The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-12667, in the name of Hugh Henry, on accountability of Police Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, or as soon as possible. I also ask MSPs and members of the public who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly, please.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that 1 April 2015 marks the second anniversary of the establishment of Police Scotland; notes the reported controversies regarding the deployment of armed police, stop and search, the loss of data, the use of performance targets and local accountability; recognises the budget pressures that were identified by Audit Scotland, including what it believes has been the significant reduction in civilian staff, concerns about uniformed officers having to fulfil the duties previously delivered by civilian staff and worries about the closure of control rooms; believes that the Scottish Police Authority is failing to exercise thorough and robust scrutiny of the force in its operations in Renfrewshire and across the country, and notes the views that these issues must be addressed to ensure that public confidence in the police is maintained and that the Scottish Government must recognise its responsibilities by addressing the concerns that are being expressed.
12:32
Two years ago the Scottish police force, Police Scotland, was set up by merging the previous eight forces. That was done with some controversy: there were people who believed that there should be no change, and some who believed that there should be three forces. The Scottish Government view—which Scottish Labour supported—that a single force could operate prevailed.
However, the experience of those two years should give us all grave concern about what has been happening. First, I put on record that criticisms are not aimed at uniformed or civilian staff, who are working tirelessly to ensure that our streets and communities are kept safe and secure. However, it is troubling that issue after issue is raised in the press and is brought to Parliament, and that we hear about inconsistency and stories changing almost by the hour.
If we cannot rely on what our police force is saying, that undermines not only political confidence in it, but public confidence. Even during the consultation that Police Scotland has conducted on the confidence of the public, there has been controversy about who has been asked, with reports that many people who have been stopped by the police—including motorists—do not count towards the statistics or are not asked about their experience.
What is behind all that? There is a fault and a problem on three levels. First, there is the political level. Police Scotland was created by the Scottish Government, which did not take into account advice and concerns, but steamrollered ahead; it used its majority to impose a structure and a method of operation that it thought was most appropriate.
There is a problem with the body that was set up to hold Police Scotland to account—the toothless tiger that is the Scottish Police Authority, which is largely ineffective and almost inevitably comes to the game after events have taken place, rather than setting out its policies and expectations in advance.
We therefore have a set-up in which Police Scotland, which is the third party in this, has to make the best of what it has been given. To be frank, it is struggling to cope.
There was a problem straight away with the budget. There was the debacle of the Public Audit Committee’s scrutiny of Audit Scotland’s report on the police budget. The concerns of members and, indeed, the concerns of witnesses were taken out of the final report by the Scottish National Party majority. I was the convener of the committee at that time. Tavish Scott, Mary Scanlon and I were forced to issue, in an unprecedented manner, a minority report to try to reflect some of the problems that were being imposed on Police Scotland because of finances and how money was being delivered to it. That is all too typical of the process.
There has been constant bleating from the SNP Government that Westminster should sort out the VAT problem. There is a debate to be had about VAT, but Treasury ministers have said that the Scottish Government was in 2011 explicitly advised of the potential consequence of changing from regional police forces to a single authority as part of a proposed revised funding model. When the Scottish Government took the decision, it would have known that it would be no longer eligible for VAT refunds as a result. So the situation comes from the Scottish Government.
There has been the stop-and-search debacle in which hundreds of thousands of people have been stopped and searched—a level that we do not see even from the Metropolitan Police. Police Scotland’s evidence and assurances do not seem to be worth the paper that they are written on. The story changes. The Parliament was promised that stop and searches of under-12s would be stopped only to find out that they were continuing.
There is the mess in which data have been lost because apparently someone pressed a button and lost the information. That beggars belief. I do not know of many data systems that would be so vulnerable to such a loss of sensitive data, such that one person pushing one button could enable information to be lost.
