Community Policing
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3439, in the name of Bill Aitken, on behalf of the Justice Committee, on the report of its inquiry into community policing.
It gives me considerable pleasure to present the Justice Committee's report on its inquiry into community policing. It has been a worthwhile exercise that has been both informative and constructive. I am also pleased that, in his letter dated 20 February, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice updated us on the vital issues of police recruitment and the new arrangements that are to be brought into effect with regard to the payment of police pensions. His letter also narrated the Scottish community policing engagement principles. Those are very important features, which enable today's debate to take place against an encouraging background.
Parliament will be aware that the Justice Committee carried out its inquiry in two stages—we have reported previously on the initial aspects of our work. In preparing our report, we had five evidence sessions. Thirty witnesses gave evidence, and that evidence was augmented by fact-finding visits to Dundee, the Scottish Borders and Motherwell. One visit to Central Scotland Police had to be cancelled due to an emergency situation that arose in that area. I put on record my thanks and the thanks of the committee to the witnesses who gave so willingly of their time and those in the police divisions and local government who facilitated and informed our visits.
Evidence was given by chief constables and by Sir Ronnie Flanagan, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for England and Wales. We entered pioneering ground in carrying out a videoconference session with Professor Wesley Skogan of Northwestern University in Chicago. We also heard from police conveners, community representatives and the Scottish Police Federation.
The committee's methodology was to pose certain questions. Although those are too numerous to mention this afternoon, we sought to concentrate our considerations under a few general headings, namely what the police and stakeholders regard as community policing and what level of priority is given to that facet of police work. We also sought examples of good practice and factors that might impede the production of a good community policing service.
Early in the inquiry, we had to accept that there is no one-cap-fits-all solution. Although there is a common thread through all policing activity, the strategies and techniques that are appropriate in, for example, Glasgow city centre are not appropriate in small rural towns in the Borders or the Highlands. We recognise that not only does there have to be autonomous thinking in the police authorities, but there must be different approaches in police divisions, particularly those that cover wide areas containing a variety of different problems and challenges.
It is perhaps important to stress that I can detect no political will at this stage to change the situation that arose in 1975 following the last but one reform of local government, whereby eight regional police forces were established. At the same time, it must be recognised that a much greater degree of collaborative working will be necessary—between forces and within forces—if the police are to be able to face the new and quite different challenges that now confront them and, indeed, wider society.
I think that there has been general disappointment that the Scottish Police Services Authority has not achieved what was in the thoughts of Parliament when we passed, unanimously, the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006. One can only hope that the matter can be sorted out in the months and years ahead so that resources can be concentrated on up-front policing.
Although the evidence that we obtained in the inquiry underlined the difficulty in defining community policing, there was remarkable consensus from witnesses about what they regarded as the essential characteristics. Visibility and accessibility were top of the list. People want readily identifiable and named officers working in their area, and that area should be clearly defined.
It was clear from the evidence that we received from a number of witnesses that the effectiveness of the approach that has been taken has been reduced by a high turnover of community police officers in individual areas and by the level of abstractions whereby officers are removed for specific inquiries, sometimes lasting several days, and to police sporting events. The committee recognises senior officers' problems in fulfilling the requirements to police football matches, international conferences, rock concerts and other events, but it is to be hoped that abstractions can be kept to a minimum.
The evidence that suggests that there is a high turnover of police officers in community policing roles is not without genuine difficulty. The career ambitions of officers must be recognised, but the committee firmly endorses the view that officers in a community policing role should be retained in that role for at least two years. Those who demonstrate effectiveness should be encouraged to stay in their post. Central Scotland Police and Strathclyde Police have made some progress in that respect, and we invite other forces to go down that route.
The police service is not isolated; it is required more and more frequently to dovetail with other organisations and agencies. It is clear that, where partnership working is essential, it is helpful for community policing to be organised along broadly the same lines as other agencies organise their work. Strathclyde Police has gone down that road. It was clear from the evidence that partnership working, where it exists, adds to the impact that policing and other services have on localised problems.
It is a given that a community policing team that operates in a specific area will get to know that area geographically and the people who live there. That can, depending on an individual officer's conduct, be a negative or a positive experience, but it is important that the police know who has the capacity to assist them, who the local opinion-formers are and who might present problems. The community policing system that has been introduced by Strathclyde Police and is now being rolled out fairly firmly in that area should assist.
In an interesting evidence session, Professor Skogan dealt with the way in which civic engagement is considered by Chicago police to be one of their most important roles. They carry out quite far-reaching surveys and hold public meetings, which, I understand, sometimes cause some excitement.
In his recent report, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland highlights a number of issues on which there is a seeming lack of engagement. In what is basically a very positive report that reflects well on all concerned, there is a statistic that needs to be addressed. It is clear from the figures that are provided that the overwhelming majority of the public are impressed with the initial police contact when they require to notify the police of some event. However, satisfaction levels fall when the respondent is asked about the overall police approach to dealing with the matter; and they fall dramatically when respondents are asked whether they are kept adequately informed of progress and outcomes. That matter needs to be addressed.
We congratulate the police on the steps that have been taken to engage with the public by means of circular surveys and so on, but it is clear that more needs to be done. For example, although we can well understand the disappointment and frustration of Fife Constabulary, which issued 2,400 surveys last year and got a 21 per cent return, we need to consider a more imaginative approach.
One of the features of modern-day life is the need for constant self-assessment. The committee's report identifies quantitative and qualitative measures that have been introduced by the police service. If communities are to be truly convinced that community policing initiatives are impacting positively, they need regular and reliable indicators of success in a digestible format. Although the police boards have a key role in scrutinising community policing and its effectiveness, the committee once again underlines its recommendation from its previous report that the framework measures must be available at more local levels and not just force-wide. That will ensure greater scrutiny of community policing by those who are most affected: namely, the communities themselves.
I genuinely think that we are on the right lines. It is encouraging to see the progress that has been made during the past years. In particular, the committee has been encouraged by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's response to us a few days ago, from which it appears that he has been heavily influenced by the committee's work and research. One hopes that that is an indication of things that will happen under different headings in the times ahead, but it is clear that Mr MacAskill has adopted many of the recommendations in our report, which he has now confirmed will be put into operation. That is a good thing.
In the chamber and in the Justice Committee in particular, I am pleased to say, we recognise that we are here to provide a good service to the public. One of the most important services that we can provide is to ensure that the policing of Scotland's communities is not only up to scratch but having a positive impact on the lives of all our constituents. We are heading down a road that will bring that about.
I caution the cabinet secretary on police numbers. I hear what he has to say on that and I am confident that he is making every possible effort to ensure that he adheres to his promise, but I make it clear that, if he fails to do so, there will be a consequence.
We are making progress. The committee's report highlights certain ways forward. I am pleased that Mr MacAskill has accepted them and hopeful that many of the police forces and boards will accept them, too. It gives me much pleasure to move the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Justice Committee’s 18th Report, 2008 (Session 3):
Report on Inquiry into Community Policing (SP Paper 155).
I welcome the convener's comments and the Justice Committee's report on community policing. I am grateful for his words about the progress that is being made. Like the committee's previous report on police resources, the report on community policing is a timely, thorough and well-researched piece of work. It addresses important issues, and the Justice Committee has certainly contributed to our thinking on them.
As the convener mentioned, policing is not partisan or political. That is how it has always been and how it should remain. We require a partnership between political parties to ensure that we get the best out of our police forces, just as we require a partnership between our communities and police forces to ensure that we have the safest and most secure communities possible.
I echo the favourable comments that the convener made regarding our policemen and policewomen. The Government wishes to put it on record that all ranks in all parts of our country serve our communities well. Policing is a difficult and sometimes dangerous job, but Scotland is well served by its police officers, who make a great contribution. From experience, I know that many not only contribute through their day jobs but do a great deal in our communities above and beyond that.
Scotland is a diverse country, with a diverse population, a diverse landscape and diverse communities in which we choose to live. That is part of the fabric of our society. Our police work well to reflect that diversity and strive to police each community in the most appropriate manner. They are able to do that job well because they are not only from our communities, but for our communities.
Effective policing of our communities needs to reflect those communities. What operates in Gairloch is not necessarily what is needed or what we want in Glasgow. That is why the Scottish Government has worked with stakeholders, including the police, to develop the Scottish community policing engagement principles, which I have already shared with the committee as a work in progress.
