Lothian and Borders Police
I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, please.
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-451, in the name of Mr Kenny MacAskill, on Lothian and Borders police. The debate will be concluded after 30 minutes without any questions being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament, recognising the additional burden placed on Lothian and Borders Police by the arrival of the Parliament and the security and public safety implications thereof, notes that in London additional resources are made available to the Metropolitan Police; seeks that due cognisance be given of this situation; and recognises the importance of ensuring that sufficient and adequate resources are made available to the Lothian and Borders Police to meet the additional requirements facing them.
I would previously have begun a speech on the police by saying, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you to disbelieve the evidence of the police officers." However, times have changed, as has my employment. In this instance, I have no hesitation in asking the minister and the members present to accept the evidence of the police.
There are two aspects to this motion. The first relates to the increased policing requirements of Parliament and the second to the increased policing requirements of Edinburgh. Those aspects are interrelated, but the effect is the same. The police in Lothian and Borders are required to do ever more work, requiring ever more resources, without any significant increase in funding. I am aware, as are the police, that there is no bottomless pit of money.
I am aware that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has funded in part the Parliament police unit. I think I speak for everybody, within and without the chamber, when I say that the members of that unit, to a man and to a woman, have acted courteously and affably and have been extremely professional. Their presence is reassuring to all in the Parliament; they have been open and friendly, while providing security for the Parliament. They have maintained a warm welcome, not only for MSPs, but for visitors and tourists alike.
However, the parliamentary unit cannot cope with all the additional requirements of the Parliament. Indeed, evidence of that was seen as recently as Tony Blair's visit, when additional officers were required and were brought in from elsewhere within the jurisdiction. While the current unit can cope with the day-to-day running of the Parliament, it is not in a position to deal with the ever-growing burden of responsibility that is brought about by the knock-on effects of the Parliament.
This motion is, in part, a request that—like the Parliament's recognition of its responsibility for increased policing requirements—there should be national recognition of and responsibility taken for Edinburgh's increased policing requirements, which are, in whole or in part, brought about by Parliament's existence. It would be wrong to expect Lothian and Borders police to cut its uniform, so to speak, to fit its budget, or to expect council tax payers in Lothian and Borders to meet the increased costs alone. While everybody in Edinburgh and its environs welcomes the Parliament, it would be unfair to burden them with its total cost. Edinburgh has moved from being a capital city in name only, to being a capital city with all the needs and requirements that go with that.
What are some of those additional requirements? First, there has been a growth in the number of foreign consuls locating in the city. They provide us with status that is welcome. Secondly, VIP visits—by Tony Blair or others—are on the increase. Such visits are mainly the result of the establishment of the Parliament and the creation of a focus for visiting this city. I understand that there were more than 160 such visits from VIPs and royalty last year.
Thirdly—and this is, to some extent, related to VIP visits—there has been an increase in the number of ceremonial occasions such as the opening of Parliament. Fourthly, there has been a growth in the number of conferences, which is partly due to the opening of the Edinburgh International Conference Centre and the availability of facilities such as hotels. However, the recognition of Edinburgh as a capital city and its growing cosmopolitan status have, no doubt, added to its attraction as a conference venue.
Those events and occurrences require to be policed. Some of the occasions might simply require traffic management and crowd control. These are serious matters that require significant planning and forethought. Other matters, such as the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and the NATO conference, constitute a significant security risk. Accordingly, heightened police presence is required, with the increased pressure and planning that that involves.
Although payment was made directly for the policing of CHOGM and the NATO conference, such payments are not always applicable. Moreover, the payments that are made do not adequately reflect the costs that are incurred. Although recompense is made for the use of police officers, nothing is provided for the disruption that is caused elsewhere in the force's jurisdiction. Edinburgh's gain for events such as those conferences is at the expense of policing in places such as the Borders.