Civilian staff are working under pressure. In March 2010, there were 7,862 staff; in December 2014, there were 5,619 staff. That is a loss of 2,243 staff, and more losses are looming. As we heard from Willie Rennie earlier, staff are under pressure, and sickness and stress levels are on the increase. Despite what the chief constable and senior staff say, police officers are backfilling the jobs of civilian staff. They are not trained to do those jobs and—incidentally—they are not paid to do them. They should be out on the streets keeping communities safe.
Willie Rennie also mentioned the problem of control rooms. There are also the problems of skewed consultation and loss of data. The chief constable has told us that there are no targets, but we hear from former officers not only that the stop-and-search figures have been invented, but that there are targets. The chief executive of the Scottish Police Federation, Calum Steele, has said:
“we have police officers that are making numbers up.”
This week, I met retired police officers from across the country who tell us that they have targets and key performance indicators.
We have problem after problem. We have duplicity at every turn from quarters that should not be involved. We have two creatures, the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland, that have been created by the Scottish Government. We have debacles that have been sponsored by the Scottish Government. It is time now for the Scottish Government to take some responsibility for its decisions and to sort out the mess once and for all.
We are extraordinarily tight for time today, so I am going to have to confine members to four-minute speeches. I call Roderick Campbell, to be followed by Margaret Mitchell.
12:40
I apologise to Hugh Henry and to Parliament because I will not be able stay for the whole debate, as I have another commitment.
When I first read the motion for today’s debate, I thought that we might be focusing on the proposal to consider the merger of the Renfrewshire and Inverclyde division of Police Scotland with that of Argyll and West Dunbartonshire, which is currently going out to consultation, but it seems that the thrust of this members’ business debate is somewhat far ranging.
The motion refers to the second anniversary of Police Scotland; we should all recognise that these are early days for a body that marks a radical change to policing in Scotland. With the best will in the world, to evaluate that change now would fail to do it justice—1 April 2013 was the start of reform, not the end.
However, that does not mean that lessons cannot be learned at this stage. The loss of data was a clear embarrassment. In relation to armed policing, Police Scotland and the SPA were slow to respond to the need for public engagement about deployment of firearms, especially in non-life-threatening situations. Even then, we should not overestimate the number of officers involved; 98 per cent of officers in Scotland are unarmed.
The SPA scrutiny report in January this year was thorough. In compiling it, there were public evidence sessions, an academic report and surveys of opinion, together with 200 responses to a public call for evidence. It is not only the SPA that is engaged; Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland is also taking an active interest in the issue. The matter is not being overlooked.
On stop and search, as we know the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is awaiting from Police Scotland an update that will come by the end of the month. We know that the chief constable is minded to stop the practice of consensual searches, but is consulting—although according to a newspaper opinion poll the majority of people who have been surveyed support consensual stop and search, and the Scottish Police Federation has defended the use of stop and search, so there is a debate to be had.
At the latest SPA board meeting to consider stop and search, the chief constable himself acknowledged that mistakes had been made, apologised and said that lessons would be learned. That is not the mark of an unaccountable officer; he is well used to the need to be accountable. Indeed, I am reminded of a comment by Councillor Stephen Curran, a Labour councillor from the old Strathclyde police board, who told the Justice Committee on 20 March 2012, when we were considering the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1:
“We are quite fortunate in that the chief constable ... was, to put it bluntly, used to more robust accountability in England in the Metropolitan Police. He is used to being questioned.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 20 March 2012; c 1198.]
Mr Curran was speaking, of course, of Chief Constable Stephen House. If there are any shrinking violets on the SPA, they should take heart.
Speaking of shrinking violets, we have our Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which is chaired by Christine Grahame. That proves that Parliament takes its role in holding Police Scotland to account very seriously indeed.
Will Roderick Campbell give way?
Time is tight, I am afraid.
It is right and proper that there is parliamentary scrutiny, but perhaps we ought also to consider the positives. A national force under the SPA has achieved efficiency savings of £130 million in its first two years. It has maintained police numbers, recognising that the ultimate configuration of staff resources is a matter both for itself and for the Scottish Police Authority. It is committed to there being no compulsory redundancies and, I hope, to the need to engage fully with representatives of police staff, whom we accept are at the sharp edge of the tight financial constraints in which we operate. The national force has presided over a 40-year low in crime figures, for which credit should be given to the police for their professionalism. We should also appreciate the benefits that a national force can provide in accessing specialist services in any part of Scotland.