I firmly believe that communities should have a clear understanding of the level of policing that they have a right to expect, how that is being delivered and how their views are taken into account. Clearly, sometimes it is hard to achieve that, and those matters have to be worked at. The story about Fife Constabulary's attempt to gain information through a survey is not to be seen as a criticism of the force; it shows the difficulties that can be faced. We have to try to engage and, if it does not work in one way, we have to try other ways.
The community policing engagement principles set out how each force will produce its own community engagement standard that will tell communities how to get in touch with their local officers. That is not meant to be twee; we need to ensure that people do not have to dial 999 or other numbers and that they have other ways to get in touch with officers. The standard will also tell people the maximum length of time that they should have to wait to see a police officer on a non-emergency matter—because that can be a frustrating experience—and it will set out how the police will engage with communities, local businesses and other organisations to help solve problems in the community.
I have also been struck by the work that is going on in each Scottish force to reassert the priority of community policing. I will pick just a few examples. Central Scotland Police is undertaking a mixed-economy pilot, which seeks to release more officers for front-line and community policing, ensuring that others who are not qualified police officers—who do not have the badge of office—deal with matters with which they can appropriately deal. Fife Constabulary is undertaking an internal strategic review that will enhance front-line service delivery and, in Lothian and Borders Police, there is a resource allocation deployment review.
Unprecedented police numbers in Strathclyde have allowed Chief Constable Stephen House to develop a robust community policing model. The number of people engaged in community policing in Strathclyde will rise from 527 last year to 1,127 by the end of March 2009.
However, community policing also involves responding to incidents. We all know that we must get the balance right. People must be available to chew the fat, discuss problems and spend time allaying fears with elderly and young people in our communities to ensure that they see that the police are the fabric of the community and can be approached. Equally, information must be gathered, things must be found out and our constituents' clear requirements must be met. If a serious incident happens, an officer must arrive at it quickly and efficiently.
As MSPs, we repeatedly hear from our constituents that policing needs to be both community based and responsive in order to meet our needs. That is not impossible, but it is difficult to manage. Officers are doing both types of policing to the best of their abilities—they are doing remarkably well.
Having spoken about the work that is being carried out in forces, I will touch on the work that the Scottish Government is doing to support policing for our communities.
I firmly believe that Government's role is not to micromanage the delivery of policing on the ground; rather, it is to add value at a national, strategic level. We have done that, and are seeking to continue to do it, in a variety of ways. We have added value through our commitment to deliver 1,000 more police officers. We are delivering on that commitment, with 450 police officers now coming through. We are fully funding the policy through payments to forces of £16.5 million to date.
I will give further evidence of our support for the police. In the current year, we have provided an additional £32.8 million to fund the additional costs of changes in the pension commutation rates for fire and police officers. Those costs were not initially factored in, and considerable dismay would have been caused in our communities if they had not been addressed. We therefore sought to work with the conveners of police boards and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that the problem, which was not anticipated, was addressed. What we have done will ensure both that 1,000 additional officers will be delivered and that we will be able to meet the legitimate pension rights of officers who have served our communities well. The pensions issue may have come from left field, but officers had an entitlement, and the national Government, police boards and local government are obliged to meet officers' rights and entitlements. After all, they have served our communities.
We have put in place arrangements to measure the recruitment of and spending on the additional officers, and we will capture the impact of that work through developing a basket of measures from the annual Scottish policing performance framework. We are supporting a pilot shared recruitment service with the aim of bringing greater consistency and reducing the burden on forces, and we are examining ways of improving the retention of valuable policing skills in the workforce. The Government is committed to the three Rs: recruiting 1,000 additional officers; redeploying officers, which has been especially successful in Strathclyde and elsewhere; and retaining valuable officers who have served our communities well, are popular, have great knowledge and can continue to do an excellent job. We cannot make all those officers stay if they choose to retire, but it is clear that the retention of some of them would benefit our communities. The police have demonstrated their ability to innovate through delivering nearly £67 million in efficiency savings in 2007-08. They will continue to identify efficiency savings.
However, all those initiatives are simply a means to an end. Our vision is of safer streets, reduced crime and reduced fear of crime through an effective, efficient and visible police service that has the trust and respect of the communities that it serves.
I put on record my thanks for the efforts of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, Paddy Tomkins, who will step down in April this year. Throughout his career, he has contributed greatly to Scottish policing. In the "Independent Review of Policing in Scotland", which was published on 23 January, he identified a number of issues that we still have to tackle in order to ensure that we can be confident in our abilities to police all the risks that all our communities face. I am determined to take action to address the issues that are raised in the review. In doing that, it is important that I draw on the views and expertise of others, particularly those of stakeholders and COSLA.
The Scottish Government is committed to engaging with partners and stakeholders in the coming weeks to consider how we can address the issues that have been raised on the provision of specialist services, accountability, governance and service standards. Those are important issues that we need to consider carefully and fully. Paddy Tomkins's review and the work that it has set in train will stand us in good stead for the challenges and opportunities that face policing in the 21st century. In the spirit set out by the convener of the Justice Committee, I look forward to working with the committee to ensure that we continue to allow our police service to provide an excellent service for our communities.
In any debate on policing, it is important at the outset to acknowledge the important role that police officers play in ensuring community safety in all our communities. We learned in the Justice Committee inquiry that police officers show a great deal of commitment, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. It is important to put that on the record. It has been recognised that the inquiry was a useful opportunity to highlight constructively how we can improve local delivery of policing resources. I will refer to several key issues that the committee raised.
The committee recommended that community police officers should be in post for at least two years. It is fair to say that the lack of continuity of community police officers causes great concern in many communities throughout Scotland. In my experience as an elected representative for more than 15 years, the issue is one of the top five complaints that I receive from constituents. Communities realise that local police officers should be given the opportunity to build relationships in communities and that such relationships are impossible if there is a high turnover of officers. Although we all accept that such decisions are for chief constables, it would be wrong of chief constables or the Scottish Government to ignore the legitimate concerns that communities throughout Scotland have raised.
Has Paul Martin checked on what the police feel about the issue? What does the Scottish Police Federation say?
Anecdotal evidence that I hope all members have received indicates that police officers want continuity and that they understand the importance of stable relationships with communities. Officers being in post for at least two years would be a step in the right direction. The Justice Committee heard consistent evidence that a stable and continuing relationship is important. As the report states, many people accept that the high turnover of community police officers results in poor knowledge and a poor service to the public.
The Justice Committee discussed abstraction of police officers from our communities and the need for a policy to dictate a presumption against that. Although many chief constables, including Stephen House of Strathclyde Police, have said that they want to take steps to minimise abstraction of community police officers, doing so can sometimes be difficult, given competing demands for officers. I recently observed the policing operations during a Rangers and Celtic game at Ibrox football ground, at which it was clear that many of the 500 police officers had been abstracted from communities throughout the west of Scotland. Although we should accept that such events require police resources, it is important to accept that football clubs, for example, should be required to compensate police authorities properly for the time that police officers spend at events such as football games. Although the committee report does not go into detail on that issue, it is worth raising.
There can be no doubt that sharing good practice among police forces is the way forward. We heard about many examples of good practice in police forces. However, it is important to put on record that there was virtually no evidence on how good practice is shared among the forces. I would welcome a brief intervention from the cabinet secretary to assure us that good practice is being shared among police forces.
We have an inspectorate of constabulary to do just that, and which was established long before my tenure in office. The purpose of the inspectorate is to ensure that we have the opportunity for review and that good practice is shared. That said, it is not simply a case of our forcing matters; the police should also be learning. I believe that that carrot-and-stick approach is working.
We have learned during the inquiry that what is displayed in flowcharts and presentations does not necessarily work in practice locally. Although there is sometimes a tendency for police boards to be parochial, that is not exclusive to police boards and happens throughout civic life in Scotland. We have to ensure that we in Parliament show leadership to ensure that good practice is shared, so I welcome the minister's constructive intervention in that regard.
The committee recognised that there is scope for further research into where good practice can be shared, and also for taking more evidence on the effectiveness of the various policing models that are being developed throughout Scotland. We accept that one size does not fit all, and that there are examples of good practice that more effective independent research might develop.
The Government gave a commitment to deliver 1,000 more police officers than the 16,236 officers that it inherited in May 2007. We on the Labour benches will ensure that it is held to account on that promise. It is important to recognise that if our policing models are to be successful, the Government should be held to account on its commitment.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the Justice Committee's report on community policing and we congratulate the committee members on their work in producing it.
