Stop and Search
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the admission by the chief constable that some stop and searches are “made up”. (S4T-00646)
The proportionate use of stop and search is an important element of local policing and keeping our streets safe, and I fully support the continuing ability of the police to undertake stop and searches in order to protect the public and prevent criminality.
Stop and search has contributed to the significant fall in crime in Scotland, including the 60 per cent drop since 2006-07 in crimes of handling an offensive weapon. The police carry out this task with professionalism and integrity. Police Scotland figures show that less than 0.01 per cent of all stop and searches have resulted in a complaint since last April. Of course, it is regrettable if there are occasions when police officers are not carrying out stop and searches to the usual high standards of the police. That is an operational matter for the police, but I will support the chief constable in the actions that he is taking.
As part of its on-going work, the Scottish Police Authority is undertaking a detailed review of stop and search, and Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary in Scotland has indicated that he will also be examining stop and search as part of his 2014-15 scrutiny programme.
The chief constable’s admission is corroborated by Calum Steele, from the Scottish Police Federation, who said:
“Because we have this bizarre approach in terms of stopping and searching, we have police officers that are making numbers up.”
Will the cabinet secretary join me in demanding an Audit Scotland review of this subject area in the interests of public confidence, accountability and transparency?
No, I will not. We are seeing outstanding results and I think that the chief constable’s words have been taken out of context. However, there will clearly be an examination to ensure that appropriate standards are being adhered to. The appropriate bodies for that are the Scottish Police Authority and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland. We should trust in them and recognise the benefits that stop and search brings in keeping our communities safe.
A board member of the Scottish Police Authority recently responded on BBC Scotland to my concerns regarding Police Scotland’s policy by saying that I was merely a politician doing politics. Does that not have any impact on the cabinet secretary’s response?
Not really. I do not know which member Mr Pearson is referring to, and I cannot possibly comment on that. However, the SPA is clearly the authority to which the chief constable is ultimately responsible. The SPA is charged by an act passed by the Scottish Parliament to hold the chief constable to account. However, I have the highest regard for the chief constable and, indeed, for the police service. As I indicated in my first answer, 0.01 per cent of stop and searches have resulted in a complaint. Equally, it is clear that Scotland is a safer place because drugs, alcohol—including alcohol held by youngsters—and firearms have been removed from the streets, not just for the community’s safety but for the safety of those who had them.
Does the cabinet secretary agree with me and with members of the public in general that stop and search is an essential part of detecting crime? However, what is the cabinet secretary’s response to concerns that have been raised about stop and search infringing people’s human rights?
I think that these things are always a matter of balance. The member is right to raise the concerns, but I believe that the searches are proportionate. We also see from the statistics that they are remarkably successful, because some 37 per cent of searches that were targeted at detecting firearms yielded a positive response and almost 30 per cent of alcohol-related searches were positive. I think that that shows that the searches have been based on intelligence and the clear skills and criteria that the police have developed; that they are being used appropriately; and that Scotland is a safer place because of our police officers’ actions.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission has said that stop and search is “largely unregulated and unaccountable”. The latest reports suggest that the system is open to all sorts of abuse, from harassment to falsifying the figures. Hundreds and thousands of searches are being carried out each year, and the majority of them are done without any statutory underpinning. The subjects of searches are told little or nothing about their rights. The justice secretary has regularly defended stop and search by citing offensive weapons—he has done so again today—but we know little about what constitutes the positive searches that he uses to justify stop and search. There is a real risk that the detection rates are being manipulated. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is vital that such shortcomings are adequately addressed to ensure that the use of the stop and search tactic is transparent, fair and evidence led?
I do not recognise the world that Ms McInnes paints. It seems to me that the clear outcome of a positive search is where a firearm is discovered. The figure for that is 37 per cent, and the figure for alcohol being taken off youngsters is 37 per cent. The searches have made significant progress and have been successful in making Scotland a safer place in relation to issues that have blighted so much of our country, such as the carrying of offensive weapons. The organisations that are charged with ensuring that the chief constable and those who act under him are held to account are the Scottish Police Authority and HMICS, which are there to provide assistance and guidance. It seems to me that the police have the correct balance, because Scotland is a safer place. Equally, the police appropriately record incidents so that they can be checked as successful or unsuccessful.
However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and in that regard two things are quite clear: first, the proportion of stop and searches that have resulted in a complaint is 0.01 per cent, which is a small number indeed; and, secondly, Scotland is a safer place, because results show that stop and search is bearing fruit and that weapons, drugs and alcohol are being taken off individuals. Scotland is a safer place for that.
Does the cabinet secretary not agree that there has to be a balance between driving to achieve targets and good community policing, as was pioneered over many years in Fife? The danger is that the more the police chase the targets, the fewer police are on the beat, which is what brought crime down in Fife and elsewhere.
I believe that targets have to be appropriate, but let me be clear: the only target that the chief constable has for stop and searches is the percentage that are to be positive and successful. He has set a high standard of 25 per cent. At present, it is only 20 per cent. [Kenny MacAskill has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]
I think that an appropriate balance is being struck. It is not the number of stop and searches per se that matters but the level of success. The target that the chief constable has set shows that he is keen and eager to ensure that stop and searches are carried out only on the basis of intelligence or of some instinct, and that they are used proportionately.