Despite the inference in the motion, I believe that public confidence in the police force remains high. In our pursuit of accountability, we should take care not to undermine that confidence.
12:44
I thank Hugh Henry for bringing this important debate to the chamber and I apologise, as I have to leave after making my speech.
There is no doubt that in the two years that Police Scotland has been in existence it has had its problems, with issues about poor communication and lack of transparency and accountability arising constantly. The case for the introduction of a single police force was predicated on potential savings and the assertion that pooling resources would avoid duplication and be more efficient. Crucially, the Conservatives and others pressed for a full business case to be produced, but that request was refused point blank by the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Scottish Government. Consequently, decisions have been taken that I believe would not have been approved, or even suggested, had the Scottish Government been required to produce a full business case.
The Government’s failure to give assurances about local accountability meant that the Scottish Conservatives could not support the legislation. Furthermore, with regard to oversight, it is far from satisfactory that under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 the head of the SPA owes their position to the patronage of Scottish ministers. There is clearly much work to be done before the SPA effectively fulfils its role of scrutinising the chief constable and holding him to account.
Stop and search is a case in point. Evidently there is, at the very least, a lack of communication between the chief constable, who has been adamant that no volume target setting has taken place, and Calum Steele, who represents rank and file officers and who has stated that
“The numbers driven target approach”—
to stop and search—
“was ill conceived and resulted in attention being directed towards meaningless numbers”.
Decisions to cut almost 1,600 support staff have meant that again, despite the chief constable’s assurances to the contrary, backfilling is prevalent, which results in serving police officers being removed from front-line duty in order to carry out administrative tasks that were previously undertaken by civilian support staff.
The 2012 act sought to strengthen the connection between services and communities. Instead, there has been a centralisation of the police service. Police counters have been closed and replaced with the automated 101 number. In the areas where the closures have hit it is therefore virtually impossible for a member of the public to have a face-to-face discussion with a police officer at a time of their choosing.
Furthermore, the closure of control rooms means that valuable local knowledge has been lost, which has resulted in officers being unfamiliar with areas and unable to locate the locus at which they are required to attend. That was confirmed by participants at the Justice Committee’s recent round-table discussion on rural crime.
It is for the reasons that I have listed that some time ago the Scottish Conservatives called for a review of the oversight of Police Scotland. Given that our concerns about the lack of local accountability have proved to have been justified, it is now time to rethink how best the service can be made more responsive, and how it can be tailored to the needs of communities. Flexibility in decision making is required in order to deliver the service that the public has a right to expect, to keep their streets safe.
12:48
I record my absolute gratitude and praise for police officers and support staff across Scotland who perform duties on behalf of the public, on behalf of my family and on behalf of me. I value the work that they do daily, which is largely unseen and largely unapplauded.
Secondly, I remember today, in the lead-up to the second anniversary of the establishment of Police Scotland, the staff members who have been let go over the past couple of years, many of whom were highly professional and committed, and who suffered a great deal of stress and loss as a result of the polices that have been pursued through the development of Police Scotland.
Thirdly, before I come to the main part of my speech, I acknowledge that neither the current Cabinet Secretary for Justice nor the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs was responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves with Police Scotland. Although they were members of the governing party, they played no significant part in the debates that were held in the run up to the establishment of Police Scotland. As a result they are, I suggest, in the supreme situation of being able to learn the lessons of the past couple of years and repair what is wrong, rather than trying to defend the indefensible.
From the outset, there were concerns across the chamber that governance and accountability had been overlooked. When, at a Justice Committee meeting back in 2011, I specifically asked Chief Constable Smith, who was in charge of reform at the time:
“how will concerns that develop at the local boards be represented at the national board level? Has there been any discussion about that link?”,
he responded:
“No, and our submission would be that that is a gap in the bill.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 988.]