More police officers are needed in communities to provide a visible deterrent and to boost public confidence. Traditionally, communities in Scotland would have had the reassurance of a local police officer who was an integral part of their neighbourhood, building up relationships and reducing the fear of crime. In many areas, it is clear that that model does not bear much resemblance to what is happening on the ground, which is why it is important to develop a vision of what community policing means in the 21st century.
Like the Justice Committee, the Conservatives are reluctant for the Scottish Government to provide a strict definition of community policing. I therefore welcome the cabinet secretary's statement that he does not intend to micromanage what individual police forces are doing. It is important to recognise that in each police force, division, community and street, there will be a different approach to community policing that should be adapted to meet the particular challenges and needs of that community. The needs of Glasgow are different to the needs of Shetland; equally, the needs of Hawick in my constituency are different from the needs of Gavinton, which is also in my constituency.
The role of community wardens was touched on in the committee report. The Scottish Conservatives have never denied that community wardens could have a role, but they should never be used as substitutes for real police officers. I spent a shift with the community wardens in Kelso several months ago and was able to see at first hand the valuable work that they do alongside the police. The community safety wardens in the Borders, like those in many other parts of Scotland, target specifically low-level crime and antisocial behaviour such as vandalism, graffiti and littering. It undoubtedly frees up police time to deal with more serious matters that require police powers.
Such has been the success of the community warden scheme in the Borders that the Conservative-led Scottish Borders Council has recently announced additional funding to extend the scheme to other parts of the Borders. However, we should be clear that our priority has always been to have more police officers walking the streets of Scotland. Although community wardens have an important role to play in making communities safer, they are not, and should not be viewed as, substitutes for or an alternative to recruiting additional police officers.
The Scottish Conservatives campaigned hard for additional police officers in Scotland and we won. We do not want to see officers sitting behind desks, dealing with paperwork; we want them out in our neighbourhoods, making our communities safer. We cannot start to talk about the effectiveness of community policing unless police officers are on the ground to perform the duties that we expect of them.
We agree with the Scottish Government that we need to retain serving officers, ensure that their time is used productively and free them up from needless paperwork, and we agree that we need to help police forces to work smarter. On top of that, we fought for additional new officers.
The Scottish Government has not always been as committed to the policy as we have been. It has twice U-turned on police recruitment. The SNP originally promised 1,000 more police in its 2007 election manifesto but, by the end of 2007, it had changed its mind and decided that the 1,000 new officers would be provided not only by additional recruitment, but by the creation of the ridiculous concept of equivalent police officers. We are pleased to have influenced the Scottish Government's policy and we are happy to work with it to achieve yet another Scottish Conservative election manifesto commitment.
The other parties do not have much credibility on the issue. The previous Government had eight years to recruit the extra officers our forces desperately needed, but Labour did not promise a single extra police officer during the election campaign and the Lib Dems made just a token gesture.
In the eight years of the previous Administration, the police-strength figure increased by 1,500—that did not happen just through recruitment. Does the member accept that the Scottish Government should pledge to provide 1,000 extra officers on top of the police-strength figure?
I am sure that Mr Baker will acknowledge that crime rates also rose during those eight years, so we needed yet more additional police officers. The only party with any credibility on the issue is the Scottish Conservatives, who pledged to provide additional police.
How can John Lamont say that the only party with credibility on the issue is the Conservative party? During the budget discussions in 2007 and 2008, the Conservatives made great play of the fact that they held out to secure additional police officers from the SNP. How does the member respond to the figures in a Government paper and the performance framework report that show an overall reduction in police numbers in 2007-08?
We have made it clear that we expect the Scottish Government to deliver 1,000 extra police officers in the four-year parliamentary session. We will hold it to account if it does not deliver that commitment to us and to the Parliament. The Government is clear about our commitment to that.
We welcome the Justice Committee's report and we look forward to listening to members' views.
As a recent recruit to the Justice Committee, I can claim credit only for signing off the final version of the report on community policing. The report is important and we can all agree with its conclusions. Professor Skogan defined community policing as involving "turf orientation"—a good phrase that means decentralising policing—and
"an extremely broad problem-solving view of the nature of the problems that they face" —[Official Report, Justice Committee, 20 May 2008; c 755.]
That is a good starting point.
I will begin by setting community policing in context. In an ideal world, all citizens would behave properly and respect their neighbours: 99 per cent of the public would not think—as a report in today's newspapers tells us—that alcohol has had a detrimental effect on their community, knives would stay in the kitchen cutlery drawer rather than be responsible for about 70 deaths a year in Scotland, and policemen would not be needed.
However, we do not live in an ideal world, so society, the Government and the police force have the job of keeping the public safe: locking up dangerous and violent people, dealing with the consequences of fractured families and the ravages of drug and alcohol addiction in damaged communities, and responding to the lower-level crime that has been such a nuisance in many areas.
We deal with such matters first by various social interventions and at the end by various attempts to rehabilitate individuals or at least to protect public safety. The glue in the middle is the police service—not least the policing that connects to and engages with the community.
Community policing has been the police's central task since the first police force was established by Sir Robert Peel in London back in 1829. Initially, the police had some problems. The first police officer, with the police number 1, lasted only four hours before he was sacked for getting legless. Of the first 2,800 recruits, only 600 lasted the pace. The public thought that the police were a sinister foreign idea that was designed to create an apparatus to lock up the Government's opponents. I do not want to give the cabinet secretary ideas in connection with his alcohol strategy, but that is the view that was taken.
Is Robert Brown saying that, historically speaking, Lord Liverpool was a liberal?
I am not saying that at all—I am describing the origin of community policing.
Another interesting point is that the first police officers' uniforms were blue because the police were modelled on the patriotically popular Royal Navy, rather than the more disreputable Army. They also had tall hats that they could stand on to look over walls. That was a practical technological solution of the day.
Things have come on a bit since then. When I visited the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan last week, I was told by the director that no one from the last round of recruits had dropped out. That says a great deal about the motivation, training and preparation of today's police recruits. I was impressed by the quality of the recruits whom I met at Tulliallan on that occasion.
I picked up one or two other interesting points. The first was the emphasis that is put on greeting people and looking them in the eye. It sounds like a silly point, but all police recruits are trained to say good morning to people whom they meet, to visitors, and to police officers and colleagues. That is regarded as the first step towards engagement with the public on the proper basis of respect, and it helps recruits to be observant of what is happening around them.
The second point was the emphasis that is now placed on diversity training—the recognition of the diverse nature of modern society and the equality of all citizens before the law. The third point, which is echoed in the Justice Committee's report, is that specific training in community policing seems to be left largely to local forces, with their different needs and requirements. Development will be required in that area by the Scottish Police College, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and local forces.
I cannot speak about other forces, but Strathclyde Police at least seems to be fully engaged with the priority of community policing. It is building on existing good practice and the developing idea of problem-solving policing, which has existed for a while. The reduction of numbers in the senior ranks and the recruitment of new police officers—even if it is lagging a bit behind the 1,000 officers target—have freed up resources to employ and, importantly, to deploy more community officers. Structural reorganisation has put a huge emphasis on the central position of community policing. The cabinet secretary quoted the figures for that.
In recent months, and for different purposes, I have met the local police in Govanhill, Rutherglen and Glasgow city centre, where the picture is broadly the same. In truth, many of us were fairly sceptical. We had heard repeated complaints about there being only two police officers to cover a district, about police cars flashing by in one direction while yobs fled in another, and about community officers lasting only months before being seconded elsewhere, not to be replaced. They were thought of like the disappeared in some Latin American dictatorship.
The situation has changed in many respects. I say to John Lamont that a little humility from the Conservatives might be helpful, because many of the problems that I have described, including those relating to the direction of travel of police cars, arose under the previous Conservative Government. A bit of perspective on such matters is required.
The roll-out of the community policing strategy seems to be paying dividends. I have the impression that some of the long-standing crime hotspots that I recollect from my days as a councillor are at last becoming a bit too hot for some local troublemakers. We are arriving at a point where community officers have the potential to stay in post for at least two years, as the committee recommends, with abstractions kept to a minimum. One problem is that many officers are new recruits who do not have depth of experience. That will need to be managed over time.
Non-reporting of crime is a problem at various levels. It is important to note the disparity between reported assaults and the substantially higher number of people who attend hospitals with wounds, and the lower levels of reporting of crimes—for a range of reasons—in more troubled areas. Community police officers can be a key resource in raising levels of reporting of crime.
