Police Numbers
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-677, in the name of Bill Aitken, on police numbers.
The SNP's election manifesto stated:
"There is no doubt we could be doing more to fight crime and make Scotland's communities safer … It is essential that we have sufficient police on local streets."
Those are not my words—that is a straightforward extract from the SNP's manifesto, which then promised 1,000 more police officers.
In a question session during the election campaign, the SNP stated that it had allocated money to allow for 1,000 more community officers. Again, those are not my words. At that stage, the SNP might have been given credit for being clear. However, the acme of clarity was the First Minister who, at the Scottish Police Federation conference in Peebles on 27 April, stated that policing was top of the public's concerns and that it should be top of the budget priorities. Specifically, he stated:
"the SNP have more money unallocated than any other political party and we will allocate these funds to the priorities of health, education and policing if more funds are required in addition to the thousand extra officers".
He also claimed that £78 million had been set aside in the nationalists' spending commitments to help meet the target of providing 1,000 additional officers. In a speech to the Parliament on 23 May he said:
"The Conservatives focused on law and order, and flagged up the urgent need for police numbers to rise—they will rise. The only difference between the Government and the Conservative party on that policy was how far and how fast it could be managed."—[Official Report, 23 May 2007; c 59.]
I say to Mr Salmond and Kenny MacAskill that we would take that policy much further and that we would certainly have managed it a lot faster. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will no doubt say that we will see what progress will be made if we await the SNP's budget. That may be an arguable case, but I seriously question whether the commitment that was made with stark clarity in the SNP's election manifesto will be fulfilled. The goalposts appear to be being moved.
On Scottish Television's "Politics Now" programme on 27 September, I challenged Kenny MacAskill over the figures and when the targets were likely to be fulfilled. To describe his response as equivocation would be generous. After much humming and hawing, the normally eloquent and loquacious Kenny MacAskill was struck into comparative silence. He then appeared to give the game away. One thousand new police officers were promised, but I took from his answers that night that the SNP is considering the position of many officers who are due to retire, retaining them and double counting that number against the 1,000 additional officers. That is more or less what is suggested in his amendment.
If the Conservatives' manifesto commitment was for 17,734 officers, how many officers did it propose to recruit?
We proposed to recruit 1,500 officers. Our proposal was budgeted and made clear throughout the election campaign.
I must make progress.
If Mr MacAskill is saying that there is merit in considering what the police do nowadays and making changes—perhaps systems must change—he might be right. However, let us be clear. One thousand additional officers, not their full-time equivalents, were promised—no ifs, buts or maybes. Indeed, one wonders what Mr MacAskill considers to be a full-time equivalent. Is it a community warden or a cardboard cut-out that is painted in the colours of a police uniform? The tragedy is that, as a result of the SNP's election manifesto and speeches that were made by the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the people of Scotland were led to believe that an additional 1,000 officers would be provided. There was no question of equivalents—that was the actuality of the promise that was made. What is now being advanced is a fudge and a betrayal of a promise that was accepted in good faith by the public, the police and many of us in this Parliament. It is little short of an unforgivable attempt to con the people of Scotland.
The evidence in support of the need for additional policing is incontrovertible. The Scottish crime and victimisation survey, based on research carried out in June to December of last year, provided stark evidence of the way in which confidence in the policing system is at an all-time low. Perhaps the most worrying feature is the fact that there is now almost public indifference. Most crimes and offences of a non-serious nature are not even reported. What sort of message does that send out?
The bottom line is that the police simply have too much to do. There are, of course, arguments that they are doing things that they need not do and that some of their duties can be hived off. I have no doubt that such arguments will arise during the Justice Committee's investigation into policing. What can be said, however, is that there is considerable public dissatisfaction with the length of time that it takes the police to respond to calls, and considerable frustration among police officers that they are not providing a service to the public.
There is unanimous support for an increase in police numbers. As I said, the Conservative party stated in a carefully budgeted manifesto that we would provide an additional 1,500 officers—a number that we consider would impact measurably and effectively on crime levels. Other parties were not so ambitious, but we are not debating the views of Opposition parties today. For once, the Labour and Liberal parties have no case to answer. The people who have to come up with the answers are the ministers sitting before me today. The commitment was given clearly, both in their manifesto and in speeches, that 1,000 additional officers would be provided. Where are they?
The Parliament needs answers, and the people of Scotland demand them. Thus, early in its existence, this is a pivotal moment for the SNP Government. It is time for it to put up, put its money where its mouth is and keep its clear manifesto promise. Failure to do so will be an appalling breach of trust.
I come back to my initial point. The money is there—those are not my words; they are the SNP's words. Scotland already spends far less per person on policing than is spent by the rest of the United Kingdom—21 per cent less, in fact. The SNP seems determined not just to renege on promises made, but to keep the police as the Cinderella of our public services. It must not be allowed to do so. I urge the Parliament to support the motion in my name in order to make it clear that any withdrawal from that promise would be totally and utterly unacceptable.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with serious concern that, almost six months after its election, the Scottish Government has made no progress towards the SNP's manifesto commitment of 1,000 more police officers; expresses concern also at an apparent dilution of that commitment, and calls on the Scottish Government to keep that election promise by increasing the number of police officers from 16,234 to 17,234 by the end of this parliamentary session.
We welcome the debate because this Government is committed to making Scotland safer and stronger and to delivering a more visible police service working in our communities to deter criminals and reassure good citizens. That is what our commitment was; it is what our communities need; it is what we said we would deliver; and it is what we will deliver. We will deliver an increase in capacity of 1,000 officers in our communities, and we will do so after the strategic spending review, just as we said we would.
We welcome the Justice Committee's inquiry into police resources. The committee has already been presented with a great deal of evidence and I have followed the inquiry with interest. Some of the experts called by the committee have provided much food for thought. For example, only on Tuesday, Dr Ken Scott, head of the school of social studies at the University of Paisley, stated:
"Simply looking at the gross increase in police officer numbers underestimates the complexity of the situation."—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 23 October 2007; c 156.]