At another meeting of the Justice Committee, I asked Robert Black for his view of the arrangements for proper governance—I remind Parliament that Robert Black is much appreciated as someone who knows about accountability and the real delivery of governance. He described the arrangements in the bill as revealing a “democratic deficit”, and we have carried the burden of that deficit ever since.
For nine months, we saw shadow boxing between the chief constable and the convener of the Scottish Police Authority about the job’s worth and how the role and position would be seen and, as a result, the whole business of governance was overlooked. In October 2012, Holyrood magazine reported:
“Emery”—
who I presume is Vic Emery—
“has already gone on record to stress the need for good governance and strategic leadership.”
It seems to me that Mr Emery and his board believe that governance and leadership equal review and post-scrutiny work, but that is not what the SPA should be about.
I also remind the minister that we asked for a business case to find out how we would deliver on reform in the long term, but that document has yet to arrive. We were also told that reform would require real change in the way that police officers work, but we are waiting for an information technology system that will allow that to develop.
What we require in the current arrangements are a board that stands up to its full height and which exercises true governance, and an environment of candour, honesty and openness. I stress that Parliament’s Justice Sub-Committee on Policing does its work effectively, but it has neither the time nor the stature that it deserves. A regular complaint of members is that its time is too short and that lunchtime is no time to do the important scrutiny work of this Parliament.
12:52
I am grateful to Hugh Henry for securing the debate.
Members will know that the Scottish Liberal Democrats were the only party to consistently oppose the abolition of valued local police services in favour of the creation of one national force. Our opposition was based on reasoned, principled concerns. For a start, the centralised force would be unaccountable. Moreover, it could never be as responsive to the needs of our communities; the numbers did not stack up and the savings claims were unrealistic; and it would lead to a further and disproportionate loss of civilian staff and backfilling by front-line officers. It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to see those concerns—and more—realised.
Like Hugh Henry, I want to put on record, again, my gratitude to the officers and civilian staff at the front line who keep our communities safe. However, the way that Scotland does policing has changed—and not for the better. There has clearly been a shift towards a narrow enforcement model of policing that is preoccupied with targets but, as we approach the force’s second birthday, we are still being hindered—obstructed, even—in scrutinising its policies, its practices and its performance.
Real persistence has been required to expose an illiberal system of stop and search that is plagued by recording problems. People were rightly alarmed that for well over a year the SPA seemed unaware that armed police were undertaking routine duties; indeed, Parliament was not even informed. Although the number of police officers is announced every three months with tedious fanfare, it is left to others to expose backfilling and to calculate that 1,400 civilian staff have lost their jobs. Just this week, we learned that more key statistics are to be published late—six months late, in fact. None of that information was volunteered, and it has consistently required our constituents, the media and Opposition politicians to uncover the truth.
It should not be difficult to find out what is really going on, either on our streets or behind closed doors at central police headquarters. People have a right to know if the way in which they are being policed has changed. Public engagement and accountability are fundamental principles of policing by consent.
In its infancy, the national force has repeatedly chosen not to be wholly up front with Parliament or the Scottish Police Authority, to which it is supposedly accountable. Senior officers seem to operate on a need-to-know basis that is limited to their own ranks. That lack of transparency is allowed because, as the motion notes, the SPA has proven to be ineffective and lacking in clout. It is not conducting scrutiny in the way that it ought to.
At the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, the chair of the SPA told me:
“We make recommendations and ask the chief constable questions. Normally, we see such things after the fact.”—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 21 August 2014; c 487.]
That does not exactly inspire confidence, does it? The body that is supposed to lead the scrutiny of the national force’s policies and performance is constantly playing catch-up.
The SPA needs to be much more proactive and to interrogate the competence and merits of policies before they are enacted, not months later. It should not be deflected by cries of operational independence.
