Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-03407, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. I call the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion.
16:06
I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. We have come a very long way in a very short time, and I thank everyone who has helped to shape this important bill. The bill has benefited from the detailed and careful scrutiny of four parliamentary committees. I thank the Parliament, the conveners and members of those committees—particularly the Justice Committee—and their clerks for their positive contributions.
In addition to consulting formally twice, we have worked closely with key stakeholders, including the senior management of the services, the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Scottish Chief Police Officers Staff Association. Between them, they represent all ranks in the service. We also worked closely with Unison, the Fire Brigades Union, the Association of Principal Fire Officers Scotland, the Retained Firefighters Union and local government. Indeed, members of the FBU and Unison and the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland have been or are present in the chamber today. I value their wisdom and thank them for all their positive engagement and continued commitment to reform. Their continued leadership and commitment will be crucial in the months ahead. We have listened and, where it was right to do so, we have amended the bill.
The cabinet secretary has rightly commended those organisations for their contributions to the bill process. Why did he ignore their opposition to the bill?
I do not understand the member’s statement given that, as has been pointed out, the FBU supported the bill. In addition, the Scottish Police Federation is now full-square behind it, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents has always championed it and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland was divided between senior officers who wanted it and senior officers who did not.
Since 2007, we have made significant and sustained progress on building a safer and stronger Scotland. Our police and fire and rescue services are performing well. The number of fire deaths is almost 50 per cent lower than a decade ago, and figures that were published yesterday show that the number of recorded crimes continues to fall and is now at a 37-year low. Scotland is a safer place. Non-sexual violent crimes are now at their lowest level since 1982—a 30-year low—and the clear-up rate now stands at 75 per cent. The number of crimes of handling an offensive weapon has decreased by 10 per cent since 2010-11, and there has been a 44 per cent decrease since 2006-07.
Why does the cabinet secretary want to unravel all that good work and put at risk all those improvements? The improvements that we have seen in the crime statistics are surely based on good, sound local knowledge and good connections with communities.
Because, as we successfully put to the electorate last year, the alternative is to follow what the Liberal Democrats are doing as part of the coalition Government south of the border, which is to get rid of almost as many police officers as we have serving in Scotland—a record number—and, more important, to attack the terms and conditions of those brave officers who serve. We will not do that. We will maintain a visible police presence in our communities, and honour and adhere to the terms and conditions of the service that they have given without attacking them through Winsor. The men and women of those services would be right to be proud of that record. However, as I have just said, those achievements are under threat from the unprecedented cuts that have been imposed by Westminster. We need to make savings now to protect and improve front-line services.
However, reform is not just about saving money. We can make a virtue out of necessity. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create the sort of world-class, public-focused services that we want for Scotland. Most agree with us that restructuring to create single services is the best way to safeguard and improve services. Single services will keep all Scotland’s communities safe and strong by creating more equal access to specialist support and national capacity, such as counterterror investigation, murder investigation, firearms and flood rescue, and strengthening the connection between the services and communities.
The bill provides a blueprint for modern police and fire and rescue services fit to meet the needs of an ambitious 21st century Scotland. It sets out, as never before in legislation, a detailed framework for the new services, modernising their governance to provide an enhanced focus on delivery of local services. It defines, for the first time, the clear roles and responsibilities of the key players, including unprecedented opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise the services regularly and systematically.
I share Graeme Pearson’s ambition for proactive and focused parliamentary scrutiny of policing, if not his suggested approach. That is why I supported John Finnie’s amendment this morning to put beyond doubt that the Parliament can fully scrutinise all the provisions in the bill—fire and rescue as well as policing. We will also be using our influence to establish a dedicated parliamentary committee to carry out that role.
The bill has benefited enormously from the input of stakeholders and the Parliament. For example, at stage 1 we were told that key appointments needed to be made as soon as possible to meet the start date of 1 April 2013. Therefore, in addition to amendments at stage 2, I lodged amendments at stage 3 to enable the early commencement of key provisions to facilitate the early appointment of chief officers, board chairs and members.