I will come back to that point, but Dr Scott is to be applauded for hitting the nail on the head. Perhaps the Conservatives should have enlisted his help when drafting the motion for today's debate.
Did the SNP enlist Dr Scott's help when it was drafting its manifesto pledge?
We do not expect reasoning or logic from the Conservatives. Whatever criticisms Mr McLetchie had of the SNP manifesto—doubtless, he had many—let us consider what his colleague Jackson Carlaw said on 6 June about his own manifesto:
"the SNP committed to providing 1,000 more police officers, while we committed to an additional 1,500. It would be interesting to know how the SNP arrived at its requirement figure"—
I say to Mr McLetchie that perhaps it did so via Dr Scott. Jackson Carlaw went on to say:
"come to that, it would be interesting to know how we arrived at ours."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 421.]
Perhaps the Conservatives failed to consult Dr Scott on that occasion.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
Bill Aitken said that the Tory commitment was to recruit 1,500 officers. If you want a police resource figure of 17,734, which is the logic of your argument, you cannot do it by simply recruiting 1,500 officers. As Dr Scott would explain, because of the nature of retirement, he would have to recruit substantially more than that. It is for that reason that this Government has correctly analysed the problem, which involves addressing more than simple numbers. The Conservatives are so obsessed by numbers—
The question is not whether there is a role for extra police officers, community wardens and other people who are doing a good job in our communities. The bottom line is that you made a clear pledge in your manifesto, whether it was costed or whether the SNP spoke to Ken Scott, Dan Donnelly or anyone else. The SNP had something in its manifesto that it is not delivering—it is breaking a promise.
As I said, we are delivering as you will see—not just from this speech, but over time, as matters unfold.
We believe that effective and efficient policing depends on so much more than head counts. Our commitment is not simply focused on numbers, because, like Dr Scott, we agree that that approach, in itself, does not provide the complete solution.
We will recruit. We will make an announcement about that shortly in the light of the spending review, as we promised. However, members can rest assured that that announcement will be broadly and warmly welcomed—although perhaps not by the Conservatives.
As I said in the chamber on 6 June,
"Tackling the fear of crime and deterring criminals requires effective front-line policing."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 406.]
That is what the public wants and expects and that is what we will deliver. Over the past decade, the overall number of police officers in Scotland has increased, yet crime has not fallen, and violent crime is on the increase. In the crime survey that was published earlier this month, nine out of 10 members of the public expressed the view that crime remained a problem.
We all know how fixated the Opposition parties are on numbers. We are not in a numbers game; our commitment is to deliver. This is about a genuine improvement in how policing is delivered. We will deliver that improvement in three ways.
First, we will provide funds for substantial additional recruitment. I make it clear that additional recruitment will take place and that new bobbies will be on the beat. Secondly, I am only too aware that too many experienced and highly skilled officers leave the service at a time when they have much more to offer. Retaining their talents and skills, which cannot be taught in college but which can be learned on the streets, is vital, and we will retain them. Thirdly, we will enable existing officers to maximise their potential by cutting the red tape that has enmeshed them in recent years. We will allow our officers to protect, guard and patrol instead of being desk-bound, processing, logging and filing.
I say to Mr McLetchie that when we have 1,300 officers in Edinburgh's A division but still struggle on occasion to get 50 bobbies out on the beat, there is a significant problem that is not simply about numbers but about how we use and deploy officers.
That is how we will deliver on our commitment to the delivery of genuine, visible, front-line policing in our communities. Our bottom line is that every community in Scotland should have a clear understanding of the standards of policing that they have a right to expect and should know whether those standards are being met and how they can contribute to setting them.
I believe that all members share those same goals. I confirm that we will deliver a visible police presence and provide an additional 1,000 officers for our communities, and that we will do so through recruitment, retention and redeployment to maximise potential, not simply by increasing numbers but by working smarter rather than necessarily harder. We are well served by police officers, but we need to ensure that their time is used productively and that they patrol, guard and serve rather than process, log and file.
I move amendment S3M-677.1, to leave out from "with serious concern" to end and insert:
"that the Scottish Government will set out its plans for a more visible police presence in the context of the Strategic Spending Review 2007 and will deliver an additional 1,000 police officers in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment."
I remind members not to address other members in the second person.
As the speech by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has clearly shown, the SNP is under pressure—rightly so—on its promise to the electorate to create 1,000 more police officers in Scotland. I find it staggering that even after so many debates it is still defending its position on the matter. Successive attempts to twist and turn its words and to wriggle out of one of its key commitments have failed, and this attempt will fail again tonight. We know that Government officials are desperately trying to create ways of getting the Government out of its hole and I look forward to hearing the plan that they will cobble together.
Kenny MacAskill said that the SNP wants to increase the police force's capacity. No one can disagree with that aim, but is he deliberately missing the point that the SNP made a particular commitment on the matter?
Will Pauline McNeill remind us how many new bobbies Labour committed to recruit? Was the number, in fact, zero?
We delivered on our promises. From 1997 to 2007, we increased police capacity by 10 per cent. The cabinet secretary should acknowledge our record.
Let us be clear: Alex Salmond presented a manifesto that, on page 58, says that
"It is essential that we have sufficient police on local streets. That's why we will set out … in our … Budget for Scotland … 1000 more police"
officers—"more" being the important word in that quotation.
Not only has the SNP breached the 100-day time limit that it trumpeted for meeting this key commitment but—more serious—the First Minister has attempted to mislead Parliament by stating on 4 October that the SNP had promised "the equivalent of 1,000" police officers. The First Minister specifically referred to page 58 of the SNP manifesto and blatantly and cynically added extra words so that those who were watching him would wonder what all the fuss was about. Did the First Minister really think that the electorate that had been bombarded with expensive leaflets setting out his party's priorities would not notice that the SNP said that there would be "more" police officers, not "the equivalent of" those officers or increased capacity? An SNP promise is not worth the leaflet that it is written on. We do not know who wrote the SNP's manifesto commitment, but we should not forget that Alex Salmond signed off on it, so he has no excuse for not delivering on it. He should come to the chamber and apologise for that. We on this side of the chamber and members of other parties will not tolerate such manipulation of the parliamentary process or misleading of members.