The Scottish Government must take responsibility. It used its majority to force through the fundamentally flawed legislation that has caused much of this sorry mess. Yet since the inception of Police Scotland, ministers have not scheduled a single debate in the Government’s time to reflect upon and discuss the impact of the most critical, wholesale policing reform for a generation. That is extraordinary. It is a dereliction of duty and disrespectful of this Parliament. Instead, it has been left to Liberal Democrats and other Opposition parties to highlight issues using our members’ and Opposition business debates.
The Scottish Government cannot pass the buck. It cannot pass legislation and then wash its hands of the results. It is high time that ministers tackled the problems head on and told members how they are going to sort things out.
12:56
We are not obliged to do so, but it has become standard and welcome practice to congratulate a member on securing a members’ debate. Regrettably, for the first time in 16 years of taking part in such debates, I cannot do so.
I am reading the motion, listening to the debate and asking myself whether this is a members’ or Opposition debate. Technically, it fulfils the criteria for a members’ debate. Paragraph 4.2(c) of the guidance on motions says that a members’ debate motion
“must raise issue-commemorating anniversaries or mark national ‘weeks’ or special events and have cross-party support”.
There is a world of difference between the letter of the law and the spirit, and this debate sails close to an abuse of parliamentary procedures.
That is additionally disappointing because Hugh Henry, like myself, aspired to be Presiding Officer. I would have thought, therefore, that he would have demonstrated more respect for parliamentary process. This is an Opposition debate in all but name.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am willing to take all the criticisms that Christine Grahame makes if it is proved that I have stepped beyond the rules of the Parliament. Presiding Officer, could you indicate whether the motion was competent and appropriate for a members’ debate?
It is a competent motion, Mr Henry. It was passed by the Parliamentary Bureau, which is why we are debating it today. There was no objection to the debate at the bureau. Ms Grahame, please continue.
I acknowledge that, but I think that we need to change our rules so I have written to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in light of the debate. The fact that it is a members’ debate makes the motion safe from meaningful amendment or a vote.
Hugh Henry is new to his job as justice spokesman and I think that he is not up to speed. Parliament has conducted rigorous scrutiny of Police Scotland and the SPA since they came into being, either through the full Justice Committee, which does not have an SNP majority, or the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which also does not have an SNP majority and whose members were appointed by Parliament to represent the remits of the Justice Committee, the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee.
The sub-committee has held 29 meetings since it was established in March 2013. The main topics have been armed police, stop and search, local policing, complaints investigations, the i6 programme, the new police custody arrangements, and governance issues. We know that, at the start, there were issues between Police Scotland and the SPA but, my goodness, we have done our damnedest to hold them to account and they have moved. Anyone who thinks that the SPA or Police Scotland has had it easy has not been paying attention. Add to that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, and there is more scrutiny of the police now than I can ever remember.
I would rather have 17,254 full-time equivalent police officers in Police Scotland than eight chief constables, eight deputy chief constables and all the paraphernalia that comes with them—or, indeed, what exists in England and Wales. There, there are 41 police commissioners, who are voted in by an average of 15 per cent of those who are entitled to vote and who get something like £80,000 to £100,000 a year, and all the staff who come with that.
Of course the arrangements here have not been perfect, but to allege that we in this Parliament have not scrutinised the police over two years is frankly wrong.
I never said that.
As I said, I am happy to debate this subject but, I say to Mr Henry, this should be a full debate; using a members’ business debate for it is frankly not appropriate. I have written to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to see that we change the guidance so that this never happens again.
13:00
I thank Hugh Henry for securing the debate. It is not my intention to speak at great length about Renfrewshire, but I understand that the people of Renfrewshire would welcome discussion. No harm has ever come from discussion, whether by the people of Renfrewshire or by those of the Highlands and Islands, whom I am charged with representing and who are interested in this issue. I repeat that I am grateful to the member for securing the debate.
The motion refers to “reported controversies”. I played a part in the matter of armed policing. That issue was legitimately raised by me, because of public concerns. Those concerns could have been addressed had there been consultation—indeed, had there been a community impact assessment. That gets to the heart of the issue. Words such as “community” and “engagement” are what policing should be about. Policing is something that is done for the people, not to the people. I genuinely hope that lessons will be learned. We could have a lengthy discussion about policing by consent or operational independence, and I think that we could learn something.