As I have made clear, I do not anticipate that the chair of the SPA will take many decisions, aside from those required to facilitate the early appointment of the chief constable in advance of other board members being appointed. Stakeholders, and the Justice Committee, told us that the boards may be too small to operate effectively. Hence I lodged amendments at stage 3 to increase their size to between 11 and 15 members.
At stage 2, I supported John Finnie’s important amendment to place human rights and equal respect at the heart of the oath that is taken by constables. Following concerns raised by David McLetchie and Graeme Pearson on the transparency of the SPA and the SFRS, this morning I supported amendments to place both under a duty to meet in public and publish agendas, minutes and papers.
Following extensive discussions, the Treasury decided that the SPA and the SFRS should not be able to recover VAT, which means that they will be the only police and fire authorities in the UK unable to recover VAT. That decision is in stark contrast to recent ones taken in relation to police commissioners in England and Wales and academy schools in England. It ignores the fact that the SPA will continue to be able to receive funding from Scottish local authorities to pay the costs of agreed local priorities. The draft amendments that I shared with the Treasury and members of the Justice Committee would have put that beyond doubt. We made every effort to reach agreement with the Treasury and I am bitterly disappointed that it has not only rejected our proposals but failed to come up with any solutions.
I asked this question earlier in the stage 3 proceedings, but I will ask it again. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the Treasury set out a number of proposals that would have dealt with the VAT issue but which the Scottish Government has chosen to ignore? I do not care about the proposals that the Scottish Government put to the Treasury; I want to know whether the Treasury made proposals that would have dealt with the point adequately.
No, it did not. We put forward matters, as suggested by the Treasury. We proposed amendments. We asked it to say what was necessary and it refused to do so. This Government did everything that it could to meet the criteria that were specified by the Treasury. We put forward amendments and it refused to accept them. Further, it was not prepared to make any suggestions. It is quite clear that we will be able to change the situation only when we have some control over it ourselves.
Am I right in understanding that the Scotland Act 1998 says that, if we were to do something that would impose extra costs on the Treasury, we would have to refund that money to the Treasury and that, therefore, logically, if we do something that benefits the Treasury, it should refund us?
Well, we might like to think so, but, unfortunately, that is not the position. Unless the Treasury south of the border is prepared to amend the situation with regard to VAT, which it can do, we will have to have constitutional change that will give the Scottish Parliament the power to do so.
Even with the requirement to pay VAT, the single services will deliver estimated savings of £1.7 billion over 15 years. However, the people of Scotland are being penalised twice: first by the Westminster-imposed cuts; and secondly by the £25 million a year VAT tax grab by the Exchequer. That is manifestly unfair and unwarranted.
The timescale for reform is challenging. Passing the bill is just one step. We are working closely with the services and all the staff associations and unions to achieve a start date of 1 April 2013. We will need strong leaders to lead the services into the future. We are working hard to ensure that key appointments are made as soon as possible. We have already advertised for the chief fire officer and adverts for the SPA and SFRS board chairs and members, and for the chief constable, will be issued in July. I am confident that those posts will attract a strong calibre of candidate.
This is a necessary and important piece of legislation. The reforms that are set out in the bill are necessary to safeguard and improve the front-line services on which communities depend and which are outstanding, but we face unprecedented cuts.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill be passed.
16:17
Our starting point in this debate has been that we want there to be more efficient and effective public services, and that creating single services for police and fire and rescue could help us to achieve that. Indeed, Labour was arguing for a single police force and a single fire service when Scottish National Party ministers were still making their minds up, because we believed that resources could and should be used to strengthen service delivery rather than to maintain existing management structures.
We were also clear about two other requirements of police and fire reform. The first is that public confidence in those services is vital, and that public confidence is based first and foremost on local accountability for local services—that is a strength of the current arrangements, in spite of what we have heard today, and something that should have been at the heart of the bill. The second is that, as we said in our manifesto last year, police officers should not be taken off the front line to cover the duties that should be carried out by police staff. That, too, should have been a guiding principle of police and fire reform.
The bill falls short on both counts. It delivers single services, but it does not provide adequate accountability locally or nationally, and it is being delivered at the expense of dedicated civilian staff in the police service in particular.