We support the Conservative motion and agree with Annabel Goldie that the SNP's approach demonstrates a lack of respect for voters. This issue will haunt the SNP Administration, because if it does not come clean and at least admit that it got it wrong and that it made the commitment just to capture the popular vote, it will not be forgiven. It might just, however, be forgiven if it admits its mistake.
Labour believes that we face serious challenges in tackling crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities. As I have said already, we stand by our record. We support a continued increase in police numbers and believe that our work on modernising systems will free up officers to take on front-line duties and tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities. We also believe that there is a role for others in working alongside police officers—community wardens will be important in that respect.
We will not let the SNP take the credit for the work that we carried out to free up police officers and to modernise the system by, for example, preparing for hand-held computers to issue notices on the street. However, we will work with it if it is prepared to be honest, to come clean and to say that it got it wrong and that it cannot deliver on its promise. If you do that, we can certainly work with you.
I welcome this debate—and, unlike Kenny MacAskill, I actually mean that. The debate represents an opportunity to highlight the SNP's broken promise on police numbers—I know that many members share my disappointment and my feeling of having been misled. We are not alone: the hundreds of officers who attended the Scottish Police Federation's annual conference earlier this year, the SNP voters who trusted the SNP's manifesto and the communities throughout Scotland who live in the shadow of crime and who believed what they heard in news stories and leaflets must also feel that they have been hoodwinked by Alex Salmond and his Government.
However much the SNP hides behind the comprehensive spending review, whatever inventive word play or fantastical maths it continues to use, and however expertly it avoids the questions, the simple fact is that we were all promised 1,000 more police. It now seems that we are not going to get them. The SNP manifesto clearly and unequivocally stated:
"we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police and will encourage Chief Constables to focus these new resources on community policing."
The SNP is now trying to rewrite that pledge.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats also made a manifesto commitment to put 1,000 additional police on our streets. We stand by that: we would have provided at least two additional community police officers in every ward in every council area in the country. The SNP talks about increasing capacity, about police equivalents and about refocusing resources, but the truth is that to reduce crime and the fear of crime we need more new police officers visible in our communities.
From comments that have been made in recent weeks by Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill, it seems that we will simply get a reshuffling, rebranding or rebadging of existing forces. I suggest that it is not our police forces that need to be reshuffled. Mr MacAskill says that we are not in a numbers game. Oh, yes we are—whether he likes it or not. He has made it a numbers game, in the same way that Mr Aitken and his party and my party made it a numbers game in our manifestos.
Given that Margaret Smith has said that this is a numbers game and that she will apparently support Mr Aitken's motion, which states that there should be "17,234" police officers
"by the end of this Parliamentary session",
how many more police officers do the Lib Dems believe should be recruited and how much would that cost?
I say with the greatest respect that we have been hearing for the past few months about all the things that we did or did not do when in government. You are the Government. You made a manifesto commitment. You are breaking it. It is your job to deliver what you said you would deliver.
As the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and others have highlighted, more and more police officers are soon to retire. We will have to face that difficulty for a decade, so it is crucial that officer recruitment keeps up with the increasing number of departures from the force. We must also ensure that outgoing officers' valuable knowledge and expertise are not lost to forces and that existing officers are retained.
Mr MacAskill talked about redeployment, greater civilianisation of police forces and freeing up police officers from other duties. Each of those ideas is worthy in its own right and they are certainly not incompatible, but the cabinet secretary misses the main point, which is that the SNP promised 1,000 more police.
I do not wish to question the value of community wardens. In fact, only this week, the Justice Committee heard about their valuable work; we would welcome the Government's ongoing support for them.
Bill Aitken rightly raised the problem of underreporting and problems in service provision that result in many calls going unanswered and many people in our communities feeling let down.
The fact is that we need more police because they have specialised training and additional powers that others do not have, and because they are a recognisable symbol for the people of Scotland. They represent a visible law enforcement presence on our streets that deters potential offenders and reassures law-abiding citizens. In that respect, the Scottish Liberal Democrats can be proud of their legacy of strengthening police forces when in government. On our watch, numbers increased by 31 per cent to their highest ever levels. In 1999, there were 14,810 police officers in Scotland; now, there are 16,261.
We will support the Tory motion. After all, it is the Opposition's job to scrutinise and hold the Government to account and we have no intention of doing anything other than that on this crucial issue. It is time for Mr Salmond and the SNP to stop this once and for all and to deliver on their manifesto commitment to give people the 1,000 new officers that they were promised. To do otherwise would be a quite unacceptable breach of the people's trust.
As a member of the Justice Committee, I am glad that our committee is holding an inquiry into police numbers. That is enormously useful in the context of today's debate and I know that my committee colleagues will enjoy the process of learning a great deal more about what the police do and what we could do with them in the future.
I will register what I think are the crucial points for the next four years. At the moment, we have approximately 16,000 police officers—the detail does not matter at this stage. I gather that about 3,000 of those good folk will retire over the next three years, which means that we face a time of unprecedented turnover and change that we will have to manage anyway.
The cabinet secretary has said that he sees the numbers increasing through recruitment, improved retention and redeployment. I would like us to accept that we want police officers to become a greater part of the fabric of our communities, so I would be grateful for front-bench confirmation of that in the winding-up speech because it will be a crucial part of what needs to go on. It is already happening, but it will need to happen to a greater extent and, for that to be the case, police officers will have to spend more time in communities, which means that they will have to have longer assignments in communities. That requires some serious thinking about how police officers will be deployed.