The motion mentions accountability. I would take exception with Hugh Henry in that I do not recall any suggested alternative structure, although I may stand corrected on that by Labour members. I for one welcome the fact that there are council ward policing plans, which are very useful. I also like the fact that each local authority has its own committee; the four local authorities in the Highlands and Islands were previously represented by one board. However, as Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary said last week, the committees need to assert themselves. The Parliament can play a role by encouraging that and by empowering those committees.
We have heard from a number of people, including Mr Henry, about the Scottish Police Authority. The SPA has indeed been absent on the big issues—it has just not been there. The authority has been playing catch-up and it has not made a particularly good job of that.
The report on armed policing has come late, and I understand that it was the subject of dynamic editing, or something of that nature. It would be good to understand the background to that. We need a spirit of openness and transparency from Police Scotland and the SPA. They were keen to quote the survey results, but I understand that they have not made those results available to the press. Indeed, they have told the press that they do not have those results. The press have gone to the company that produced the information, which has been told that it is not to disclose the information to the press. I understand that that might breach the code of conduct for companies. Hopefully, the matter will pan out in the right way and the fullest information will be disclosed. I pose the question: who is accountable to whom?
I turn to budget pressures. The VAT issue is not a minor one. However, I think of the energy that went into the swift delivery of VAT-free status for the academy schools that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats put in place, and indeed for ski lifts, which are important in my area, and I suggest that if there had been a will, there would have been a way to address that issue.
There is a reversal of the civilianisation programme, as it would have been called in the early 1970s. That is disappointing. I commend the work of Unison in that regard. The principle of a job requiring police powers, meaning that a constable has to do it, or not requiring police powers, is not just a black-and-white issue. There are issues around the margins, particularly in rural areas, where police officers are involved in firearms inquiries and in the delivery of citations, and there is some benefit there.
I served in the police for 30 years. Like Graeme Pearson, I am very proud of the police service and of my time there. Prior to the advent of Police Scotland, I sought, and was given, assurances that best practice in the constituent forces would be applied. That was not the case. I will not repeat all the difficulties around stop and search, but there is a very clear framework in which police officers work: the common law and statute law. Unfortunately, the common theme here is the direction and style of the chief constable, where creative mechanisms have been put in place. I hope that that will be addressed.
I certainly wish to lend my clear support to the front-line officers, the police support staff and other officers who support them. The role of the Scottish Parliament is to be a friend to the Police Service of Scotland, but a critical friend. I hope that there has been some constructive criticism—I have certainly heard that today. Once again, I thank Hugh Henry for securing the debate.
13:04
I thank Hugh Henry for the motion. As we approach the second anniversary of the establishment of Police Scotland, it is important that we look back to make note of progress and of any mistakes that have been made in the past two years. It is absolutely clear that a great deal of work remains to be done to improve our police force’s effectiveness and public image. With powers such as stop and search, it is critical that officers are provided with appropriate training not only on the possible risks to themselves but on handling people with mental health issues, disabilities and language difficulties. We have to provide our officers with all possible training opportunities.
Data collection and provision must be improved so that we can assure the public of their safety and that data are being used in the best and most appropriate way. When data are collected, we should act on the figures. For example, to focus on equality issues, we should act on the fact that only 1 per cent of the police force—I repeat: only 1 per cent—are from ethnic minority communities, which make up 4 per cent of the Scottish population. It is of utmost importance that Police Scotland works to protect civilians and gain trust equally among all the communities that it serves.
The job cuts among civilian employees have the consequence that officers are being given additional responsibilities to compensate, which is troubling officers as well as the public. It is important that we ensure that our officers do not have to do back-office jobs, as at present, as that means that officers are denied the opportunity to do their real jobs, which disadvantages communities and means that communities do not get the service that they are entitled to. It falls to the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Government to deal with that. Complacency on their part cannot be permitted in this day and age. I therefore look forward to additional resources being given to the police force to help it to deal with those growing challenges. When services face difficulties day in and day out, they need to be protected and given sufficient funds and resources and the tools of the trade to carry out their duties effectively.