We have debated accountability from a number of angles today. Although we have welcomed some concessions, we have, in the main, been disappointed by the Government’s response—indeed, the tone of some of its rejections has been more disappointing than the rejections themselves.
We have proposed that councils should have greater statutory rights in dealing with police and fire services at a local level. Preparing a plan is one thing, but funding and staffing are what give real authority and accountability, and statutory rights for councils to access information on budgets and jobs are still resisted by ministers.
We have proposed that councillors should be represented on the new national boards on a statutory and permanent basis, which would maintain a link between local and national strategies and decision making not just for the transitional period, as ministers intend, but over the longer term. Those proposals have also been rejected.
We have supported a proposal to have a parliamentary policing commission to improve accountability at a national level. Many members across the parties will be disappointed that that proposal from Graeme Pearson was not welcomed by ministers, especially given that the Government has had some months to consider it but discovered its allegedly insuperable difficulties only in the past few days.
Alongside accountability goes transparency. Some small steps have been taken on that today, but there is a long way to go to achieve the appropriate levels of openness in the management of the services. That can only become harder as knowledge and power are concentrated in fewer hands than ever before. Ministers have argued that the policing commission is unnecessary because of the powers available to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. However, I discovered only this week that the inspectorate lacks access even to some basic information about how services are currently delivered. It could not tell me, because it does not know, how many police officers and how many civilians are currently employed in police call centres. That is only one example, but it illustrates that there is a real information deficit as we head into the era of single national services. The risk is that that deficit will only get worse.
That deficit also highlights our other key concern about the Government’s approach to this process of reform, namely the replacement of civilian staff in backroom jobs by warrant-holding police officers who should be out fighting crime. Even before the last election, the civilianisation of support roles that was taken forward by previous Governments was thrown into reverse. Reform Scotland had to use freedom of information powers to find out that, between 2007 and 2011, one full-time-equivalent police staff member’s job was cut for every new warrant-holding police officer post that was created, and that process has only accelerated since.
This is not about chief constables’ drivers, as the ministers might want us to believe, but about a range of support functions, from the highly skilled to the routine, which were previously transferred from police officers to civilian staff but which are now being transferred back. Kenny MacAskill has voiced his approval of using police officers to operate custody suites, and putting cops in call centres is another potential development, but more backroom bobbies is not what the SNP promised at the previous election and it is not what ministers should be doing in delivering the bill.
The threat to staff jobs does not come only from their jobs being given to police officers. The Scottish Government confirmed to Unison this week that the purpose of section 26(2)(b) is to allow private contractors to be appointed as police staff. The threat is that the moment the bill is out of the way and it becomes clear that the sums do not add up, contracting out or privatisation can be used to make further savings at the staff’s expense. Of course, the sums will not add up, which is the other fundamental flaw in the Government’s approach to the whole process.
Graeme Pearson was offered an explanation just the other day for the Government’s failure to publish a full business case, and we heard it again today. The Government has proceeded to this stage on the basis of outline business cases that are widely recognised as flawed and it seems to confuse a full business case on which decisions should be made with the kind of detailed plans that are needed to implement those decisions thereafter. The Government’s late flurry of special pleading to Treasury ministers is, frankly, embarrassing. The Government has known since 2007 that national bodies such as the Scottish Police Services Authority are liable to pay VAT, but it has done nothing about it. It has known since the start of the bill process that the same would happen with the new services, but it seems to have had no plan B or strategy for seeking a different outcome if Treasury ministers said no.
The so-called solution that the Government put to the Treasury was that the Government would require councils to contribute less than 1 per cent of total funding for the police and fire services, which is a proposal so lacking in credibility that the Government did not trouble to lodge it for debate today. If ministers had not been so keen to take control away from councils and to concentrate all powers at the centre, a solution might have been found. Instead, the new services will begin with a new tax liability amounting to some £26 million a year, which is hardly the best possible start.
The bill will deliver single services, but it will not deliver the savings, accountability and transparency that it might have done, and it comes at a cost in jobs for civilian staff, particularly in the police service. The challenge for the new services will be to continue to deliver for communities in spite of those fundamental flaws. The challenge for the Government, in contrast with some of what we have heard in the debate today, will be to work with others to address those flaws. If it does not do that, the challenge for the next Government will be to sort them out.