We must be careful about the concept of visibility. The point has been made that police officers are at their most visible when they are walking around, but unless incidents to which they must respond happen in front of them—sometimes they will—they will find it difficult to respond to the call. If they are walking about, they need to be very near transport, by which I mean their own cars. There is a difficult balance to strike between police officers being visible on the hoof and their being near the transport that enables them to get to the next call.
I do not disagree with anything that Nigel Don has said. He makes a reasoned and reasonable case about what policing in Scotland should be like. However, does he agree that the thrust of this morning's debate, rather than being about what the police should be doing, is about whether, prior to the election, a commitment was made on delivery of 1,000 extra police officers? Does he agree that it is incumbent on the present Administration to deliver on that highly specific promise?
I readily agree that it is incumbent on the Government to deliver on the promise in the manifesto. I am a member of the Scottish National Party and I fought on that manifesto.
Regardless of numbers, it is also important that our police are able to respond to calls. It is emerging from the Justice Committee's work that an important part of policing is the need for the police to have a greater ability to respond more effectively to the general public when they ring up and the call has been answered. It is only when those crucial parts of policing are as good as they can be that the number of police officers that we have will be able to provide the best response and deliver the best service to our community.
I turn briefly to the role of police boards, whose scrutiny of how local police services work has been heard at the Justice Committee. There is a strong case to be made for examining that scrutiny because it is not clear that the boards are performing that function effectively because it seems that it might be incompatible for a police board to be both a provider of funds and a scrutinising body. I hope that that issue will be also be examined.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. The motion deals with two important areas: the continuing concerns throughout Scotland about crime and antisocial behaviour and the SNP's political response to those concerns, in particular the backtracking on its commitment on police numbers that has gone on since May.
Crime and antisocial behaviour are big issues that continue to come up in my constituency work. Antisocial behaviour is a particular problem, with unruly mobs frightening pensioners, and the actions of antisocial neighbours resulting in home owners having to stay in their homes and live miserable existences. The fact that the issue dominated the agenda at a recent meeting of Rutherglen community council that I attended shows how concerned people are throughout Rutherglen, Cambuslang, Toryglen and King's Park. People in those communities and throughout Scotland are crying out for help and it is the job of Administrations and Governments to answer such calls.
The previous Executive stepped up to the mark by providing 1,200 more policemen and 500 more community wardens, by introducing additional powers to combat antisocial behaviour, by creating the powers to impose antisocial behaviour orders, by introducing acceptable behaviour contracts and by strengthening dispersal powers. Local authorities had their powers bolstered, too. South Lanarkshire Council has a highly effective antisocial behaviour unit that has come to the service of my constituents on many occasions. There is no doubt that tackling antisocial behaviour is a complex matter that requires the passing of laws and the provision of resources such as more community wardens. Aspects of social policy, such as social inclusion and how to tackle alcohol abuse—which Parliament will discuss this afternoon—must also be examined.
However, the Administration's credibility with the public has been seriously undermined by the issue of the SNP's commitment to provide 1,000 extra police, on which it has begun to backtrack. It now talks about equivalents. The cabinet secretary said that it is not a numbers game—I am glad that he is not in charge of the budget.
The member refers to what I said about our not being in a numbers game but, as well as saying that the previous Executive increased police numbers to record levels, he said that the main source of complaints in Rutherglen is crime and antisocial behaviour. Does that not show that increasing police numbers does not by itself reduce crime and that we require to tackle the root causes of crime and ensure that the officers that we have are best utilised?
As I said, antisocial behaviour is a complex problem that requires to be tackled through laws, resources and social policy—in a number of ways. The SNP said to the electorate that a specific number of extra police would be provided. Its members stood for election on that basis. Now it is trying to say that the numbers do not really matter.
I want, because it concerns a serious matter, to reiterate a point that has already been made. On 4 October, Alex Salmond gave his interpretation of page 58 of his party's election manifesto. He said that the SNP would consider providing
"the equivalent of 1,000 extra officers".—[Official Report, 4 October 2007; c 2468.]
That is not what page 58 of the manifesto says. It is not as if he was misquoting the Sporting Life; he was misquoting the manifesto that he went to the country on. That is very serious and his conduct was unbecoming of a First Minister. It is not good enough. Now is not a time for grandstanding or posturing; it is a time to stand up and be counted for Scotland's communities.
In those halcyon days back in May when there was much rosy talk of a new mood in Parliament, I made a light-hearted and self-deprecating comment in my first speech. Believe me, I have learned my lesson. Since then, much has been made of what I said by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and even by the First Minister, and it has been mentioned again today.
I reflected on the shared objective, as expressed in our respective manifestos, to increase police numbers—in the case of the SNP by 1,000 and in the case of the Scottish Conservatives by 1,500. I then mused that
"It would be interesting to know how the SNP arrived at its requirement figure; come to that, it would be interesting to know how we arrived at ours."
However, I immediately went on to say that
"The answer, of course, is through consultation—but no matter. We are agreed on the need and look forward to supporting initiatives to give it effect at the earliest opportunity."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 421-422.]
My abiding memory of that debate is of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice nodding vigorously in agreement. Why should he not have done so? He, the First Minister and their party had just fought an election during which they had made an unequivocal commitment in print and in speeches that they would recruit an additional 1,000 police officers—they had been almost foaming at the mouth with indignation and resolve. The money had been set aside; all that was required was an SNP victory and the deal would be done.
However, the saliva had hardly had time to drip off the end of the ministerial ties when the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the First Minister began their ignominious retreat, which is breathtaking for the scale of the climbdown and for the complete lack of credible explanation for its rationale.
What has motivated the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to turn tail? Surely it is not evidence that has been received since the election. The review by the guru of the Labour Party, Professor Arthur Midwinter, confirmed what the SNP and the Conservatives had said, which was that spending increases on police per head in Scotland had fallen way behind those in other constituent parts of the UK. In that context there should be little surprise that recently published reconviction rate figures show that almost half of offenders are back in trouble within two years. This week's gun crime statistics show a 25 per cent increase in injuries resulting from firearms offences during the past year. Politicians are directly to blame, but although the Cabinet Secretary for Justice was happy to fight an election on the side of the angels, he now descends into the abyss.