Those are some of the technical reasons for more police, but there are other structural and demographic reasons. Edinburgh is booming—it is not only a capital city, but a cosmopolitan one. As a long-time resident of Auld Reekie, I welcome the change, but I think that it puts increased strain on the police service. The growing number of visitor attractions such as Dynamic Earth brings in tourists for the day or longer. They, too, require increased police resources while they are guests in our city; they require to be kept safe and secure. However, their presence is often a magnet for a criminal element who see easy pickings and who prey on such crowds.
The hogmanay and festival attractions are added to by the city's growing international reputation, which is partly fuelled by its capital status. From a policing perspective, they are a significant consideration and require substantial resources. The level of policing for the millennium celebrations was considerable—Lothian and Borders police officers were not at liberty to celebrate the new millennium with their families or friends when the clock struck 12.
Lothian and Borders police, partly—if not mainly—as a result of the Parliament, directly or indirectly faces increased responsibilities. The landing of the Parliament in Edinburgh has created not so much a ripple but a tidal wave for police requirements. The motion in my name seeks recognition that Edinburgh, and Lothian and Borders police, must be given additional resources. This is not a request for a blank cheque, but a plea for recognition of changed circumstances and a clear additional need.
The circumstances that Edinburgh faces are not unique, as the English capital, London, has similar significantly increased requirements. I do not seek to put the needs of Edinburgh on a par with those of London, but Edinburgh should receive additional resources in recognition of its increased responsibility. The Metropolitan police service receives additional money for a variety of its functions—many such functions must also be undertaken by Lothian and Borders police.
The Metropolitan police receives a substantial additional payment to cover its extra responsibilities, which mirror some of Lothian and Borders police force's additional responsibilities. It would be unfair to burden the council tax payers of London with a responsibility that should be met by everyone in the United Kingdom. Similarly, it would be unfair to burden people in Edinburgh or in the rest of Lothian and the Borders with such a responsibility.
Last year, the Home Secretary made an additional payment to the Metropolitan police of almost £180 million. Members and the minister will be glad to know that the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police does not seek that much. He seeks sufficient funding—£600,000—to employ 25 more officers. That will enable the creation of a dedicated city-centre community police team, which will ensure continued high-profile and active policing in central Edinburgh.
That police team will add to the security and protection of the Parliament and the increased number of visitors and visiting VIPs to it. Such a resource is necessary for Edinburgh, which is now truly a capital city. Such funding must be in addition to the usual grants that are made to police authorities.
Edinburgh does not seek special treatment. This is simply an acknowledgement of the special circumstances that face Scotland's capital at the start of the 21st century. To some extent, Edinburgh is a victim of its own success; it cannot allow itself to become a victim of crime as a consequence of that success.
To accommodate all those who wish to speak this evening, members should adhere to a three-minute time limit.
I strongly support Kenny MacAskill's motion. Some weeks ago Fiona Hyslop, David McLetchie and I attended a briefing at police headquarters, at which senior officers pointed out, very professionally, the great needs of the capital city.
Edinburgh has gone through a period of dramatic change. It is indisputable that the population is growing by about 1,000 a year—the Scottish Parliament has attracted many more residents to the city. Besides the growth in population, there are many other considerations such as the number of visits by heads of state, by parliamentarians from countries such as the United States, and by members of the royal family. There are rallies, conferences, the festival and the tattoo, all of which emphasise Edinburgh's status as a capital city. The growth in the number and success of international conferences and the new Parliament will necessitate a greater police presence.
The Metropolitan police has recognition and extra funding—it is allotted around £111.6 million to deal with the responsibilities that are associated with capital-city policing. Lothian and Borders police needs only 25 more police officers, which would cost about £600,000. The Administration contributed exactly that sum to the National Gallery of Scotland to purchase a painting by Botticelli for educational purposes. Although I welcome the value that that work will give to children of great talent throughout the Lothians, the employment of 25 police officers would be relevant to an even greater number of people. I hope that the minister will do everything in his power to advance the priority of Scotland's capital city in that respect—it is very much needed.