16:25
I will focus on the single police force proposals. The fire service proposals are certainly less contentious and appear to be a sensible efficiency measure, although any restructuring of the fire service must retain a visible and effective firefighting presence. By making savings in that area, the bill will, I hope, protect front-line services.
The Scottish Conservatives support the reform of our police and fire services. Indeed, our manifesto last year contained a proposal for a single police force while the SNP remained committed only to reducing the number of police forces. A single police force could represent an opportunity to get rid of duplication in backroom functions such as human resource, information technology and administration functions, and, in turn, protect front-line policing. I am therefore pleased that the Scottish Government has come round to supporting a Scottish Conservative election manifesto commitment.
I am less pleased about how the Government has gone about implementing the policy. The bill is far from perfect. Despite the best efforts of the Opposition parties, it will not adequately protect local accountability or ensure that savings are delivered. The Scottish Conservatives support the idea of reform and a single police force, but that support has always been conditional on a number of factors.
Any reform must protect local accountability. Any restructuring must ensure that police services are accountable to local people and the communities that have a direct relationship with them, which they serve. Unfortunately, the bill is very quiet on how the single police force will work with local authorities; instead, the Government has invested a great deal of faith in its pathfinder projects. Only time will tell whether that was a good idea. We would have preferred to have seen real power delivered to local residents by the introduction of directly elected police commissioners. It is unfortunate that the Government has not accepted that proposal or a number of other amendments that the Scottish Conservatives and other Opposition parties proposed that would have provided clarity on local authority engagement with the single force and enhanced local accountability.
Additionally, the creation of a single force must deliver efficiency savings, and it is important that those savings are delivered alongside the protection of front-line services. The Scottish Conservatives, too, are committed to the maintenance of 1,000 additional front-line officers, whom we helped to secure during the previous session. That is all the more important given yesterday’s news that the number of crimes and offences committed in Scotland has risen this year. If the bill enables more money to be spent on front-line policing, it has to be welcomed.
We have heard a number of times in the chamber that a single police force could achieve £130 million-worth of savings within a year and a total saving of £1.7 billion over 15 years, but those figures are based on an outline business case that was produced in July 2011, before the Government had even decided to establish a single police force. We have already heard that Chief Constable Smith said that that document was
“never intended by the police officers who were party to it, or by the consultants, to be a document that contained sufficient detail on which to base significant decisions about investment and savings.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 971-2.]
We are still waiting for a full business case to be produced. It remains the Government’s position that that is a matter for the police and fire services. The consequence of that is that the Parliament has been forced to debate a critical piece of legislation without full figures on how much the single police force will save, which is unacceptable.
The cabinet secretary has made a bit of a song and dance about the VAT position throughout the passage of the bill. The reality is that, when the Scottish Government first set out the proposals, it had full knowledge that they would result in the loss of the VAT exemption; indeed, its own estimates of the impact of the reforms assume that loss. The United Kingdom Government has tried its best to work with the Scottish Government to make the proposals work and to allow the VAT exemption to be retained, but the Scottish Government has failed to engage. Indeed, the cabinet secretary’s letter to the Treasury minister in June talks about a failure
“to offer suggested amendments that would meet your policy without undermining our whole programme of reform”.
Mr Lamont, you must come to a conclusion.
That suggests that there were proposals and amendments but the cabinet secretary chose to ignore them.
The Scottish Conservatives sought to work with the Government to establish a single police force that was locally accountable and would deliver the savings. I am disappointed by the bill and by the Government’s failure to properly engage.
We now come to the open debate. Time is very tight, so speeches should be of a maximum of four minutes.
16:30
In my view, from the back benches, we had an interesting and somewhat lively debate on some of the amendments, particularly those on local accountability, gender balance and the proposal for a Scottish policing commission. I have commented on those topics before in committee and in the chamber and will not reprise my remarks, except to say about the Scottish policing commission idea that I hope that the Parliament will move some way towards having a committee of some nature that is dedicated to holding the chief constable of Scotland to account. That issue is still to be looked into.