Scottish Conservatives continue to believe that there should be a real increase in police numbers. Let us be clear: we are talking about providing 1,500 additional police officers after we have redeployed equivalents to the front line and managed retirement capacity. If the Government honoured its explicit and solemn promise to recruit the lesser figure of 1,000 additional police officers, it would make a genuine impact. If Strathclyde Police, which serves the region for which I am a member, were given its pro rata share of the additional recruits, it would gain some 480 officers. That amounts to 50 more officers in the Glasgow central and west division, 41 more in Glasgow north and East Dunbartonshire, 52 more in both Glasgow east and Renfrewshire and Inverclyde, 63 more in Glasgow south and East Renfrewshire, 43 more in Argyll, Bute and West Dunbartonshire, 59 more in North Lanarkshire, 51 more in South Lanarkshire, and 69 more in Ayrshire. A round number such as 1,000 sounds all very well, but individual divisions throughout Scotland were promised additional resource. Those divisions and the communities that they protect are right to feel betrayed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
Will the Cabinet Secretary for Justice come clean? On 4 October he said:
"Jackson Carlaw has a commitment: we will recruit new officers."—[Official Report, 4 October 2007; c 2457.]
How many new officers will be recruited? Does the number change from day to day?
Will the member give way?
I am in the final seconds of my speech.
We remain committed to our pledge to provide 1,500 additional police officers. We fought the election on that promise, which was honestly made and properly costed. A key practical test lies ahead, by which Scotland can judge the integrity of its minority Government. The Government has the votes to implement its pledge; can it be trusted? Is the cabinet secretary all tree but no timber? Scotland needs a Cabinet Secretary for Justice who is made of hardwood, not the soft stuff.
The debate has relevance to me and I am interested in what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said because I am a member of the Justice Committee, which has decided to make effective use of police resources the subject of its first inquiry. Our consideration will be influenced by this debate and by the evidence that we take.
Much has been made of Dr Ken Scott's comments at the Justice Committee's meeting on Tuesday, but less has been made of what Dr Daniel Donnelly said. Dr Donnelly described a scenario in which an incident that would normally be reportable to the police could go through the entire system without hitting a police officer's desk. A civilian at the desk in the police station could deal with the initial report; a civilian could issue a crime number; and a civilian could deal with the matter when it went to court. No police officer would be involved.
People want to be confident that a police officer will deal with their case if they need to report a crime. We must be careful about what we say about police numbers. It is fine for Conservatives to say that they want 1,500 additional police officers or for Labour members to say that they have delivered on Labour's 1997 promise, but did Labour deliver a reduction in crime? Did it deliver a reduction in firearms crime, which Jackson Carlaw mentioned?
I am interested in what the member said. Does he go along with his colleague Mr Don, who stands by the pledge on which he was elected, to deliver 1,000 extra police officers? Does the member still stand by that pledge?
I stand by our pledge to the public that we will build confidence in the police force in Scotland.
A number of police forces have introduced community police officers, who are readily identifiable in communities and work with community organisations such as tenants associations, neighbourhood watch groups and community councils. People welcome that move, which gives them access to police officers at community meetings.
Evidence has been presented on the number of police officers who are reaching retirement. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland said in its 2006-07 annual report:
"As the bulge in the retirement profile continues towards the end of the decade, recruitment and the maintenance of expertise within the service remains a key component of the People Strategy."
There are issues to do with retirement and to do with the number of officers who resign. We must consider the causes of resignations.
As I said, the Justice Committee acknowledges the importance of the effective use of police resources and has made that the subject of its first inquiry. We must build public confidence in the police service and get the message across that the nature of policing in Scotland in the 21st century has changed dramatically. Parliament must strike the right balance so that people feel that they can call on the services of a police officer when they most need one.
Police forces throughout Scotland are implementing initiatives to ensure better use of resources, so that officers are available when they are required. On a Friday night recently, I took the opportunity to go out on patrol with police in Coatbridge. I witnessed a number of initiatives in which police engage with young people. For example, young people who would normally hang about drinking on the street are taken to a local private golf club, which has committed to giving them a year's membership. The golf coach told me that some young people, who are playing golf for the first time, are showing great potential. Young people in Scotland should not miss out on such opportunities.
I also saw how police officers on bicycles were able to respond to incidents. Such officers have high visibility on estates and can get access through passageways that police cars cannot use.
Parliament must work to build public confidence and reassure the public that we are working to realise the full potential of police forces in Scotland.
Police numbers concern people throughout my region. Grampian Police, which serves a large area in the region—with a city, towns, and a highly dispersed population—faces particular pressures, because historically it received a proportion of police funding that was lower than the Scottish average.
The previous Administration acknowledged the problem and started a levelling-up process in 2004, gradually increasing the percentage of funding that went to Grampian Police. The force responded well and ensured that the funding went to front-line service provision. However, that round of levelling up comes to an end in the next financial year. The £4.5 million that is earmarked remains unallocated by the new Government, which has responded to queries by saying that the funding is subject to the spending review.
There has been no support from the new Government to look at continuing the levelling-up process, despite the fact that the SNP called for greater funding while it was in opposition. It is essential that the manifesto commitments that were made on extra police numbers are delivered, but the extra numbers must be distributed fairly across Scotland. The SNP must see the levelling-up process through to its conclusion, thereby ending the traditionally higher proportion of funding that is channelled to forces in the central belt. Currently, Strathclyde Police and Lothian and Borders Police have proportionately more officers than Grampian Police has. It has been estimated that, on a per capita basis, Grampian Police would need 200 extra officers to reach Strathclyde levels.
