Police (Carrying of Firearms)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports of Police Scotland officers routinely carrying out duties while carrying firearms. (S4T-00700)
The decision where and when to deploy resources has always been an operational matter for the chief constable, who has the power to make decisions about the necessary and proportionate use of firearms. That position has not changed with the introduction of a single force.
The vast majority of Scotland’s police remain unarmed, but Police Scotland’s dedicated firearms officers are available to protect the public 24 hours a day. They account for roughly 1.6 per cent of officers—or 275, as Assistant Chief Constable Bernie Higgins has specified—which includes supervisory officers and dedicated firearms officers. Those 275 officers are deployed on a shift-pattern basis and, consequently, only a small number will be deployed across our communities at any one time.
Those specialist officers are able to deal quickly with urgent and unexpected threats where delays could cost lives. Although operational policing is a matter for the chief constable, there is a scrutiny role for the Scottish Police Authority in reporting to Parliament on an annual basis and keeping the policing of Scotland under review.
Finally, post the establishment of Police Scotland, there is a role for the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, who now has a duty if a firearm has been used—that is, if it has been taken out of its holder. The chief constable must refer the matter to the PIRC, who will make an assessment and decide whether a full investigation is required.
I think that we have all read the letter from ACC Higgins but, unlike the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, I am not reassured by it. Just as with stop and search, we in Parliament should be worried about the cabinet secretary handing the chief constable carte blanche. Prior to the single force, trained officers carried firearms only while they were responding to a clear threat to public safety and with the approval of a senior officer, which was rightly granted on a case-by-case basis following an assessment of the actual risk. Hundreds of officers have now been given blanket permission by the chief constable to carry guns while they undertake everyday duties and, crucially, they no longer need the specific approval of a senior officer to fire those guns. The risk did not change on 1 April 2013; only the chief constable did.
We need a question, Ms McInnes.
Is the cabinet secretary comfortable with the fact that the requirement for the specific approval of a senior officer to carry and deploy arms, which was once a vital safeguard, has been removed?
The system that currently exists, which Ms McInnes finds so condemnable, is the same system that operated not only in Tayside and Strathclyde but in Northern Constabulary as at 1 March 2013, prior to the inception of Police Scotland. The chief constable has since implemented the practice across all Scotland. After all, it was accepted by more than half of Scotland when we had the eight forces.
In the society in which we live, it is necessary to have officers routinely available to deal with what can be human tragedies. We have seen such tragedies in other jurisdictions and, sadly, we have also been affected by them here. I think that, given that Scotland has a third of the United Kingdom’s landmass, having 275 officers operating on a shift basis, who are a small fraction of the total number, is probably a proportionate response. Equally, I am reassured that both the SPA and the PIRC have a role.
Your question must be brief, Ms McInnes.
There has been a substantial change of direction, which the Parliament, the Justice Committee and the local authority scrutiny bodies were not informed of, and I cannot find any evidence that the Scottish Police Authority was notified of it. However, media reports today suggest that the cabinet secretary knew from the start and decided to keep it quiet. So much for democracy. Can the cabinet secretary confirm the date on which he became aware of the change in policy? Does he agree that Parliament should have been informed?
I have been aware of the routine deployment of firearms officers ever since I was the shadow justice secretary. Indeed, I saw comments on the subject from Graeme Pearson when he was the director of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency before it morphed into the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. The routine use of firearms officers throughout Scotland has been with us since the establishment of the Parliament and probably prior to that, although I am not able to comment on that.
I was aware that, as we ran into the establishment of Police Scotland, three forces were already operating the procedure that is now the standard procedure in Scotland. Officers in those forces numbered over half of the establishment in Scotland. I repeat for Ms McInnes’s benefit that those forces were Strathclyde Police, Tayside Police and Northern Constabulary. I was aware that, as at 1 April, the chief constable was going to ensure that we had a similar regime operating across all Scotland.
A number of members wish to ask a supplementary question. The questions and answers need to be brief.
I am surprised by the cabinet secretary’s casual attitude to the issue. The change is not about the number of officers but about the ability of officers to patrol routinely on our streets with sidearms without the need for authorisation on each individual occasion. That change is quite significant.
We need a question, Mr Pearson.
Will the cabinet secretary treat the change seriously and have it reviewed?
I have no intention of having the matter reviewed. I am perfectly satisfied with the role played by the Scottish Police Authority and the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. I note that it was Mr Pearson, when he was director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, who wanted to change the operating procedure, so that he and his officers would have these powers.
How many armed response officers are on duty at any one time in the Highlands and who is directly responsible for them? Does the cabinet secretary agree that nothing in principle prevents there being different policies on the carrying of arms in different parts of Scotland?
Those are matters for the chief constable and for discussion at local level. As I said in response to Alison McInnes, the procedure that Police Scotland operates was in fact invoked by Northern Constabulary prior to the establishment of the Police Service of Scotland. Issues concerning that matter may be appropriately raised with those who were there at the time.
I cannot give the precise number of armed response officers on duty in the Highlands. However, I can say that 275 authorised officers operate on shifts. Those shifts are more than simply day and night shifts, so the number operating is significantly less than that figure. The officers are required to operate not simply in northern Scotland but throughout Scotland. Mr Thompson may choose to ask the divisional commander or the chief constable how many are operating daily in the Highlands. That number will be sufficient to deal with any threat. After all, a threat is as likely to occur in a rural area as it is in an urban environment.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Scottish Police Authority was briefed about the new Scotland-wide firearms policy under the single police force one year ago or as soon as the policy was decided?