Independence (Currency Union)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the report by Professor Leslie Young on a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom. (S4T-00648)
Professor Young’s analysis states that many of the UK Government’s arguments against a currency union are “unsubstantiated” and subject to “errors of logic”.
The fiscal commission working group also looked at the material from the Treasury. Earlier this month, it set out its view that the UK Government’s public stance is to underplay the benefits of a monetary union while overplaying the risks.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that, regardless of the currency options that the Scottish Government had put forward for an independent Scotland, the no campaign would have rubbished them, and that, as the polls draw closer, it is high time that the no campaign tells us what currency it would prefer when Scotland votes for independence? So far, the silence has been deafening.
The point that I would make to Mr Gibson and to Parliament is that the Scottish Government has gone through a clear, detailed and evidence-driven process. We invited the fiscal commission working group to consider the most appropriate way to deal with the issue of a currency for an independent Scotland and it has reported in detail and with authority.
When one considers the contents of the fiscal commission’s report and looks at the tests that were established by the governor of the Bank of England recently, when he set out the arguments on a monetary union to an audience in Edinburgh, one is struck by the degree to which the issues that the fiscal commission had considered were the key issues that he addressed in what I thought was a substantive and authoritative contribution. Professor Young’s reflection on the debate has rather sharpened the focus on the fact that the fiscal commission’s analysis was robust and came to the correct conclusions.
Mr Gibson, if you would like to ask another supplementary, can you keep it to issues for which the cabinet secretary is responsible? He is responsible for neither the yes campaign nor the no campaign.
Indeed. Thank you, Presiding Officer.
It has been claimed that a currency union would restrict the economic policy of Scotland. That would be news to the Netherlands and Finland, which manage their economies within a currency union. What additional economic powers would be available to Scotland with independence and a currency union?
In its response to the fiscal commission’s report, the Government stated that an essential characteristic of a currency union would be the acceptance by an independent Scotland of some agreed elements of constraint around the fiscal framework that we would have in place. I have set out that the detail of those would relate to the level of debt that we could incur and the level of borrowing to which we could commit ourselves. Once that framework for fiscal stability had been agreed, an independent Scotland would attract responsibility for a range of economic activities, which would include the setting of corporation and income tax rates and the making of provisions on oil and gas taxation, capital gains tax and valued added tax. We would have flexibility in relation to tax credits and allowances, and opportunities would exist for us to take a different approach on air passenger duty, excise duty and national insurance contributions. We would have responsibility for competition policy, consumer protection, industry regulation, energy markets, company law, welfare issues and a variety of other matters.
Independence offers the people of Scotland the opportunity to exercise a significant amount of choice. In the economic levers paper that was published a week or so before the publication of the white paper in November, the Government set out in some detail how those levers could be used effectively in the interests of stimulating the Scottish economy and improving the economic opportunities of the people of Scotland.
This report says categorically that the First Minister has a duty to tell us his currency plan B. It tells us twice that an independent Scotland could not have bailed out the Scottish banks. It also advises us all to open accounts with London-based banks, so that we can get our money out of Scottish banks quickly after a yes vote. If the cabinet secretary seriously believes that the report constitutes support for his case, has he not lost the argument completely?
For Mr Gray’s benefit, I will run through the points that emerge from Professor Young’s document. It says:
“The Treasury letter therefore invites scrutiny, but this it cannot withstand ... It does not even address the question that it purports to answer ... Its references to the Eurozone are misleading as guides to the prospects of a currency union with an independent Scotland ... Its claim that Scotland would be an unreliable partner in a currency union is unsubstantiated ... Its claim that Scotland’s financial system is ‘far too big’, and would therefore expose UK taxpayers to heavy burdens, is unsubstantiated ... Its claim that the ‘asymmetry’ between the economies of”
the rest of the UK
“and Scotland makes the exposure of UK taxpayers to ‘Scotland’s financial system and sovereign’ especially inequitable is not merely unsubstantiated: it is the reverse of the truth.”
I do not know what on earth Mr Gray has been reading, but this is not the first time that he has come to the chamber to try to insinuate an argument that is not based on the substance of the points that are put forward—in this case, by Professor Young.
One thing that I have been reading is on page 2 of the report, which says:
“First Minister Alex Salmond has been thrown on the defensive by the question: ‘What is your Plan B for Scotland’s currency’ ... He has a duty to Scotland’s citizens to answer that question in detail.”
When will that duty be discharged?
Mr Gray has heard me deal with that point before. We invited the fiscal commission to explore on an evidence-led basis the appropriate approach to take in designing a currency arrangement for an independent Scotland. We received that report, which looked at five options. The group concluded that the best option was to establish a currency union with the rest of the UK. That was the recommended option, which the Government accepted.
We put that option forward and Treasury ministers said what they have said. They have been propped up by their allies in the Labour Party’s Treasury team—they are all clubbing together as happy-clappy, austerity-wielding politicians who support the same line of argument. Those politicians have not addressed the issue that Professor Young raised, which is that Her Majesty’s Treasury has not evidenced the substance of the arguments against our proposition.
Before Mr Gray gets all excited about the question, he should accept that we have a clear and definitive proposition. The people who should set out a responsible and clear approach to the handling of the issue are Mr Gray’s colleague Ed Balls and his two allies in the Tory Treasury.