I turn to some of the unique local pressures and issues that face Grampian Police. Those include the huge drug supply and misuse problem in Aberdeen and North Aberdeenshire and the fact that drug suppliers from England are heavily targeting the region. Another issue is the shocking level of road traffic accidents and road deaths. Additionally, we are now seeing longer periods of royal court residence that require more frequent staff abstractions, as no additional resources are being made available for royal protection. The area also has lower levels of block community safety funding, much of which is currently being used to pay for police officers.
The SNP is not only backtracking on its commitment, but threatening the legacy of the previous Administration, which was a steady increase in police numbers. The offer from the SNP now seems to be a more visible police presence and additional officers through redeployment, but that is manifestly not the same as 1,000 extra police officers. Yesterday, Joe Grant, the chief executive of the Scottish Police Federation, said that the incoming nationalist Administration had made a clear promise on the issue.
People across Scotland are looking to the SNP to honour the promise of 1,000 new police officers. The people of Grampian expect to receive a fair share of those new police officers—but, hey, broken promises are already the hallmark of the new Administration. Perhaps we should not hold our breath.
We have a saying in Scotland: facts are chiels that winna ding. The subject of the debate is a fact that was broadcast the length of the land in every newspaper and television broadcast. The SNP said, unequivocally and with no ambiguity, that there would be 1,000 new police officers. Just as the Scottish Parliament mace says, "There shall be a Scottish Parliament", the SNP said, "There shall be 1,000 new police officers." That was the SNP promise and yet the new SNP Government is not delivering on it. That is a total betrayal and a total lie to the people of Scotland. The cabinet secretary has to answer that in the debate.
I can just image the scene—members will be able to, too—when Kenny MacAskill arrived at his desk. His new colleagues—ministerial advisers and civil servants—asked him, "Minister, do you know what this is going to cost?" It does not take a boffin to work it out. Someone needs only to trawl United Kingdom websites and do a few Google searches here and there to come up with a figure that is not short of £50 million, and that is only for the 1,000 new officers, before we even start to look at replacing officers who are about to retire.
At that point, Kenny MacAskill probably said—and as I am a lady, I will not use his language—"Oh, frank!" Members can imagine the scene. From that moment on, Kenny MacAskill was frantically back-pedalling. He would then have gone to Alex Salmond and said, "We must back-pedal on this with all our might. If not, before we know where we are, with the costs for recruitment and retention and the replacement costs for retired officers, we will hit £100 million."
The SNP has not stopped at that commitment. No member has mentioned another SNP commitment in the debate thus far, but I have been reading websites like mad for the past few days and have found that the SNP plans to set up a serious crime task force. Although that is not in SNP budgets, the commitment has been made. We do not yet know the size of the task force. The Labour Party welcomes it, albeit that it sounds as though it could be huge—not medium or small in size, but huge. I can just see the apoplexy on the faces of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the First Minister when they realised the extent of the pledges to which some boffin in their back room committed the SNP in the run up to the Scottish Parliament elections.
This did not start at the last election, however. We need to look at what was said by not only Alex Salmond, but Roseanna Cunningham. As shadow Justice Minister, she said that the SNP would increase the number of police officers on Scotland's streets by 1,000. She did so in a keynote speech in November 2004 to an audience of justice professionals, when she also said that the single officer patrols that were at that point in operation in Tayside Police and Lothian and Borders Police areas were
"no substitute for more police officers on the streets."
She also said clearly:
"We need more police and a more visible police presence on our streets but that presence must be a real one and not a presentational invention".
Is the SNP's use of the word "equivalent" a "presentational invention", as is its use of the phrase "extra capacity"? We need to know the truth, which is that the SNP is not going to give us 1,000 officers.
Roseanna Cunningham continued her speech by saying:
"The SNP believes that we must make a real difference to the fight against crime and therefore as the Justice Minister in an SNP Executive I pledge to increase by one thousand the number of police officers on Scotland's streets."
We have heard the SNP make that commitment from 2004 right up to and throughout the election campaign. No one in the SNP is unequivocal about it, but now that the party is in the driving seat, it is not going to deliver.
I had an interesting bit of pillow talk with my husband this week. He happens to be a councillor on Fife Council, which has an SNP-led coalition. The committee with the remit for policing agreed this week that no police officers are engaged unnecessarily in red tape or pen pushing. The committee also agreed that it is simply wishful thinking on the part of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the First Minister to think that they can magic 1,000 police officers on to the front line to create an equivalent of 1,000 new police officers. The committee further said that 1,000 new police officers across Scotland would result in only 62 new police officers in Fife, which would mean—given the five-shift pattern of working and divisional command structure—only 1.5 new officers on the front line at any one time. That would scarcely make a dent. A clear need for new officers has been identified.
At decision time, along with my colleagues, I will vote for the Conservative motion.
We move to wind-up speeches.
The subject that the Tories have chosen for the debate is an interesting one. Police numbers almost always seem to appear in political manifestos. Indeed, all the major parties, apart from Labour—I could not find a figure in the Labour manifesto—put numbers on their proposals for extra police. That is not only a bit of a hostage to fortune, but begs the question of what it means to the voter. What do my constituents in Edinburgh South want from a police service? The answer is that they want to feel secure in their homes and in their local community. Nigel Don made a good point when he said that communities want to see police officers in the fabric of the community.
Since 1999, police numbers have risen from 14,810 to 16,261 across Scotland, which is an increase of 1,451. Does that lead me to believe that the people whom I represent feel more secure? All the evidence suggests that that is not the case. What are we, as politicians, to do about that? Time after time, my constituents tell me that they want the police to be more visible. The cabinet secretary referred to that in his speech. I agree. People want to be able to contact the police more easily, be given a response, and know what is happening as a result of their inquiry. In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats proposed to have at least two additional police officers in every one of the new council wards. I believe that that would go some way to answer the needs of my constituents and to provide the extra visible presence that they want.