Sometimes I feel that it is my destiny not to be able to raise certain subjects. I have tried since last September to highlight the anomaly between the police forces in Scotland and those down south. Rather cheekily, I am not going to focus on Edinburgh, although I agree with what Kenny has said. I suggest that the minister should consider carefully the difference in funding between Scottish police forces and their southern counterparts. Edinburgh, as a capital city, should have extra funding. Glasgow too, which has three major football stadiums and receives visits from dignitaries, deserves extra funding.
The Scottish Police Federation has said that a predominant problem is financing and resourcing, that the police budget is in a dire situation and that if that situation is not greatly improved quickly, it will reach crisis point. The SPF says that for the year 2000-01, the Government has set the police budget at £741.9 million, which represents a significant cut in real terms, the end result being that staff numbers will be cut.
A recent Treasury document says that the overall settlement for the Metropolitan police in the year 1999-2000 was £1.774 billion—billions of pounds rather than millions. More interestingly, the document says that included in that settlement is an increase of £25 million to special payments in recognition of the Metropolitan police's distinct national and capital city functions. That payment rose from £151 million to £176 million because the Home Secretary considered that it is particularly important to maintain public confidence in policing the capital city. Is not Edinburgh a capital city? Is not it important enough to deserve the policing that is required to protect people?
I ask Angus MacKay to speak to relevant ministers and to point out to them that Edinburgh is Scotland's capital city and deserves extra funding. I can give him a copy of my correspondence if he would like it. I thank Kenny MacAskill for securing the debate.
Kenny MacAskill said that he was in the unique situation of having to invent a new speech relating to the police. I, too, find myself in a unique position in relation to a speech by Kenny MacAskill—I agree with it entirely.
Kenny has concentrated on the pressures that are faced by police in central Edinburgh. Along with other Lothian MSPs, including Kenny MacAskill, I attended a meeting at which Sir Roy Cameron, the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police, described some of the pressures on the force. I will not rehearse those, but I endorse the arguments that Kenny made.
I want to address the additional pressures on Lothian and Borders police. Lothian and Borders has the fastest-growing population in Scotland; the two local authority areas where there is greatest growth are West Lothian and East Lothian. West Lothian's population will grow by 14 per cent over the next 10 to 15 years. One of the major issues for me as a Lothian MSP is the constant demand on Lothian and Borders police to increase its resources in order to deal with an increasing population and an increase in businesses in the area.
One of the answers that I regularly get back from Roy Cameron is, "Yes, indeed, but I also have increasing pressures on the city of Edinburgh and East Lothian." We must recognise that where population increases, business increases and tourism increases—that results in additional crime. It requires the police to put additional resources into maintaining public safety. There is a special situation in the Lothians, which we should examine. We should focus on the issue that Kenny MacAskill and Roy Cameron have raised about the creation of a city-centre police force. That would be a useful way of recognising Edinburgh's special status and would, I hope, alleviate some of the pressure on Lothian and Borders police and enable Roy Cameron to release more uniformed police officers to the outer parts of the Lothians.
I endorse Kenny MacAskill's contribution and ask Angus MacKay whether he will consider the issue and discuss it in detail with Roy Cameron. The financial cost is not too high. I hope that Angus MacKay will respond favourably to the debate.
In supporting Kenny MacAskill's motion, I must declare an interest—a member of my immediate family will join Lothian and Borders finest shortly.
That is not the only reason that prompts me to support the motion and to ask the minister to find the money to give Sir Roy Cameron a dedicated city-centre community policing force. As the minister knows perhaps better than I do, there are areas on the outskirts of Edinburgh from where—under the present arrangements—police are drawn during the summer for higher-profile policing in the city centre; that also happens, as Kenny MacAskill pointed out, during the winter festivals. That is not fair on those areas, which are often the ones that are under the most pressure. I am certain that the same is true outside the city.