Christine Grahame said that we have been good at making sure that all the challenges that face the police force are dealt with, including in relation to equalities. I say to her that, unfortunately, that is not quite true. That said, I am sure that the new cabinet secretary will try his best to reverse that trend. I know for a fact that many communities are looking forward to better results, better communication and, most important, better resources for the police service, and I mean that in the most helpful way, with the aim of trying to achieve it. One thing that has been missing for the past two years since the single police force began has been public participation with the force.
13:08
I welcome the opportunity to respond to Hugh Henry’s debate and to provide balance to what I have to say was the largely negative and one-sided picture that he presented, although thankfully the same is not true of his colleagues.
I highlight that Labour not only supported the single service—I accept that Hugh Henry acknowledged that—but voted for it in the Scottish Parliament. Let us not lose sight of that. There has been some suggestion that the Scottish Government steamrollered through the single service using a majority, but we had support across the Parliament for the creation of a single police force. As members such as Roderick Campbell and Margaret Mitchell have acknowledged, Police Scotland is a new organisation, so there are bound to be some teething troubles, and we have acknowledged that.
However, operational policing in Scotland continues to perform excellently. Recorded crime is at a 40-year low, supported by the 1,000 extra officers that we have put on our streets compared with in 2007. Public confidence in our police remains high, and all of that has been achieved despite the inevitable funding pressures that arise from the Westminster austerity agenda. That is something that Hugh Henry may wish to acknowledge, and it is certainly something that those in the UK Parliament should acknowledge, having recently voted for a further extension and another £30 billion of austerity, which is unlikely to help the situation.
The eyes of the world have been on Scotland, and successful policing contributed to the success of the city of Glasgow’s hosting of the Commonwealth games as well as of last summer’s Ryder cup and the referendum. With the tragedies of the Clutha bar helicopter crash, in which, let us not forget, the police family lost some of its own—I am sure that members fully acknowledge that—and the Glasgow bin lorry crash, we also saw how admirably our brave police officers cope, with other emergency services, in harrowing circumstances. I do not doubt for a minute that members throughout the chamber acknowledge that. I just wanted to put it on the record today.
Local policing that is shaped and delivered in communities by local commanders remains at the heart of Scottish policing. I have to challenge something that Alison McInnes said. In one sense, policing in Scotland is more local than before, given the local policing plans for all 353 wards, through which councillors are more able to have their say on policing in their area than they were prior to reform.
I acknowledge the point that Hanzala Malik made about the diversity of our police force; it is something that Police Scotland also acknowledges. At the moment, with the restructuring of the single police service, it is more difficult to expand numbers rapidly and to take on new recruits, but I assure Hanzala Malik that that is a priority for the chief constable and for Police Scotland.
The true benefit of a single service is that every area of Scotland now has access to specialist expertise and equipment. I saw that for myself last month when I visited Fettes police station here in Edinburgh and met police personnel—both two legged and four legged—from the operational support division. Just last week, Assistant Chief Constable Bernie Higgins highlighted the heroics of an armed response vehicle officer from that division who, anxious that he might injure bystanders, did not fire on a man who was attacking him with a knife and was stabbed four times.
That is an example of the heroics that grab headlines, but I have personally seen many other examples of excellent policing, such as the police working in partnership with local communities in places such as Hawkhill in Alloa—a challenged community that falls within the bottom 15 per cent in the Scottish index of multiple deprivation—and delivering a 40 per cent reduction in crime. Recently, I spoke to a Police Scotland youth volunteer who is a member of the ethnic minority community. He had experienced difficulties but, thanks to his role as a volunteer, has turned his life around and now wants to become a member of Police Scotland.
Does the minister acknowledge that that good work—we are all aware of examples of it—is likely to be put in jeopardy if there is a stop-and-search campaign that targets some of those areas in an inappropriate way, as we have heard with the use of consensual search?