We must look at why we are here. We are here simply because we had regional reorganisation in 1975 that led us to have eight chief constables, eight constabularies and everything that goes with that. Since then, we have reorganised again and we now have 32 local authorities. They do not all have their own set-ups, but nevertheless the current position is an accident of history. As the cabinet secretary said, in these straitened times, one must make a virtue out of necessity, so it is quite a good time to look at reorganising the police in Scotland.
The purpose of the bill is modernisation, including a recognition that the fire and rescue service has to meet very different demands from those in the last century. Indeed, that is also true of the police. If we think back 50 or 60 years, I cannot think that we would be talking about things such as drug trafficking, people trafficking, serious organised crime, money laundering through environmental agencies and residential homes for the elderly, or international crimes such as internet crime and terrorism. We live in a changed world, and the police, the fire service, the ambulance service, hospitals and the national health service all have to work closely together, so it seems a good time for these national issues to be considered at a national level.
It makes sense to tighten up the administration, the strategy and the operational matters through a single, dynamic, accountable leadership in a chief constable for Scotland who is answerable to the SPA and to the Parliament both at large and, as I said, perhaps through a specific committee. Balanced against that, quite rightly, is the delivery of local policing, local priorities and local accountability. The public in Scotland rightly ask for and deserve both. Concerns were raised that portrayed the restructuring of police and fire services under a single chief constable and a single chief fire officer as centralisation, which is a pretty dirty word, and raised the spectre of political interference. I do not think that either of those concerns is worthy at this time.
I am satisfied that, with the checks and balances through the SPA and the SFRS board, through the Parliament and indeed through the fourth estate, or the press, the chief constable will be watched, will act at arm’s length from Government at all times in the interests of his remit and will be held to account for delivery at a national level. At the local level, I am also satisfied. Sections 45 and 46 require local commanders to involve local authorities in setting priorities and objectives for the carrying out of police functions in each local authority area. Localism is paramount because, as we all know, the needs of the cities and of rural areas such as mine are very different.
I am short of time, so—
You have 30 seconds.
We are 5 million-plus people. The bill seems to me to be a sensible and practical solution, and as for scrutiny, it is time that the Justice Committee was made to earn its keep.
16:34
I say to the previous speaker that I had hoped that the Justice Committee was already earning its keep, but we always want to work harder.
The purpose of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill was set out in the financial memorandum, which made it clear that one of the main aspects related to the saving of money. At the beginning of the debates on the bill, it was indicated that those savings would amount to more than £100 million per annum, but the figure has been regulated down since then, hence the importance of the need for a full business case to give us some understanding of what we are trying to achieve, not only in terms of delivering a service, but in terms of how the financial picture plays out in the reality of government.
This is not solely about regulating and holding to account a chief constable; it is important that the board that will oversee that individual behaves in a manner acceptable to this Parliament and the people of Scotland. My previous experience of such boards in the Scottish Police Services Authority does not fill me with confidence that the future for the Scottish police authority will be markedly different. I seem to remember that at board meetings we were assured that VAT would be exempted in due course; indeed, the minutes of those meetings would show that such a decision had been well made and that we were just waiting for the exemption. It was a bit like waiting for Santa Claus at Christmas time; I stood at the close, I watched the chimney but I never saw him arrive. The same goes for VAT.
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has acknowledged my point about the threat of a Government abusing its oversight function. There is no doubt that good governance and oversight will be essential to a national police force’s management, and I am certain that the set-up of the proposed parliamentary committee to review the act’s operation will be of deep interest not only to me but to other MSPs.
The Scottish Labour Party has already declared its commitment to a single police force with a slimmed-down executive, a focus on street-level service delivery and democratic accountability fit for the 21st century. As has been said, the current arrangements, which are set out in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, were designed for a completely different time. Not only has the internet changed the world, but mobile phones, international travel, migration and immigration have all affected the way in which police officers operate on our streets. Ensuring that accountability reflects that new reality should be the Parliament’s focus.