Bristow Muldoon made an excellent case in stating the obvious: because more and more people live in and around Lothian and Borders and more and more people are coming to visit us—thank goodness—we need more policemen. It is as simple as that. It will not require a lot of money and it will be great value for money. I heartily commend the motion to the minister.
I hope that, in future when I recommend brevity, members will listen to me as assiduously as they have done this evening.
I congratulate Kenny MacAskill on calling this important debate. I put on record my thanks to the Parliament police unit for its dedicated and discreet work in and around Parliament; I am sure that all members—present and absent—would wish to have that recorded. Moreover, I follow Margo MacDonald's lead in declaring an interest, as an immediate member of my family serves on Lothian and Borders police.
The debate gives me an opportunity to do three things: first, to set out some detail about how the police are funded; secondly, to set out why I believe that the parallels that have been drawn between Lothian and Borders police and the Metropolitan police are not valid; and, thirdly, to set out the steps that we are taking to ensure that police grant is distributed properly and fairly.
As a backdrop to the debate, I begin by welcoming the £285 million announced yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for increased investment in law enforcement activity across the UK. I look forward to discussing with colleagues in the Executive how that, and other substantial additional investment in public services, will be set out in Scotland relative to Scottish spending priorities.
I want to make it clear that Scottish ministers do not set the budgets for individual forces. Force budgets are agreed locally by police authorities, which, in turn, are made up of representatives of their constituent local authorities. Local authorities have an important part to play in the funding of the police to ensure that policing continues both to respond to local needs and to be locally accountable.
Scottish ministers decide how much the Scottish Executive will pay by way of police grant, which meets 51 per cent of police costs up to a cash limit. We do that by setting a figure for expenditure up to which we are prepared to fund, known as grant-aided expenditure. Police authorities can choose to fund their force at, below or above that level. If they fund below GAE, police grant is unclaimed, and if they fund above it, police authorities meet 100 per cent of the additional costs. Operational matters, such as the deployment of officers to specific tasks or to specific areas, are solely for chief constables to decide.
The funding of the police in England is different. Outside London, police authorities can decide for themselves how much money is needed from local authorities. In London, the Home Secretary is more closely involved in the running of the Metropolitan police. Another crucial difference is the way in which GAE is distributed. In England, it is done by a formula. In Scotland, the Scottish Executive discussed the GAE settlement for 2000-01 with forces before decisions were made. The distinctive approaches north and south of the border reflect Scotland's different priorities and preferences. That is something that I am sure members will welcome. However, it also means that direct comparisons cannot be made between what happens in England and what happens in Scotland.
As well as the different funding mechanisms, there are other reasons why comparisons with the Metropolitan police are simply not valid. The Metropolitan police has a range of UK and GB responsibilities, such as providing bodyguards for the royal family, protecting embassies and visiting VIPs, and counter-terrorism activities. There are no parallels to the majority of those tasks within Lothian and Borders police. The extra grant from the Home Office is necessary because the existing method of distributing GAE in England and Wales makes insufficient allowance for the extra work that the Metropolitan police force undertakes, particularly in relation to its wider duties.
In Scotland, GAE for 2000-01 was distributed by meeting in full such unavoidable costs to forces as pensions, commuted sums and rates, and by distributing the balance in proportion to the bids received from forces. The distribution to Lothian and Borders police was based on a formula agreed to in principle by the majority of the forces and in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Comparisons between the treatment of the Metropolitan police and Lothian and Borders police do not stand close scrutiny. The Metropolitan police has a wider role than Lothian and Borders police has, and is funded under a different system.
There are, of course, policing requirements that, although delivered locally, are of national concern. Where it would be unfair for the local community to bear the burden, a case can be made for the Executive to meet that burden. For the policing of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 1997, we increased the GAE to Lothian and Borders police as well as giving a 100 per cent grant to that force and to Fife constabulary to meet additional costs. The Scottish Executive provided £4.7 million for policing the millennium celebrations. It also provides a 100 per cent grant of more than £300,000 a year to pay for 15 officers to provide security for the Parliament. The majority of those officers are available for redeployment when Parliament is in recess during the summer and at other times.