The Scottish Police Authority has made it quite clear that the decision falls within the chief constable of Scotland’s responsibilities as it relates to the deployment of officers under his direction and control. It has stated:
“We are aware of the public comment on the issue and have received clarification from Police Scotland.”
The SPA appears to be satisfied. I suggest that, if Ms Mitchell has any concerns about that, she should take up the matter with Vic Emery. As matters stand, Mr Emery is satisfied with the chief constable’s action, and so too are the vast majority of the people of Scotland.
The argument that the deployment of resources is an operational matter is exactly what we heard from Kenny MacAskill when Stephen House wanted all his officers to be armed with tasers. Why can the cabinet secretary not see that the move to more routine armed policing is not merely an operational matter but a change in the nature of our policing and that that deserves to be held to political scrutiny?
We do not have routine armed policing; we have the same situation that existed prior to the establishment of Police Scotland, and that was probably the situation prior to the establishment of this Parliament. Chief constables then and the chief constable now correctly agreed that there is a risk to communities and that we must have firearms officers able to be deployed. Those officers are available. Their number is less than 1.6 per cent of the constabulary, and the number used daily is a small fraction of that. That provides the balance to protect the people of Scotland from tragedies great and small by ensuring that the public are not routinely threatened. We have no routine armed police force in Scotland.
Was a community impact assessment undertaken in the Highlands and Islands before the decision to deploy armed response vehicle officers overtly carrying firearms to routine non-firearms-related incidents?
I cannot answer that. Mr Finnie would have to ask the former chief constable of Northern Constabulary, Mr Graham, now retired, and the former board of the Northern Constabulary. It may be that he would want to speak to former board members; he may be acquainted with some of them.
Wealth Gap
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent Sunday Times rich list figures showing a 19 per cent increase in the wealth of the 100 richest people in Scotland, what action it can take to narrow the gap between rich and poor people. (S4T-00701)
Scotland is a wealthy country. By population, we are the 14th wealthiest country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—wealthier than France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. However, too many people in Scotland are not able to benefit from that wealth. Only this month, the Scottish Government published detailed analysis of UK Government data on wealth and assets in Scotland, which show that 30 per cent of households in Scotland have almost no wealth—that is, they do not own property, have a private pension or savings or own items such as cars and household goods.
The Scottish Government takes all the action that it can within its powers to ensure that we support individuals on low incomes. Measures that we have taken on the living wage and welfare reform mitigation were designed to tackle the poverty that has affected some of our citizens.
If I understand that answer correctly, the Scottish Government has no real powers to tackle the gap between the rich and the poor. Will the cabinet secretary tell the Parliament what guarantees UK ministers have given him that significant powers to tackle the gap would be devolved in the event of a no vote in September?
John Mason summarised the position on the limitations of the powers of the Scottish Government. My first answer to him was that we will do everything that we can within our limited responsibilities, but the data that I mentioned, which the Government has published, clearly demonstrate that there are significant limitations on what the Scottish Government can do to tackle a major problem that affects our society. If we acquired a broader range of responsibilities, we would be in a position to take a wider range of actions to tackle the inequality gap that exists between rich and poor in our society.
On the implications of a no vote, Mr Mason can read the comments that a variety of UK politicians have made, as I have done. Of course, the record demonstrates that UK ministers have been unwilling to give this Parliament effective powers to tackle inequality in our society. That is why we have to vote yes in the referendum in September.
Will the cabinet secretary inform the Parliament about actions that an independent Scotland could take to tackle inequality?
There are choices to be made. The Government made clear in the white paper that we would choose not to support the continuation of investment in weapons of mass destruction and that we would change defence expenditure priorities, so that we could invest in projects and measures that would boost economic opportunities for people in Scottish society who are on low incomes, thereby improving the participation rate in the economy. As we all know, people who are active in the labour market and able to command good jobs can address the poverty with which they wrestle.
In addition, the Scottish Government would be determined to use the integrated range of powers in the benefits and employment systems to create opportunities that would encourage more and more people to participate in the labour market and secure the higher-quality employment that would enable them to work their way out of poverty.
The cabinet secretary could have supported living wage guarantees in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill a couple of weeks ago, even if that meant pushing the boundaries of European law. He was willing to push those boundaries on minimum pricing for alcohol; why would he not do it to reduce the gap between rich and poor?
This Government was the first Administration ever to apply the living wage across the public sector employment for which it has responsibility. We have done that consistently since we introduced the measure.
On the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, we went through the arguments with the Labour Party last week. We set out, with clear evidence from the European Commission, exactly why we could not legislate for the provision to which Iain Gray referred.
However, the Scottish Government included in the bill a range of provisions that are designed to motivate and encourage the greatest possible degree of private sector participation in following its lead and delivering the living wage to people in a range of employment sectors in Scotland.
Does the cabinet secretary support action on wage ratios?
Yes. In his review for the United Kingdom Government, Will Hutton indicated the growing disparity between lower-income individuals and higher-income individuals. The Scottish Government agrees with the analysis that he set out.