I will come to stop and search. I acknowledge the point that John Finnie makes, but I hope that I will be able to respond to that.
Even in my constituency, which I accept is in a rural part of Scotland, my local constituency policeman, PC Jamie, visits local schools to talk to local children, providing inspiration and advice to them. That, and not the negative motion that we have before us, is a truer reflection of policing in Scotland in 2015. I am sure that all members will have their own stories.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am pushed for time, I am afraid, unless the Presiding Officer will let me.
It is entirely up to you, minister.
I will have to press on. I apologise to Mrs McInnes.
I want to focus briefly on England and Wales. Reform is safeguarding all that we value in policing from the Westminster budget cuts. I know that some members will be uncomfortable with the point, but we only have to look south of the border—
Will the minister give way?
I would like to finish this point.
We only have to look south of the border, where officer numbers and morale are at rock bottom, to see the benefits of our approach. Had we mirrored the calamitous approach of the UK Government, we would have 2,688 fewer officers than our commitment of 17,234. That would have taken one officer in six out of the service. That is a good example of dereliction of duty.
I will take Alison McInnes’s intervention at this point.
The minister is five and a half minutes into his speech and he has not addressed any of the challenges and shortcomings that have been raised today. That is quite inappropriate.
I say to Alison McInnes that I have taken interventions from a colleague in another part of the chamber and indeed from her. I am trying to engender a debate, and I will move on to accountability and governance issues.
While Scotland’s police officers play a vital and visible role in our communities throughout Scotland, I acknowledge, as have members, the crucial contribution of Police Scotland support staff. As Police Scotland and the SPA have always said they would, staff numbers are declining, which is to our great regret. However, we remain committed to no compulsory redundancies. Voluntary redundancy or voluntary early retirement is offered to staff, as well as the opportunity to relocate or retrain.
Further austerity will not help. We need to strike back about the austerity agenda. I acknowledge that it is a particularly challenging time for staff and I thank them for their continuing dedication and commitment in delivering the 40-year low in crime.
Budgets are tight right across the public sector—not just in policing—as a consequence of the budget pressures faced by the Scottish Government. We are a prudent Government and we will cut our cloth accordingly. That is what Police Scotland is trying to do, too. Great progress is being made on delivering the necessary savings, with around £880 million of cumulative savings having already been delivered of the projected £1.1 billion. We acknowledge the challenges.
I say to John Finnie, whom I respect very much, that I have asked how many complaints had been received about armed policing prior to 12 May, when he first raised the issue. I am told that only one complaint had been received by Police Scotland at that stage. Since then, only 27 further complaints have been received.
Policing is now more accountable and transparent than ever. Scrutiny can sometimes be uncomfortable, but there is no doubt that it is beneficial in the long run. I believe that Police Scotland will respond and be the better for that. I very much welcome the work that Police Scotland and the SPA are undertaking with support from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland. Clearly, there are lessons that can be learned, particularly in relation to engagement between the two organisations to ensure that the SPA can hold Police Scotland to account, effectively and at the right time. The chief constable and the chair of the SPA are committed to tackling those issues. The whole chamber should welcome that and support that process in a constructive manner.
Parliament’s scrutiny is essential in supporting the successful reform of policing in Scotland. However, let us recognise the progress that has been made to date. Our police officers and police staff are doing an excellent job. Most of us take that protection for granted, but my visit to Fettes brought home to me how brave our police officers are and just how dangerous a job they often do. The police have delivered for Scotland and we should thank and support them in their often difficult and dangerous work.
Police Scotland and the SPA recognise the challenges and opportunities ahead and are working closely together to deliver the best possible police service for the people of Scotland. I, for one, am grateful for their professionalism and dedication in doing that. We acknowledge concerns where they arise. I am sure that Police Scotland, the SPA and the chief constable are taking notes that have been made by members today and will respond in due course.
Thank you all for taking part in this important debate.
13:17 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question TimeNext
Penrose Inquiry