I am told that there is a fuzzy area and that incidents can get sidetracked to antisocial behaviour teams, instead of being dealt with by the police. That may be all right, but it may mean citizens not having the police protection to which they are entitled. It would be helpful if the Minister for Community Safety would take cognisance of the point, which was made to me in recent discussions with Victim Support Scotland, and ensure that there is, in effect, a seamless overlap between community policing on the one hand and local authority antisocial behaviour strategies on the other.
The concept of community policing has a long history. For a time, it was in decline due to the lure of motorised support teams and the delusion that modern communications could replace the physical presence of police officers on the beat. Community policing is back. The Justice Committee has produced a worthwhile report that will be a template for future action in this key area.
It seems a long time since the Justice Committee published its report, but it was only last October. As I was perusing its pages in preparation for the debate, all the memories came flooding back. Once again, the Justice Committee has produced an important piece of work that will aid both Parliament and external bodies. Members do not have to agree with every word in the report, but it provides a firm foundation on which to build future policy decisions.
As has been highlighted, the Justice Committee's inquiry into community policing emanated from its work on the roles and responsibilities of the police. During that earlier inquiry, it became apparent that community policing is a somewhat strange beast, given its various titles and the various nuances of what it means, so the committee decided to look into the matter and try to clarify it. Visits were arranged to Dundee, the Borders and Motherwell, and the committee held evidence sessions, including a session via satellite with Professor Wesley Skogan from Chicago. I can only say that the committee examined the issue in great detail and came to its conclusions in an informed manner.
As well going on the committee's visits, I spent some time going out with Strathclyde Police in Greenock and East Dunbartonshire and with community wardens in Inverclyde. I also met the community partnership team in East Dunbartonshire. Those additional visits allowed me to have more detailed discussions with the officers and wardens, and they certainly helped me during the inquiry.
It became apparent early on that there is no one-size-fits-all definition of community policing. Communities and their needs differ, as does the geography in different parts of Scotland. What might be good for Greenock or Motherwell may well be inadequate for Peebles or Arran. That was highlighted to the committee by Chief Superintendent Val McHoull of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, who made it clear that she is not convinced that imposing a nationally defined model is the most effective way in which to move the community policing structure forward. As she pointed out, community police officers are
"there to understand their community".—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 3 June 2008; c 854.]
If they are to do that competently, it is essential that they have some flexibility within their area.
Paddy Tomkins, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland, takes a similar view. Unconvinced by the neighbourhood policing model in England and Wales, he appreciates the diversity in Scotland and the merits of developing a less uniform model. I echo those sentiments in my thoughts about any future community policing model in Scotland.
Regardless of whether we were discussing rural or urban areas, we heard about two issues loud and clear: abstraction rates and the tenure of community police officers. It became clear that abstractions are commonplace. In some instances, there is a feeling that community police officers are not as valued as other officers and that they are therefore the first to be called from their duties to perform other tasks. I suggest that community policing is actually one of the most important aspects of policing because it allows the police force to have a public face in communities and to build up links, trust and—dare I say it?—even friendships. Witnessing the rapport that community police officers have with members of the public proved to me that the simple activity of talking to the public can play a vital role in community relations. Furthermore, the more trust that can be built between the police and communities, the more mutual assistance can be provided.
There will of course be occasions when abstractions from front-line community policing cannot be helped. There may be a major disaster or even a terrorist attack. However, abstractions should be the exception rather than the rule. Paragraph 159 of the report notes Strathclyde Police's approach, with the red-circling of community police officers. That is an important development, but it will be some time before it is fully implemented and we can say whether it works. However, I believe that the will and the desire for red-circling exist, and I expect that this new approach will be beneficial in Strathclyde Police's area. I am sure that problems will arise and that it will not be all plain sailing, but in time the change of mindset will benefit our communities.
The second issue of note that I will touch on is the tenure of community police officers. I was surprised that there appears to be no rhyme nor reason for the time that a police officer spends in the community. Furthermore, community policing appears to be the first step on the ladder in the police force. It became apparent that if community policing is to work, then a standard approach to tenure is needed.
I appreciate that an officer's tenure is an operational matter and that the power to change the current approach lies outwith Parliament. That is quite right, but it would be remiss of members not to highlight in our inquiry areas of note or concern for other people to consider. The committee's recommendations that there should be training at national level and that there should be a minimum tenure of two years in community policing are based on all the evidence that we heard, and their aim is to offer a solution on a matter that we all regard as being an important part of policing in Scotland.
I have no doubt that community policing benefits everyone. To judge from the visits that I have made in the West of Scotland region, the approach works. As is the case with other initiatives, stumbling blocks will be ironed out in due course, to create an enhanced service that brings about the safer Scotland that we all want.
Time is short, as usual. I echo the convener's thanks to everyone who took part in the Justice Committee's inquiry.
I am sure that members who are not on the committee will have gathered that after considering a large amount of evidence the committee found that community policing is a good thing. I think the public agree with us. If community policing is a good thing, it should be supported and resourced, and officers should be allowed to get to know the areas and communities that they serve. I am sure that there is little disagreement on that and I ask members to support the committee's findings.
I take the opportunity to share with members the recent work of the police who serve the community that I represent. Last Friday, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth witnessed a successful example of what community policing can provide. There was a day of action, as part of operation fleet, which is the biggest-ever police and community partnership initiative in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and the surrounding district. Some 370 local and special officers from Strathclyde Police joined forces with partner agencies in a bid to crack down on violence, disorder and antisocial behaviour in my constituency.
Operation fleet produced impressive results. Five people were arrested for posing with offensive weapons on internet sites and encouraging people to join them in violent acts; 16 people were arrested under warrant; and 21 people were arrested for offences such as carrying an offensive weapon and assault. There were 228 visits to licensed premises to ensure compliance with licensing laws, and I am pleased to say that no offences were detected. Officers, including members of the newly formed domestic abuse task force, carried out curfew and domestic bail checks, and undertook visits to reassure vulnerable victims of crime.
Partnership working was crucial to operation fleet's success. I welcome the cabinet secretary's acknowledgement that community policing cannot work in isolation from organisations that are committed to delivering stronger and safer communities for everyone. In Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, the hard work of partners such as North Lanarkshire Council, the Antonine Centre, Tesco, Asda and the British Transport Police has enabled officers to take a vital and visible approach.
The success of operation fleet depended on powers in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 and the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which were introduced by the Labour Executive. The use of tools that have been provided in legislation that the Parliament passed to protect communities and to give power to the police has made a difference to the quality of life in communities that are plagued by antisocial behaviour. In particular, the powers that have been granted to police to close premises that are the focus of constant antisocial behaviour and to disperse groups of people who are involved in serious and significant antisocial behaviour greatly assist community officers in the provision of visible policing and the targeting of outstanding matters.
What did the public think about that? I am imagining what members think about it and the problem with abstractions that we highlighted in the report. Obviously, officers had to be brought in from other police divisions for the operation, but the public had police visibility on the streets. I have to say that huge rumours were going round the community about murders, rapes and people absconding, but because of operational details the police could not share information with the public before the event.
It is imperative for the Scottish Government to build on the actions that were taken by previous Administrations and Parliaments and to continue to equip police forces with the tools that they need to deliver community policing. The cabinet secretary—I am sorry that he is not here—spoke today about "a basket of measures", but in the previous Parliament, we recognised that what was needed was a box of tools and we gave different tools for different areas. I just hope that the cabinet secretary's basket can cope as well as the heavy box of tools that we gave, and that there is the same commitment.
Resources are paramount in ensuring that there is community policing in my area of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and elsewhere in Scotland. Effective, publicly supported community policing on a day-to-day basis in North Lanarkshire is successful because of financial support and collaborative working across a number of areas, such as housing wardens, the antisocial task force and graffiti removal, benefiting communities through a reduction in crime and, I hope, fear of crime.
Community policing, working in partnership with local organisations, grants areas such as Cumbernauld and Kilsyth better and more responsive services. The recommendations of the Justice Committee's inquiry seek to improve community policing, and I look forward to seeing how the Government will continue to support officers in providing what most people regard as the most important aspect of operational policing.
In his speech, Mr MacAskill mentioned the increase in police numbers and referred to the unprecedented police numbers in the Strathclyde region. I am glad that the previous Labour-led Executive left that legacy. However, that unprecedented number has risen by two since the cabinet secretary took power. I hope that he will address that.