The Government now has the task of working out its priorities and putting in place the management and oversight of the police and fire services. The Parliament must ensure not only that all of that is in good health, but that it is all done in a good light, legally, ethically, morally and in our communities’ best interests. I will contribute as best I can to that endeavour and the deliberations that the cabinet secretary intends to have and I hope that, with good will, he delivers what we sought in the first place.
16:37
Collaborative working is the future of public services and this reform will not only ensure that, but protect and improve local services, despite financial cuts.
We have heard members talk about stopping duplication eight times over; in fact, it can be nine times over if we include the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and the Scottish Police College. This is not about cutting the front line; indeed, according to figures announced last week, the total number of police officers has gone up by 1,202 since 2007 to a record 17,436. There is no doubt that the visible police presence created by those numbers has brought about the lowest crime rate for 37 years.
I hope that the member will acknowledge that the support staff who help police officers to deliver services are equally important and that the loss of 1,000 from their number is a concern.
Operational matters are for the chief constable, but I agree that the mix of specialisms that support staff provide is greatly appreciated.
As I was saying, those police officers have brought the crime rate to a 37-year low and the fact that there are 9,000 fewer victims is hugely important.
In the brief time that I have, I want to touch on other positive aspects of this reform: equal access to specialist support and national capacity. At the moment, we have a system of mutual aid, by which those who feel that they cannot deal with an issue within their boundary can call in assistance from elsewhere. For historical, personal and other reasons, there has been a reluctance for the system to be used, often because it is seen as a sign of escalation. As a result of this reform, there will be greater national capacity; a helicopter, for example, will belong not to one force but to everyone.
In evidence to the Justice Committee, Assistant Chief Constable Finlay addressed concerns about the seniority of the local commander and what that would mean with regard to access by referring to the system of tactical tasking, which is well understood in the police service.
A number of people have pooh-poohed the suggestion of giving more elected members a formal say. An example I have given, and unashamedly give again, is that of Orkney. Currently, two delegates go to Aberdeen every six weeks. In future, the entire council will be involved in liaison with the local police commander and the local senior fire officer, who they will scrutinise against a plan. There is an important role for better integration with community planning partnerships, an economy of effort and, indeed, a shared direction. That will strengthen the links between both those services and local communities.
An issue raised with me at one forum was the situation in which, historically, a chief constable had attended a meeting, whereas henceforth it may well be a chief superintendent. Of course, throughout Scotland a chief superintendent generally attends such meetings. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said, there is a key role for the superintendent rank. I note something that may not be readily understood by everyone: the comment about the role of the ASPS executive as the representative body, recognised as such by the Scottish Government, is a significant statement. I, too, convey thanks to Chief Superintendent David O’Connor for his constructive engagement throughout the process. I do not know who Tavish Scott was listening to, but the SPF is full square behind this.
Will the member give way?
The member is concluding.
I will perhaps give way later.
You have 30 seconds left.
I would like to thank Calum Steele and John Duffy, along with the FBU. Both those individuals are aware of the contrast with England, in relation to 6,000 fewer officers, the Winsor review and the Con-Dem Government’s intention to reduce numbers by 20 per cent, offset by a better offer from Labour to reduce them by only 12 per cent.
Mobility was touched upon, and we must have good practice on that to ensure that no officer is disadvantaged in that respect. Given the time, I will finish there.
16:41
I offer my thanks to the legislation team for their work over the course of the bill, and, of course, to the Justice Committee clerks, whose help has been invaluable. I also acknowledge the professionalism shown by our police forces and fire services throughout the debate. Led commendably by the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland and the Chief Fire Officers Association Scotland, they have been charged with finding a way to implement the Government’s flawed vision for the future of our emergency services. Their objections to the Government’s plans were simply ignored, yet they have still dedicated themselves to making the best of this bad job. They have my utmost respect for that.
I have made it clear throughout the process that the Scottish Liberal Democrats do not support the bill. We cannot support the savaging of our outstanding local emergency services for little more than the sake of a ministerial power grab. We will vote no this evening, however futile a move that might be.