All too often, people tell me that they do not bother to phone the police any more to report a crime or their suspicions about a crime because they do not think that it is worth it. We have to improve the links between communities and their new community officers. The Liberal Democrat commitment for more officers on the ground in the new council wards is the right way forward. We have also proposed that the dedicated mobile phone number of the local community police officer should be circulated. Enabling local communities to contact their local policeman directly would help to achieve the aim of improving links between communities and the police.
Policing has moved on a great deal in the past two years. Chief constables are looking at new ways of policing and of making the best use of their policemen. In Edinburgh South, the police now have off-road motorbikes on which to chase delinquents on bikes who used to be able to escape up the glens and streams. Members may well ask whether there are glens and streams in Edinburgh South: the answer is yes. There was no lack of volunteers when police officers were asked to apply for that new service.
Edinburgh South was the first part of Edinburgh to have a youth action team dedicated to tackling youth crime and disturbance. That initiative has now been rolled out across the city. Last week, the work of that youth action team, led by Sergeant Bob Walker in association with other agencies, resulted in 350 litres of alcohol being confiscated in the Morningside, Bruntsfield and Meadows areas of Edinburgh South. That is the sort of policing that my voters want. I hope that some of those things can be taken up by the cabinet secretary and considered for other parts of Scotland.
I make one final plea, which has often been made before. I am delighted that Edinburgh is now represented by a minister, and I hope that the minister will listen this time. Would he please consider Edinburgh as a special case when it comes to extra funding? London gets extra funding because it is the capital of England—as I would say. Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland. It is our capital city, and it has special needs that the rest of Scotland does not have.
Will the member take an intervention?
Go on, then—although I have only 15 seconds left.
Does the member agree that, as so many SNP MSPs are taking up residence outside the gates of Faslane, additional funding for policing in Strathclyde would also be welcome?
I do not think that I need to answer that.
Edinburgh is our capital city, and it has special needs that the rest of Scotland does not. We need more police to maintain Edinburgh as an attractive, safe place for its citizens and visitors. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that.
It is clear from the debate that the Scottish National Party has failed to give clear assurances that it will deliver on its manifesto and provide an extra 1,000 police officers. Over the past couple of days, we have heard from a number of politicians who have admitted that they got it wrong. They have shown humility in confessing that they got their sums wrong. The present Government, however, has failed to do the same. I appreciate how humiliating it would be for the minister to admit that he got it wrong, but we will accept that admission by letter, by telephone call, or even by text message, if the minister wishes to exchange mobile phone numbers. The minister has to show the same humility, because that is good government—accepting that he got the sums wrong and moving the debate on from there.
Instead of showing humility, the Government seeks to condition our thinking. Perhaps we got it wrong. Perhaps we misread page 58 of the SNP manifesto, which, apparently, mentions the equivalent of 1,000 police officers. I think not. In fact, the manifesto was clear. It said that the SNP would place those extra police officers "on our streets".
I do not often quote Julius Caesar in the chamber, but this is an interesting one:
"Men are nearly always willing to believe what they wish."
In this case, the minister can convince himself that the statement in his party's manifesto means the equivalent of 1,000 police officers. He is experiencing difficulties convincing some of his loyal back benchers, however, particularly Nigel Don. Credit is due to Nigel Don, who is willing to interrogate his Government's manifesto and has given a commitment to deliver on it. Well done to Nigel Don. He is a credit to his party and, indeed, to the Justice Committee.
Some members have asked about police numbers when Labour was in government. What did Labour deliver? Jackson Carlaw has talked about this on a number of occasions. I can provide some interesting statistics. When in government, Labour provided, on average, over 10 years, 144 police officers per year. When the Tories were in government, they provided 95 police officers per year, so I will take no lectures from them, although I support the Tory motion, which ensures that we hold the Government to account.
I am sorry, but I do not have time. I will also take no lectures from any of the then opposition members who opposed the legal remedies that we delivered under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to ensure that police officers are not only on the streets, but can fulfil their role as local police officers. The opposition that members raised to dispersal orders, for example, was a disgrace. I hope that the present Government will deliver on the 2004 act as well as giving a commitment to ensure that community wardens can play their important role. I have yet to hear the minister confirm that he will continue the previous Executive's support to community wardens, who play a crucial role in communities throughout Scotland.
There was a great slogan during the election campaign: "It's time." I do not know how many times we heard it. It is time now for the minister to tell us how many police officers there will be in 2011. It is time for the minister to answer. How many police officers will retire in 2009? We believe the figure to be 500. Will some officers be refused retirement? The minister must answer yes or no. We would welcome answers from the Government on these issues, once and for all. It is time that it delivered on its manifesto.
On 12 September, I was pleased to attend Port Glasgow town hall to launch the police public reassurance strategy. Just yesterday, I was pleased to attend the Scottish business crime centre in Stirling to launch the new crime prevention strategy. Those are the sorts of measures that the Government is supporting fully, as we fully support the excellent work that the police do throughout Scotland.
Nigel Don got to the heart of the matter in his remarks about what the public expect from the police. They expect a visible police presence; they expect to see police on the beat; they expect to see police on the street; they expect to see police in the community. The Government is determined not to get involved in the knockabout stuff that has taken place today, but rather to deliver what the public want—what Nigel Don so rightly argued for in his speech.
I want to get straight to the heart of the issue, because I do not have much time. As members will recall from my days in opposition—sadly, they were far too long—I was not prone to making specific spending commitments. The Conservative motion makes not just an unequivocal spending commitment, but a spending commitment that follows the fiscal school of Jackson Carlaw—it is completely open ended.