It has been argued that the policing of Edinburgh's city centre deserves special support because of Edinburgh's higher status as a capital city with a Parliament, its increasing popularity as a tourist destination and the number of high-profile events that take place here each year. However, the policing of a city centre is not the same as the policing of a specific event or venue. It is more akin to the normal, albeit varied, policing pressures that forces across Scotland face. For example, Northern constabulary has to deal with an annual influx of tourists in a largely rural area. Grampian police has to police the major oil city of Aberdeen as well as the North sea oil installations. For the Scottish Executive to get involved in direct funding of what are fundamentally normal policing tasks would undermine the whole basis on which the police are currently funded and would strike at the crucial role played by locally elected representatives.
None the less, it is clear that the diversity of size and geography of police forces in Scotland throws up different pressures, and the police grant needs to be distributed as fairly as possible. The Scottish Executive has recognised that by undertaking a review of GAE distribution, which aims to assess objectively the factors that drive demand for police services so that GAE can be distributed accordingly. As part of that review, special cases will be considered, and Lothian and Borders police will be able to argue that there should be special provision for policing the capital city. Other forces will no doubt raise issues that are of concern to them. However, if it appears that special factors remain that cannot be taken into account in the GAE distribution, I would wish to give the matter further consideration. It would be premature, however, to do so while the review is under way.
The review should be completed in time to inform the financial year 2002-03. It is worth noting that per capita expenditure on the police in Lothian and Borders is 7.9 per cent above the Scottish average, at £151 per head of population—the second highest figure in Scotland. I am sympathetic with and support the demands of the police service, but it is for individual chief constables to deploy their resources to meet the demands of their force areas.
In conclusion, comparisons between the Met and Lothian and Borders police are not directly valid because they have different responsibilities and are funded under different systems. The Scottish Executive already provides a 100 per cent grant of more than £300,000 for policing the Parliament. The method of distributing GAE is currently under review and a special case can be made for the additional burden of policing the capital in that review.
There should be recognition that Edinburgh is the capital with a Parliament and that that will mean extra policing. Leaving that until 2002-03 is not acting with sufficient urgency.
I might be prepared to concede that were all other things equal but, as the member knows, they are not. I have already alluded to the £285 million additional investment that Gordon Brown announced yesterday for policing in the UK. It remains to be seen how that and other additional investment in public services will be reflected in Scottish spending priorities. As the member also knows, the Scottish drugs enforcement agency will mean that around 100 extra officers are deployed in individual forces, which will have a significant impact on policing time and the ability of the police to respond to public pressures. That is why I do not think that the matter is as pressing as the member suggests.
Following yesterday's budget, we have not had an emergency statement on how the minister wants to spend additional policing resources, but the budget surely offers him an opportunity to recognise the need for special provision in Edinburgh, as a capital. I understand what he is saying about the GAE review, but Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made the valid point that our emergency is here and now. Bristow Muldoon and others argued, rightly, that the issue in Edinburgh is not the people who live here but those who visit. We cannot wait until 2002. I look forward to an early statement on the distribution from the budget allocation.
I will repeat what I have just said, because it is important. If all other things were equal, I would have sympathy for the case, but they are not. First, we must see what Scottish spending priorities result from Gordon Brown's announcement of additional public sector investment. That is likely to be available before 2002-03. Secondly, the investment in the SDEA should allow for 200 extra officers across Scotland and 100 in local forces; that will be implemented before 2002. I hope that any perceived current emergency will be ameliorated to some extent by those factors well before the GAE distribution review is concluded.
Presiding Officer, I see that you are making anxious gestures. I hope that my comments will reassure members that the legitimate requirements of police forces across Scotland, as well as in Lothian and Borders, are being met or will be met at the earliest possible time.
Meeting closed at 18:08.