Scottish Police Federation general secretary David Kennedy says that the closures, which will be devastating to community policing, are due to a lack of funding from the Scottish Government. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the police? Has she demanded that today’s Scottish National Party budget avoid inflicting yet more pain on our police, our communities and Scotland?

I will, of course, leave it to the Deputy First Minister to outline this Government’s budget, which will prioritise public services, in the not-too-distant future. As Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, I am aware that the number 1 priority of any Government is to protect the public.

The proposals are a matter for consultation. Mr Kerr and other colleagues in the north-east will want to feed in their specific comments about any proposed closures in Aberdeen or elsewhere, and I know that Police Scotland stands ready to engage on the detail of any local concerns.

With respect to funding, I advise Mr Kerr that, through capital receipts, Police Scotland has reinvested in the police estate £31 million from the relinquishing of disused or old buildings. I also remind him that this Government has continued to make year-on-year investment in policing, including through the doubling of the capital budget since 2016-17.

The police do well with what they are given by this Government. However, in September, Aberdeen was chosen as the guinea pig for a pilot scheme in which some crimes in the city will not be investigated due to slashed police budgets. What criteria will be used to judge whether that pilot has been a success? What impact has it had on Aberdeen’s communities? Is it the cabinet secretary’s intention that the pilot will be rolled out across Scotland?

Mr Kerr once again refers to operational matters for Police Scotland. I remind him that, in the current financial year, the Government has increased the police budget by more than 6 per cent, which is equivalent to an additional £80 million. No one would demur for a minute from the consequences of more than a decade of Tory austerity, but this Government will stand proud on the decisions that we have made. [Interruption.]

I would be grateful if members would refrain—[Interruption.] Members, let us not have speaking from a sedentary position.

As the consultation is undertaken and the chief constable and the Scottish Police Authority give the matter careful consideration, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is important that we consider that there are high maintenance costs and environmental inefficiencies in much of our policing estate, including in my constituency? Does she agree that there are potential benefits for the public in rationalising the police estate to enable 21st-century policing and opportunities for collaboration and co-location with local partners?

I very much agree with that. We all want our public services to be efficient, effective and accessible. Co-location with suitable partners makes best use of the public sector estate and, importantly, offers opportunities for increased visibility, closer working and increased collaboration between Police Scotland and partners.

Police Scotland now has over 60 examples of successful co-locations, and one of the best examples is in my constituency. The West Lothian civic centre sees Police Scotland working alongside the local authority, the Crown Office, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. To me, that seems to represent the best use of public resources in the straitened times that we are in at the hands of the Tory Government elsewhere.

To close 29 stations is unprecedented and will impact on communities across Scotland at a time when confidence in the police is falling. Stations such as Leith, in Edinburgh, and Stewart Street, in Glasgow, have high usage. The Stewart Street station, in Glasgow city centre, is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and it is difficult to see how the city centre of Glasgow could be adequately policed without that station. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the source of the issue is a poor capital budget settlement for Police Scotland? Specifically, what representations has the cabinet secretary made to prevent what is a mass closure of police stations?

It is important to recognise that the police’s presence in our communities is defined not solely by buildings but by the nature of their work and engagement. The roll-out of mobile technology has changed the way in which police officers work.

Pauline McNeill has raised specific matters in relation to police stations in the centre of Glasgow. I am sure that she will make her feelings known through the public consultation.

As we all know, capital funding has not been inflation-proofed by the United Kingdom Government. Nonetheless, since 2017-18, the Scottish Government has more than doubled the capital budget for policing.

The issue is not co-location but the risk that, if the new facilities are not true like-for-like replacements, facilities such as holding cells may be lost. For example, Greenock officers may have to go to Govan or Clydebank with arrested or accused people. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that modernisation, or so-called rationalisation, must never come at the expense of public safety or officer productivity?

If Jamie Greene was aware of the publication of the news release by Police Scotland last week, he would have seen that the safety and wellbeing of its officers and staff are very much paramount. That is not the only reason, but it is one reason that drives Police Scotland forward to implement an estate strategy that ensures that not only the public but officers and staff have fit-for-purpose facilities.

---

Police Scotland (Taser Use)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the roll-out and use of tasers within Police Scotland, in light of reports that they have been used 131 times, and discharged nine times, against children since 2018. (S6T-01709)

The provision of tasers and the deployment of specially trained officers—STOs—is an operational matter for Police Scotland. Since the initial deployment of STOs in June 2018, Police Scotland received approval from the Scottish Police Authority’s policing performance committee in September 2021 to enhance its taser capability to around 2,000 STOs. That additional roll-out is expected to be completed by April 2024.