Let me explain why I say that. Over the rest of this parliamentary session—over the next three years—more than 2,000 police officers will be eligible to retire. It is absurd to suggest, as Paul Martin has done, that ministers can somehow bar police officers from retiring. What an absolutely absurd suggestion. Police officers have their rights, under their contracts of employment. It is therefore up to the police officers—2,000 of them—whether or not they retire. By definition, it is not possible for any Government to know exactly how many officers will retire. Ergo, as David McLetchie will shortly argue that there should be 17,234 officers by the end of the session—and as Conservative members have been arguing already, with support from some unexpected quarters during the debate, most surprisingly from the new Tory convert, Helen Eadie—the other parties are clearly making a spending commitment. It will be interesting to hear where they would find the money. To get that number, they have to know how many police are going to retire—but they cannot know that. Therefore, the other parties are signing a blank cheque and asking their friend Mr Carlaw to revisit his car-selling days to fill in the numbers and write out the blank cheque, to be signed on the taxpayers' account.
Was it Gordonstoun or Loretto that the minister was at? What did "additional" mean when he was at school? Did it mean extra, or not?
The school's motto is Spartam nactus est—I think that we pursue that prudent approach to public spending.
Let me make some more serious points about the matter. As the cabinet secretary said, we will deliver 1,000 more police, but we shall deliver what the public want—the police will be in the community, on the beat and on the street. As Mr Don argued, that may be on patrol in vehicles, or it may be on foot. We will deliver what the public want and expect, by introducing efficiencies. Helen Eadie is simply wrong that it is not possible to make efficiencies. The cabinet secretary knows that she is wrong, from his discussions with Fife Constabulary.
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
I am in my last minute.
As the cabinet secretary said, we will consider ways in which to introduce efficiencies through the adoption of technology, the centralised arrangement of some back-office functions, the efficient operation of the summary justice system and the effective operation of the Scottish Police Services Authority. We will deliver the pledge in the most effective way, not by signing a blank cheque, which is the new approach of the Conservative party, supported by its new fan, Helen Eadie. We will not pursue that approach; we will be prudent, not profligate; we will be effective, not negligent; and we will deliver for Scotland the 1,000 extra police to which the public are entitled, on the beat, where they are needed by the public, as we promised.
I thank members for participating in this Conservative party debate. It must be rare to have a debate in which so many of the speeches are so one-sided and so condemning of Government policy.
In the May 2007 elections, the SNP recognised the dwindling number of police officers in Scotland, which has resulted in a lack of community trust in the justice system, and pledged to spend extra money to secure 1,000 more police officers on the streets and to encourage police constables to use new resources for community policing. The SNP prioritised its budget to allocate money to education, health and policing, with £78 million being allocated specifically to achieving the goal of increased police numbers. Fergus Ewing says that he is not prepared to write a blank cheque to fund that, but the reality is that it is the SNP's cheque, the SNP's commitment and the SNP's promise.
In the First Minister's speech to Parliament on 23 May, he said:
"The Conservatives focused on law and order, and flagged up the urgent need for police numbers to rise—they will rise. The only difference between the Government and the Conservative party on that policy was how far and how fast it could be managed."—[Official Report, 23 May 2007; c 59.]
It is clear now that the Government will go nowhere fast unless it gets out of neutral gear. It has been almost six months since the election, but no progress has been made on the promise of 1,000 new police officers, although there has been skirting round the issue and shirking of responsibility by the SNP Administration.
Does the member agree with the Labour Party that an SNP promise is simply not worth the paper that it is written on?
I could not agree more. What is the point of voting SNP if, six months later, the pledges are all in the bin?
A further issue with the police force is the loss of officers to retirement, which Nigel Don mentioned. ACPOS reports a continued rise in officers retiring and a significant loss of talent and expertise. It has also highlighted the importance of recruiting and retraining officers, which it states is essential to achieving justice in local communities and the continuing presence of local officers. Once officers are recruited, it takes 18 to 20 weeks until they are out on the streets. The process is time consuming and should begin immediately if we are to solve the urgent and pressing problem.
A report prepared for the Scottish Police Federation by Professor Arthur Midwinter compares police spending in Scotland with that in the rest of the United Kingdom and with spending on other major public services in Scotland. The report reveals that police expenditure per capita is significantly lower in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom—the expenditure is 20 per cent higher in England and 12 per cent higher in Wales. With other major public spending, Scottish spending levels are much higher than the UK spending average, which reflects Scotland's higher levels of social need, as shown in the measures of poverty, deprivation and poor health. The report shows that the need factors drive police expenditure, which begs the question why Scotland has such a low level of funding for its police forces. In addition, the report notes that funding is not dependent on the comprehensive spending review or the budget. Professor Midwinter concludes that that is a direct result of the Government's decisions. Police funding in local budgets has grown in line with other services, but the rate of growth is below the average, because of the Scottish Government's political priorities.
As we heard from Bill Aitken, in the SNP election campaign in April, at the Scottish Police Federation conference, Alex Salmond promised to allocate an SNP Government's funds to health, education and policing and said that, if need be, more funds would be allocated to achieve the commitment to increase police numbers. He went further by adding that £78 million would be allocated specifically for the addition of the promised 1,000 police officers. In May 2007, Alex Salmond again promised the additional officers and compared the SNP's approach favourably with Conservative party strategy.
The Conservative party is the only party that has any credibility on the issue. The Scottish Conservatives have campaigned consistently for 1,500 extra police officers in Scotland, and for them to be out on the streets, not stuck in their offices doing desk work. The Scottish Conservatives believe that an increased number of police officers—1,500 on the street—would be a visible deterrent to crime and would build trust in the local community, while reducing the fear of crime in neighbourhoods.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, he will not, I am afraid.
I am in my last minute—sorry.
The Scottish Conservatives have devised a strategy for achieving that goal, which consists of retaining serving officers, ensuring that time is used more productively and providing enough funding for the extra 1,500 officers. We have campaigned consistently for 1,500 additional police officers in Scotland and created a strategy with which to achieve that attainable goal. The SNP has promised an increase of 1,000 police officers but, in nearly six months since the election, it has provided nothing to achieve that—the strategy has been shirked and ignored. The Government must act now to deliver its election promise and make Scotland's streets safer. It is time for the Government to produce the extra police officers.