I congratulate the Justice Committee on its report on community policing and the evidence that it gathered from throughout Scotland. The idea of community policing has at its heart the wish to encourage local action to meet local needs, and to regenerate identity and renew a sense of community. However, the context is a society in which, sadly, rural community policing has been weakened by the closure of even large village police stations and the use of police cars, lack of local knowledge and a reduction in regular and consistent public contact with the police. In cities, newspapers daily carry news about a catalogue of crimes that should shock society into action to address what is a complex situation.
Police forces cannot act effectively in isolation from the people they serve. Our police cannot create secure crime-free areas without contact and interaction with, and information and support from, the local community they serve. However, there is a problem in our modern society. There is no fear of God, no fear of the police, no respect for the police uniform, no fear of law courts and no shame in imprisonment. Everyone seems to know their individual rights, but we rarely hear of individual obligations or duties as individuals to our wider society. We turn up at hospitals and demand to be cured, irrespective of the damage that we have done to ourselves, with an attitude of, "By the way, if you make a mistake, we'll sue you."
Small numbers of disruptive or criminally minded individuals can cause their neighbours and communities misery. The fundamental problem is a selfish society in which fear now rules in fundamental social situations. For example, teachers feel vulnerable, and there was the case of the man who tried, understandably, to stop youngsters vandalising his wife's car but who ended up dead. Today's policing has to take place in that kind of atmosphere.
Our police forces cannot be responsible for curing all the ills of our society, but they can, while protecting our citizens, add great value to the self-awareness and sense of wellbeing and identity within local communities by co-operating with a range of organisations. There must be interaction involving a whole range of local organisations and institutions to ensure that there is a comprehensive and organised response to this complex problem.
Community policing means a highly visible police presence, with police working with the community. I commend to Parliament the work that has been done in Angus and elsewhere by Sheriff Norrie Stein and the Community Alcohol Free Environment project, which has been successful in involving young people and giving them responsibility for running the project. CAFE's street football for all project has been extended to include international competitions. Its highly flexible mobile units can be set up anywhere. The games are based on fair play rules and are open to all participants equally. I have also seen at first hand the Bank of Scotland midnight football leagues, in which policemen and policewomen work with local youngsters. Trust and positive conduct are built up through contact and by example.
Our police cannot solve all of society's problems on their own, but I thoroughly recommend operation Inchcape, whereby the community task force created a highly visible police presence in Arbroath. The police worked with the local community safety partnership and a range of other local organisations—including the national health service, community wardens and parents—to target and reduce youth crime and drug misuse. Practical models for positive action do exist.
I congratulate the Justice Committee on its identification of the way forward. I welcome paragraph 44 of the committee's report, which includes a statement about the
"need to clarify what is understood by Community Policing and to develop more coherent community policing strategies which will embrace emerging developments in problem solving, the National Intelligence Model (NIM), restorative justice, warden schemes and the partnership elements of Community Planning."
However, I note the warning in paragraph 46 about the "uneven picture across Scotland". That comment should be a challenge to us in implementing improvements.
The committee's report is absolutely correct to highlight
"the continuing challenge of meeting reactive resource and operational demands"
and the need for
"a stronger bias towards proactive crime prevention and problem solving".
In warning against a one-size-fits-all model, the report rightly recognises the need for flexibility to reflect and adapt positively to local community needs. The summation in paragraph 72 again hits the mark. We need
"visible, accessible officers in the community, who are there not just to attend community meetings and run youth initiatives but to deal with crime in their area … to understand their community … It is about early intervention and crime reduction."
Ultimately, the matter is simple and straightforward. For emergency situations, the public need to know how to contact the police to ensure that there is a response and action. People who are affected by criminal or antisocial situations need to be able to communicate their needs. We need to pin down those whose conduct causes harassment, harm, hurt or loss to others. In the medium and longer term, we need positive and consistent community interaction, such as has happened in the CAFE project and under the operation Inchcape banner. We can provide positive alternatives and change lives through combined action by those who uphold the law. Community organisations, health providers and other community services must all be linked with a strong, visible and locally interactive police force.
I thank the members of the Justice Committee for their work in gathering the evidence and I congratulate them on their report.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. Like others, I compliment the Justice Committee on its report. There is no doubt that an extensive and comprehensive piece of work has been produced by the experienced members of the committee. When I attended a recent meeting of the committee for a constituency matter, I saw the committee's work at first hand and was very impressed by members' knowledge of justice matters. That knowledge has been brought to bear in the report.
For many of us, at our constituency offices and surgeries issues of crime and antisocial behaviour continue to dominate. Only last night, I was contacted by a constituent who was frightened to leave her house because of criminal activity and antisocial behaviour in her local community. In Cambuslang last week, while council workers were attempting to clear the local bandstand, they came under attack from local youths. In the face of such incidents, the increasing presence of community police officers will help. As Cathie Craigie said, there is no doubt that they are a good thing. They are essential in our communities, and people are looking for them to be visible and to provide reassurance and stability for our communities.
A number of aspects of the Justice Committee report can be implemented to strengthen community policing. It is important that training at the Scottish Police College is enhanced by ensuring that it includes modules on community policing. There is no doubt that community policing is a different kind of police work. As Stuart McMillan noted, speaking to the public requires skill. Community police officers have to speak to different groups, such as younger and older people, and to build up support and confidence in the community. To be able to do that, community police officers must be trained up. In addition, as the report states, it is important that middle and senior-ranking officers are also trained so that they understand the importance of community policing and how it can be used to combat crime and minimise its impact on communities.
I note the report's comments on the delivery of community policing in multimember wards, which make a lot of sense. Many communities and their services are in multimember wards, and community groups and other organisations can identify with their local community police officers.
I support the report's comments and the comments of members, including Paul Martin, about the tenure of community police officers. That issue is raised with me regularly in Rutherglen and Cambuslang. When community police officers are appointed, there is a learning curve. They have to learn the job, establish themselves within the community and win the confidence of different groups. Sometimes, once that process has been completed and the officer has settled in, they are moved to another post, which results in some instability in the community and the whole confidence-building process having to begin again. I therefore support the proposal for a minimum tenure of two years. I understand that that is an operational matter, but, on balance, the needs of the community are better served by community police officers who serve for at least two years.
On the issue of police numbers, the committee notes the importance of resources. The Scottish National Party's stated objective is to go from 16,236 to 17,236 police officers, and the Parliament will monitor that closely. The Government might have difficulty with that policy, because it has not thought it through and considered the number of retirals, which will be in excess of 600. Resources need to account for that if we are to reach the target of 1,000 additional officers.
I commend the committee for its work in raising the profile of community policing, which, when used effectively, can provide reassurance to Scotland's communities and help to combat crime and antisocial behaviour. I support the committee's conclusions.
Like other members, I thank the Justice Committee for the important work that it has done in its inquiry. A significant body of evidence has already highlighted the importance of community policing and the benefits that it brings, but the committee's report adds weight to the argument that effective community policing can be extremely valuable.
I recently made an interesting visit to a school in my constituency, during which I was quizzed on my role as an MSP—I am sure that other members have had the same experience. I took the opportunity to ask the youngsters what career they were thinking of following. It was clear that my answers to their questions did not have much bearing on their career choices, because none of them indicated that they had any desire to go into politics or to be an MSP. However, several of them said that they were interested in becoming a police officer. When I pressed them on the type of policing that they would like to get involved in, one pupil said that they would like to work in Strathclyde Police's helicopter, another said that they would like to drive the fast police cars of the traffic division, and another said that he would like to be an undercover officer in the drugs squad. All those jobs are much more exciting than being an MSP, of course, but it is interesting that none of the pupils mentioned that they were interested in being a community police officer.
I recognise that, as Robert Brown said, policing is much more sophisticated and high tech than it was when officers stood on tall hats to see over walls—that has been overtaken by the use of closed-circuit television and other sophisticated forms of surveillance, including high-tech helicopters. Despite what kids see on TV and the availability of such sophisticated equipment, in my view the core purpose of policing has not changed. Community policing is as valuable as ever; arguably, it is more important in today's society than it has ever been. It is often forgotten that the intelligence that allows the drugs squad to undertake high-tech surveillance operations in communities or the transport division to bring in the helicopter in support of its work is frequently obtained through the local community police officer.