The use of, or presence of, a taser provides officers with an option for de-escalating a situation more quickly, ensuring the safety of the public and police officers. Every incident that is attended is judged on its own merits, and every discharge of a taser is reported to the independent Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. Of the nine times that a taser was discharged against a child under the age of 18, seven were judged proportionate and two remain under investigation by the commissioner.

When tasers were rolled out to police divisions across Scotland in 2018, the public were assured that a large rise in discharges of weapons was not expected. Since then, 20 people have been left with injuries, and now we hear that tasers have been used 131 times against children, with a taser actually being discharged against a child on nine separate occasions, as the cabinet secretary acknowledged. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that points to a slide towards an enforcement model of policing, and will she consider scaling back the deployment of tasers in Scotland?

I stress to Mr McArthur that no one wants to use a taser on anybody, particularly a child. The discharge of a taser is always a last resort. Each incident must be treated on its own merits, and it is vital that the threat or risk that is posed to the wider population or to the police officer, as well as to the child or young person, is the primary consideration. Each officer is trained and aware of their responsibilities.

As I have said, since 2018, there have been nine occasions when an individual under the age of 18 has been involved in the actual use or discharge of a taser. On each occasion, the incident was referred to the independent Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. As she acknowledges, the use of tasers on children gives rise to particular concerns. Not only are children at increased risk of long-term physical injury from high-voltage shocks, but sustained psychological trauma can also result from such encounters with police. Last week, this Parliament unanimously agreed legislation incorporating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. With UN representatives, Scottish children’s rights campaigners and others calling for a complete ban on the use of tasers against children, will the cabinet secretary now give that proposal proper consideration?

I hope to give some reassurance to Mr McArthur. Two pieces of legislation are highly relevant in that regard. Tasers are prohibited weapons under the Firearms Act 1968, which is reserved. Any police force that wishes to deploy tasers can do so only with approval from the Home Secretary.

Mr McArthur is also right to point to the Parliament’s unanimous passing of the UNCRC legislation, and we hope that royal assent will be achieved at the start of next year. That legislation will require all public authorities to report regularly on how they are complying with the requirements of UNCRC with respect to devolved duties.

I am happy to write to Mr McArthur in detail, but it might be of some reassurance to him that the training in the deployment of tasers is robust, rigorous and scenario-based. Also, the national taser advisory group, which includes advocacy organisations, has a role in relation to human rights and children’s rights and that informs the equality and human rights impact assessment.

In the cabinet secretary’s previous response, she confirmed that the taser regulations are reserved, so the UNCRC that we passed so successfully here cannot be used by children. Will the Government take steps in the near future to ensure that the UNCRC notifies that specific element, so that, as called for the by UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, young people who are affected in that way can seek protection under their human rights here in Scotland?

The Government will always strive to advance the rights of a child. It is also the right of every child to be protected in difficult circumstances. I am happy to correspond with Mr Whitfield and any other member of the Scottish Parliament on the matter, because I am conscious that time is running out and there are some complexities in the issue. However, I reassure members that police officers receive training that allows them to deal with highly fluid situations in which they have a duty to protect police officers, members of the public and, not least, a child or young person who is at risk or in distress.

Discharging a taser is a significant responsibility for officers, so it is vital that they undergo thorough training before they are authorised to carry a taser. [Interruption.]

Excuse me a moment, Ms Nicoll. I appreciate that people are coming into the chamber, but I would be grateful if everyone could do so quietly.

Therefore, before they are authorised to carry a taser, it is vital that officers undergo thorough training with a focus on de-escalation and an understanding of the incidents in which it might be appropriate to use a taser. Will the cabinet secretary outline the processes that are in place to ensure that that is the case?

Taser use is limited to specially trained officers, who must undergo rigorous training. Each officer must qualify to use a taser and must take part in yearly refresher training in order to continue to be issued with a device.

Ms Nicoll touched on an important point, which is that the figures on discharge of tasers in comparison with their overall use would demonstrate that, in difficult situations, the presence of an officer who is trained to use a taser enables de-escalation of an incident. Furthermore, their deployment allows for de-escalation of incidents from a safe distance.

This is a complex matter in which the rights and responsibilities of all must be protected. I will be happy to correspond on it further with members.