The committee's report has highlighted a number of important issues that impact on the effectiveness of community policing. Constituents constantly raise with me the issue of abstraction, whereby community officers, who are meant to be dedicated to a specific area, are seconded to work in other areas on particular projects that might be the flavour of the month. When I sit down with senior officers in Central Scotland Police, they often reassure me about their personal commitment to community policing and how much they value it, but I know from experience that community police officers are often seen as a soft target when it comes to pulling officers off their normal duties and putting them on to others. We must ensure that we address that attitude in policing, when it is possible to do so, so that the important role that community policing can and does play is not just paid lip service but is recognised in practical terms.
That leads me on to tenure. I agree that it is necessary to provide greater security of tenure for community officers who are allocated to a specific area, regardless of whether it is a multimember ward. Central Scotland Police used to have the objective of keeping community officers in the same area for 18 months, but I know from conversations with members of that force that community officers might move on to other areas after nine months or a year. If we do not provide greater security of tenure for community police officers, we undermine their ability to develop their skills and their knowledge of their areas. They have to be given a good length of time to work in the communities that they serve.
I acknowledge that we are talking about operational matters, but I hope that ministers will give greater direction where they can. They should emphasise to chief constables that they should address the issues if they can.
When constituents come to me about policing issues, they are not looking for major surveillance operations or big fancy community operations; they are looking for police officers who will be part of the local fabric and will work effectively with tenants associations and community councils. They do not want the police to be regarded as a group of individuals who sit in the local police station and turn up in their police cars only when an incident occurs. They want their community police officers to be seen working in the community outwith the times when they are called on to perform specific duties. They want the officers to turn up at community council meetings, to meet tenants associations and to work with youth clubs. Such proactive work is valuable, but it is undermined if the officers are unable to work regularly in the same area.
Effective community policing is policing that is seen to be part of the local community's fabric. Reaching that point takes time and effort. When the Minister for Community Safety addresses the Justice Committee's report, I hope that he will refer to extending the length of time for which officers are allowed to serve in communities.
We move now to the wind-up speeches. I ask members to stick to their time limits as there is business before decision time. I call Mike Pringle. You have six minutes.
Community policing represents a massive opportunity, not only to reduce crime but, crucially, to reduce the fear of crime that blights many of Scotland's communities. It is because of that potential that I welcome today's debate and the Justice Committee's report.
The committee's critique and recommendations provide a valuable framework for progress. The report tackles in detail the vast majority of issues that currently affect community policing, and it tackles several known problems, such as police forces' reliance on abstraction, and the service tenure of community officers. In response to Margo MacDonald's intervention, Paul Martin said that community police officers did not want to be abstracted, which is absolutely right. In my experience, both as a councillor and as an MSP, police officers who want to be community police officers do not want to be running around policing football matches and so on; they want to be in the community.
A key aspect of the community police officer's role must be the building of relationships with community residents and other partners, in order to foster mutual understanding and trust. I agree with Bill Aitken that communities also want to know their officer's name—they want to know who he is. Is he Mike Pringle, John Jones or whoever? Communities want their officer to have an identity. However, as the Strathclyde example that is featured in the report shows, fostering understanding and trust may simply not be possible with a short-term appointment. I whole-heartedly agree with the principle behind the report's recommendation of a minimum tenure for community officers.
As Bill Aitken, the cabinet secretary and others have said, police forces must make the cap fit in deploying community officers. Stuart McMillan and Michael Matheson spoke about abstraction. Michael Matheson—who spoke just before me and spoke very well—said that community police officers were often the first to be abstracted. That might depend on senior officers' views of community officers. In my constituency, senior officers have shown real commitment to reducing abstraction as much as possible.
It seems that community policing also suffers from its own flexibility: because of its local basis, it lacks the joined-up thinking that is required for its effectiveness at a national level. If effectiveness is to be improved, it is vital that knowledge is shared between Government, police governing bodies and community officers. If that is to be achieved, communication must improve. The balance is delicate. Taking too top down an approach risks damaging the valuable local flexibility that community policing provides, although that does not take away from the need for further national co-ordination.
On that point, I come to what I believe are the report's two most important aspects—the twin themes of greater Government engagement and national co-ordination.
It is vital to establish what exactly we are trying to achieve at a national level. I fully endorse the committee's recommendation that the Government take an active role in ensuring that forces meet their community policing obligations. However, for that to happen, an accountability structure must be put in place. One way of achieving that would be for each police board to publish an annual community policing plan in co-ordination with community officers, antisocial behaviour teams, community wardens and council staff, setting out how it will deploy existing and additional officers. That local knowledge could then be used to inform a national training programme in line with the Justice Committee's recommendations. In a thought-provoking speech, Andrew Welsh referred to the police and other organisations working together. I believe that that is essential.
I have been impressed by two examples in my constituency of working with the police. One is the launch by Lothian and Borders Police A division of the Edinburgh community safety partnership take control strategy, which is a citywide joint venture between Lothian and Borders Police, the City of Edinburgh Council and voluntary organisations to tackle hate crime. There is also value in using community-based thinking to run well-informed local operations. The planned week of action that Lothian and Borders Police A division has organised in partnership with the City of Edinburgh Council, the south central neighbourhood partnership and local community councils, with the aim of tackling not only crime but its underlying causes, promises to be quite successful.
Nonetheless, if police boards are to be accountable to Government, Government must provide the resources that are necessary to make improvements. The committee has recommended that 1,000 new police officers be provided, in line with the Government's 2007 election pledge. However, since that promise was made, exactly how many more officers the Government is providing has become a little unclear. I am glad, therefore, that the minister has today made it much clearer that he and the Government are committed to those 1,000 extra police officers.
At the 2007 election, the Scottish Liberal Democrats also made a commitment that, if elected, we would provide 1,000 more police officers. We continue to stand by that commitment. We would have provided at least two additional community police officers in every ward in every council area in the country. With 353 wards, that would have meant 706 new local community police officers in total, which is well within the target of an increase of 1,000.
In its report, the Justice Committee has effectively laid down a blueprint identifying what can be achieved through community policing. The Government must now provide the officers and the resources so that the potential to which many members have referred can be achieved. That is what our communities want from us politicians.
As might have been anticipated, this has been a constructive debate on a substantial and measured committee report, the conclusions of which—as my colleague, John Lamont, has confirmed—we are happy to endorse. I pay tribute to the splendid leadership of the convener and his colleagues. It was with studied relish that Mr Aitken acknowledged the cabinet secretary's endorsement of the report's recommendations.
For me, this afternoon brings the added pleasure of straying from my health brief. I last participated in a justice debate some time earlier in the session and it is appropriate, in a debate on community policing, to acknowledge my astonishment at the absence of a central plank from the Government's contribution today. Back in that earlier debate, a new word entered the lexicon of parliamentary life. It was a word around which the whole measure of Government policy was to be based. It was a word over which both the cabinet secretary and Mr Ewing salivated, yet it is gone, disappeared from public life. I refer, of course, to "equivalents"—that mighty division of illusory police officers who were to substitute for the real thing.
I recall being chastised by Mr Ewing in that earlier debate for allegedly deploying dodgy car-selling techniques from my previous occupation to justify the need to fund an additional 1,000 police officers. Yet, under the weight of the argument and the spirited, decisive force of Conservative pressure, Mr Ewing and the Government performed a spectacular U-turn. Equivalents were abandoned and Scotland was promised the 1,000 officers it needed, which should now be—and are being—realised.
The moral of the story is that Mr Ewing has harboured ambitions to be a car salesman himself. For, in the end, he promised Scotland what he then called dodgy car sales financials. Will he and the cabinet secretary deliver? This cannot and must not become another pledge unfulfilled. At the heart of effective community policing are police officers in the community. I assure Mr Ewing that, were the Government to slacken and such a career move to prove necessary for him at some future date, with my experience of the motor industry to hand I could put in a good word for him and attest without reservation that here is a man who possesses such qualities that no used car—however soiled or dodgy—would ever be left unsold by him.
The Government must fulfil its commitment. It is no good waffling on about the challenge that such a commitment presents. Governments are elected and ministers are appointed to overcome successfully the challenges with which they are presented. If they cannot do that, they go—that is the remedy.
I congratulate the cabinet secretary on what has to be the most charming and consensual contribution that I have heard him make to date. So out of character was his manner that I began to wonder whether his tongue was firmly in his cheek. Indeed, when I heard him use the word "twee" I almost believed that I was hearing the fulfilment of a lifetime's ambition, as tweeness is most certainly not a sentiment with which I would generally associate the cabinet secretary. I do not want to be uncharitable, however, so I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments at face value and look forward to the same charm and energy being deployed as he seeks to drive forward the recommendations.
Robert Brown gave us a history lesson that covered ground familiar to those of us who watched Channel 4's recent drama series on Henry Fielding's early attempts to establish a London police force. I was slightly struck by Mr Brown's bizarre notion that police officers were somehow magnificently transferred into cars under the previous Conservative Government. I think that he was confused and was actually paying tribute to the rapid expansion of new technology under that previous Conservative Government. In any event, "Z Cars" was a creation of the 1960s, not the 1990s.
More soberly, Andrew Welsh made a notable and passionate speech that detailed much of the public concern that provides the context for this community policing report.
Against the context of a properly resourced police force, Scottish Conservatives accept the additional contribution of an incremental network of community wardens. They have a role, and John Lamont reminded us of the contribution that he has seen them make in the Borders. We agree with the Government that the resource can be further enhanced by ensuring the productive use of officers' time by absolving them of needless paperwork requirements. That is not to be too prescriptive. The conclusion of the committee that there would be limited benefit in providing a strict definition of community policing is one with which we concur, and we accept the belief that flexibility is key. Bill Aitken and Stuart McMillan both talked about that.
The report's conclusions include a detailing of community policing principles that is a roster of common sense, if I may say so. The conclusions on scrutiny, terminology, tenure and the need to make community policing professionally rewarding to officers, which was highlighted by Michael Matheson, all enjoy our support.
We note the strategy of Strathclyde Police regarding abstractions and wish it well—I note, however, the cautionary, practical point that Paul Martin made. We applaud the commitment of Strathclyde Police to providing a training course that will be tailored to community policing, the importance of which was touched on by James Kelly.
We have recognised the crucial role that successful community engagement will play, and the desirability of ensuring the sharing of best practice as well as evaluating outcomes, and we urge the Government to ensure that others, in addition to the police forces, consider that.
Now that all is said and done—the committee report endorsed, welcomed and so on—I return to the glue that will hold it together: a properly resourced police force within which are the 1,000 additional police officers that were promised and conceded at our instigation. There can be no substitute; there must be no return of equivalence. A successful community police force will stand or fall on that commitment being fulfilled and I invite the minister to reaffirm, without qualification, that it will be.
Once again, Parliament is indebted to the Justice Committee for a thorough and considered report. Community policing is not just about that long-held ideal of a local bobby who knows their patch; all of us in this chamber know that the communities that we represent want visible policing that is responsive to their needs and is aware of the particular challenges of crime and antisocial behaviour that they face. That is why, across this chamber, there is a common desire for extra police. We will debate the progress of the Scottish Government towards that later, but that goal is there because we know that our communities want there to be effective strategies for visible community-based policing. Members across the chamber have made that point well in what has been a good debate.
Communities want strong and well resourced community policing because it works. In my area of Grampian, the dedication by the police of resources to specific geographical areas that have been experiencing particular problems has resulted in impressive reductions in crime and antisocial behaviour. The committee found different levels of activity on community policing in different forces, and it is right that the committee has recommended that there be a greater emphasis on the development of community policing strategies in all forces. It is clear from the evidence that the committee heard that, although Strathclyde Police and Central Scotland Police have developed detailed plans for community policing, other forces are still in the process of doing so. Everyone, no matter where they are in Scotland, should be able to expect effective community policing to be given the same strong priority in their area that it is given in other areas.
The Scottish Government has responded to that with the Scottish policing engagement principles, and it rightly points out that much of the delivery will involve local operational decisions being taken by forces. They will have to strike a balance between the capacity for response and specialised policing, for which there will always be a need, and the requirement for greater community policing. As Michael Matheson pointed out, the people that we meet are focused on the desire for more local police.
It is reasonable to say that, although there should not be central direction of each force's community policing strategy, ministers who are working with police boards and authorities have a role in ensuring that all forces are putting in place their broad definition of community policing; ensuring that all forces are doing their best to minimise abstraction—community police officers should not always be the first to be abstracted to other duties; and, at the very least, sending out a clear signal that a two-year minimum tenure—to which Paul Martin referred—is desirable.
It is important that best practice is shared and that, as initiatives such as those in Strathclyde are rolled out, those experiences are evaluated and taken up as successful examples for other forces to use. Training—as James Kelly mentioned—is crucial if community policing is to be given the priority for which we have all expressed a desire today. That should include training of new recruits and of more senior officers who will be responsible for ensuring that there is a focus within their force on community policing. There have been capacity issues within the police college, and ministers have a role in ensuring that the right resources are available to allow new recruits and existing officers to receive proper training in community policing.
The Scottish Government has promised research into the impact of community policing, and the timescale for that is important, as it is for all the responses to the committee's report. I would like ministers to outline when they expect those actions to be achieved.
The committee's definition of community policing refers to resources and, although the Scottish Government's definition does not, we must realise that resourcing is key. The cabinet secretary, in his letter to the committee, outlines the Scottish Government's pledge to recruit 1,000 extra officers. Like Cathie Craigie, I am afraid that that I cannot share the unusual optimism of the Tory members, and the straying Jackson Carlaw, on that issue. The letter does not give us confidence that the pledge is on track and that the police strength figures—the crucial indicator—will rise by 1,000. That figure—not the figure for recruitment—rose by 1,500 while we were in office, providing record police numbers. I am happy to inform John Lamont that there were also sharp decreases in crime rates during that time.
The ministers must reassure us that overall police numbers will now increase by 1,000. In reality, however, a postcode lottery is developing in relation to the police recruitment pledge. In Strathclyde, the local authority has recruited 200 extra officers for community policing, but it has had to fund that itself, rather than use funds from central Government.
In my area, Grampian Police—having had record recruitment levels during the previous session of Parliament—has had to scale back its recruitment target by some 60 officers. Half of that reduction is due to the pensions shortfall. It is crucial that the police numbers promise is kept for all Scotland. That promise is central to the Government's pledge on community policing, and it cannot be allowed to go the way of local income tax, student debt and class sizes, to name but a few other pledges.
We want progress on community policing, and the report by the Justice Committee shows how that can be achieved. If the Scottish Government does back the report and deliver on police recruitment, our communities will feel and be better protected from crime.
The Justice Committee is to be congratulated on the solid piece of work that it has produced. We have responded to it in a positive way, and this afternoon we have had—almost exclusively—an extremely positive and useful debate. It occurred to me that, until Jackson Carlaw got to his feet, we were about as close to a love-in as we are ever likely to get in a Scottish Parliament debate on justice issues. I do not think I can take up Mr Carlaw's suggestion of a future as a car salesman, not least because if I were ever asked what my previous job was, it might undermine any potential transactions.
We need to acknowledge that everyone has the right to feel safe in their community. Promoting community safety and tackling antisocial behaviour are and always will be top priorities for the Government. When the cabinet secretary opened the debate, he defined the approach that we are taking to community policing and outlined the good and solid progress that we are making towards fulfilling our manifesto pledge of 1,000 additional police. He outlined the support of £32.8 million that we have provided to the police to fund the additional costs in the pension commutation rates. He also set a tableau that, although it did not use the word equivalents—not a word that rolls readily off my tongue, I say to Mr Carlaw—made a solid statement of the success that we see thanks to the good efforts of all those who are involved in our police service and in law enforcement.
We have heard a great deal about the role of the police in making communities safer. I will touch on the work of some others who help to make our communities safer and who, although they are not police officers themselves, play a role in community policing. For example, I recently met representatives of the Perth street pastors. They are volunteers from churches who offer help to late-night city-centre revellers and are on hand to provide advice, solace, counselling and blankets; they provide flip-flops to ladies who may have lost their normal foot apparel and arrange taxis for those who are too inebriated to find their way home.
That work is humorous in one sense, but it is serious because it helps the police. The street pastors work in tandem with the police and, before they go out of an evening, communicate with them to say where they are going. They also report to the police any incidents that occur or are likely to occur.
People should also consider applying to serve as special constables. I welcome the proposal that Mike Russell made recently when he was Minister for Environment that gamekeepers and other estate workers should be encouraged to join the special constabulary. As I know from my constituency, they often have unique and unparalleled local knowledge of wildlife and, along with guides and rangers from our national parks, are ideal candidates to be special constables.
Hear, hear.
Those are exciting new developments that, I can see, are welcome in parts of the chamber. They are only two examples. I also refer to the work that is done by the likes of community wardens—whom John Lamont mentioned when he described his work, on the back shift I presume, in Kelso—neighbourhood watch, the safer streets campaign, Crimestoppers, community safety partnerships, cashback for communities, YouthLink Scotland and firefighters, who are now involved in work to divert youngsters from the temptations of a life of addiction or crime. They and many other volunteers are all involved in making our communities safer and all assist community policing.
In addition, mainstream police work is helping directly to make our communities safer places. That is self-evident. As was highlighted in The Herald this Monday, the persistent offender programme identifies persistent offenders and encourages them to enter programmes to tackle addiction problems while warning them that, if they do not, their already lengthy community sentences might involve periods of imprisonment. Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan and the violence reduction unit get in among gangs and peel off the ringleaders. That is excellent and, perhaps, pioneering work; it all helps to make our communities safer places.
I will mention some of the comments that were made in the debate. There was consensus that it is not necessarily possible, sensible or useful to define community policing. Many concerns were expressed about abstraction—Bill Aitken, Paul Martin and Michael Matheson mentioned that. I noticed, in paragraph 155 of the report, that Chief Constable Stephen House specifically addressed that and talked about a red-circling approach. As many members said, community police officers may be the first officers to be withdrawn to go on patrol and for emergency response work, because we must ensure that we have the response capability to tackle emergencies. Under that red-circling approach, they should at least patrol in the areas in which they are employed as community police officers. There is much to be said for that approach. I know that all members explicitly said that those are operational policing matters. None of us would want to and none of us thinks that it is correct to micromanage chief constables in deploying officers.
I know from my meetings with Northern Constabulary that it is pleased with the impact of the summary justice reforms on police time. John Lamont mentioned that issue. Northern Constabulary is already seeing the benefits of police officers spending less time hanging around and waiting in courts, probably not to be called as witnesses by people who are what Robert Brown and I were in our previous lives. Clients can decide, perhaps advisedly, to plead guilty at the last moment and everybody in the waiting room will disperse, having wasted a day, if not longer than that. The summary justice reforms are coming through and are tackling the police time problem that members have identified.
Robert Brown referred to visiting Tulliallan. I was proud to make a speech at the passing-out parade there. I admit that that is one of the few speeches that I get to make from a platform—that added a certain piquancy to the occasion. Like Robert Brown, I was proud to see the calibre of the recruits who had undergone the excellent training that is given there, and was impressed to learn on that day that should Tulliallan fulfil its schedule, 1,000 extra recruits will be put through training than were put through in the previous year. That in itself is surely a marvellous achievement. I did not get any complaints from any of the trainers there about a lack of capacity; rather, the message that I got was, "We are up for this. We think that the policing policy is going in the right direction. We're doing a good job and we'll carry on as before."
The minister should wind up.
I commend the principles of being accessible, present and visible, communicating, consulting and supporting community activities in community policing engagement. Those involved in such policing should be able to play the role that we all wish to see them play in our communities, throughout Scotland.
My task is to close on behalf of the Justice Committee at the conclusion of a wide-ranging, detailed and reasoned debate on the committee's report on its inquiry into community policing. As always, I shall strive to do so in a non-partisan fashion.
Community policing is an important and serious subject that is of considerable significance to all the communities throughout Scotland that members seek to serve. Members will recall that, in 2007, the Justice Committee conducted an inquiry into the effective use of police resources. In its report on that inquiry, the committee expressed its concern about
"the lack of a clear, commonly agreed definition of community policing among Scottish police forces and the Scottish Government."
All members of the committee thought then that there was a need for a clear definition of community policing that would enable measurement and monitoring of its delivery and would allow a baseline figure of officers assigned to community policing roles to be established. That was the genesis of this report, which can be viewed as the second stage of our inquiry into policing and the effective use of police resources.
The cabinet secretary, Cathie Craigie, Bill Aitken, James Kelly, Richard Baker and Jackson Carlaw—in fact, just about all members who spoke—touched on an issue that has excited a degree of controversy since the beginning of this parliamentary diet. I am trying to put things in a non-partisan way. I refer, of course, to the recruitment of additional police officers at a level that would allow forces to meet effectively all their current commitments, including enhanced community policing. A glance back at the Official Report of the debate that was held on 16 April 2008 demonstrates that that aspect of the debate on policing is not new, and it continues to excite passions.
However, it would be churlish and unreasonable not to acknowledge that the Scottish National Party Government has made a degree of progress on the matter. Indeed, in his letter of 23 February to the convener of the Justice Committee, Bill Aitken, Mr MacAskill went into some detail on developments on police numbers. He claimed that
"Scottish police numbers are now at record levels"
and that the Government is doing everything that it can
"to deliver 1,000 more officers by March 2011."
I suggest that all members earnestly hope, for the sake of the safety of communities throughout Scotland, that the cabinet secretary's optimism is not misplaced.
For my part, I will be cautious today and confine myself to the committee's wise words at paragraph 335 of the report, which states:
"the Committee considers that … If the Scottish Government is able to deliver the promised additional officers and forces are able to dedicate these to community policing then … the delivery of community policing may be further improved."
I am certain that no member could disagree with that. The proper resourcing of policing is, after all, central to the delivery of an improved range of police responses that more closely reflect the needs and wishes of people in our communities.
So far, I have concentrated on resources, which are an issue that, understandably, has exercised members. In the time remaining of my speech, I will mention some other recommendations in the inquiry report, which focus on the more philosophical matters that we considered. I turn to the issue of what the report refers to as
"a strict definition of community policing."
Several members, including John Lamont, Stuart McMillan, Fergus Ewing and Bill Aitken, have said that a strict definition would be inappropriate. The evidence that the committee received convinced members that it would be of limited benefit to attempt to provide such a definition. It was clear to us that a one-size-fits-all model is wholly inappropriate. Police forces must have the flexibility to deliver community policing in a manner that recognises the particular nature of their force area. What works in rural Banff will have little relevance to urban Blairdardie. Such flexibility also allows appropriate innovation, which is where community policing has added value.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government agrees with that approach—that is sensible and wholly welcome. Nevertheless, the committee was able, from evidence received and investigations made, to arrive at a unanimously agreed description of the key components of successful community policing—in other words, the principles of community policing. Those are laid out at paragraph 324. Members have mentioned several of those elements. I have heard no one disagree with the importance of having visible and accessible officers in the community who are readily identifiable. That wholly correct approach has been extolled by Robert Brown, Paul Martin, Bill Aitken, Andrew Welsh and James Kelly.
I know from my constituency that one of the main criticisms of community policing over the years has been the habit that some senior officers have of disregarding the advantages of continuity. The fact is that, when they have a local problem that requires police assistance or intervention, people in our communities are more comfortable dealing with someone whom they know by sight and name and whom they have grown to trust. Rapid turnover of police personnel in a community makes successful community policing much harder. That is why, although I welcome Mr MacAskill's agreement with the key elements of community policing as outlined in our report, I confess that I am a bit disappointed by the Government's response to the recommendation that community police officers should be in post for at least two years, which is merely to state:
"This is an operational matter for the police forces to consider."
That response is somewhat anodyne and uncharacteristically bland, an epithet that is not usually employed to describe either the cabinet secretary or Mr Ewing.
I ask the Government to be a degree or two bolder on the issue of tenure. Of course the committee is not asking the Government to interfere directly in operational matters or, as the cabinet secretary rather quaintly put it, to "micromanage" the police. However, we are demanding that the Government give a clear lead in this regard. The ministerial team would be well advised to heed the wise words of Sir Ronnie Flanagan, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, who said when he appeared before the committee:
"we should value neighbourhood policing."
He added that the superintendent or chief superintendent, or the sergeants or constables
"should not be abstracted for at least two years."—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 24 June 2008; c 944.]
There are other important recommendations in the report that I do not have time to go into but which other members have rightly highlighted. Those include the need for specific training to be delivered nationally, which was mentioned, quite rightly, by the cabinet secretary and by my colleague James Kelly, and the need to measure success at a local level, both qualitatively and quantitatively, which the committee convener and the cabinet secretary mentioned—I welcome the Government's development of the Scottish policing performance framework in that regard. The absolute necessity for civic engagement, partnership working and community consultation was mentioned by many members, including my colleague Cathie Craigie, who made specific reference to the success of operation fleet in Cumbernauld.
The report is worth while and I am pleased that the Government has accepted the majority of its recommendations. Michael Matheson was right to say that successful community policing is not a soft option; it is in fact what our communities demand and what people want. It is a mixture of visible policing, intelligent policing and reactive policing. If it is properly developed and resourced, it will create safer communities throughout Scotland. That is a worthy objective.