During stage 2 and stage 3 proceedings, the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties lodged a combined total of 125 amendments to the bill. They aimed to improve accountability, strengthen the role of local authorities and create greater transparency. The Government rejected them all, except for five minor amendments.
I do not have much time, but I must talk about the issue at the core of this debate. Should our emergency services be run locally, guided by local elected representatives, or should they be run centrally, by people appointed by the cabinet secretary? I know which I prefer. At every step of the way, the cabinet secretary has sought to marginalise the legitimate concerns raised by others.
What of the things that we risk losing? A modern police officer’s role is about more than working to reduce crime. It is just as much about reducing the fear of crime and working in partnership with communities to make a real difference and improve quality of life for everyone. Our constables help at midnight football leagues, discuss concerns with community councils, and they talk with young drivers about staying safe on the roads. It is about officers of every rank instilling confidence, building up relationships and trust with local communities, and it is about the senior ranks keeping in day-to-day contact with our community planning partners: social services, court services, councils and health boards.
Our excellent emergency services’ successes over the past decades—the reduction in crime that the cabinet secretary spoke about, safer communities and fewer house fires—have been achieved because those services are funded, managed and delivered locally. They are accountable to local people, they are responsive to local needs and they can prioritise and adapt based on local circumstances.
The Government has tried to answer those concerns through the idea of local commanders and local policing plans, but it has consistently rejected measures put forward by opposition parties to give local authorities some control and some substantive input into those plans. Indeed, the Government’s announcement last week of the proposed area commands is further proof that it just does not get it.
Not only are the areas unwieldy, but they will serve to further remove local authorities from decision making on policing in their regions. For local voices to be heard, councils will have to go through a local commander, an area commander and the chief constable to the police authority. Not even this Government can spin that as being local accountability.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats are not against reforming our emergency services. We fully accept that there is a need to modernise and that there is a need to make greater efficiency savings. However, this bill and these reforms are not about those needs. They are about the Government’s centralisation agenda—about taking power away from local communities and putting it in the hands of ministers. Emergency services must and should be delivered locally. This bill is not just a backwards step—it is a destruction of the community foundations that our police and fire and rescue services are built on.
16:45
As others mentioned earlier, the situation is obvious. The slashing of the Scottish budget means that if we are to maintain the high standard of police and fire and rescue services that we provide, the services must be run differently.
We started this process from a position of strength in Scotland. Both the police and fire services—at management and at union level—accepted the need for change. It has been clear in the Justice Committee meetings that the engagement with everyone involved has been first class.
Consider the difference between the situation down in England and the situation here in Scotland. In England they will be losing about 16,000 police officers and there is no confidence in the leadership of the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. Here in Scotland, the Government has a good relationship with the professionals, as represented by bodies such as the ASPS, whose contributions have been invaluable in this process. In Scotland we have record police numbers and the lowest crime figures in 37 years, as John Finnie pointed out. I know which side of the border I prefer to be on.
Moving to a single police authority also provides an opportunity for improvement, despite the cuts. Many of the Justice Committee discussions centred on the composition of the national board of governance and on local accountability. I am glad that the Government took on board the concerns that were expressed and agreed to increase the number of members of the national board to somewhere between 11 and 15.
Although I have some degree of sympathy for Graeme Pearson’s earlier comments about empowering a commission to oversee the two services, I am heartened by the cabinet secretary’s comments. A parliamentary process has been found that will easily take up that oversight function. I share the views of the Justice Committee convener on that subject.
The larger number of board members will also allow for specialist management to evolve, which will be an asset given the nature of modern law enforcement.
Of course the service must have a local dimension to it. This is where I disagree with Alison McInnes: sixteen local pathfinder schemes are being trialled and I believe that the Scottish Government is correct in not being too prescriptive about ensuring that the same local model is used across the country. I was rather astounded by Sarah Boyack’s outburst this morning—it was as though the sky was about to fall in and local democracy had died. No single model can fit all and the results of the trials will help local senior officers and partners to work out a system that works for their local authority area. Local democracy is not dead and it will not die under these proposals. Local authorities will have access to senior officers of both services and discussions can ensue.
I cannot sit down without mentioning the VAT situation. It is astonishing that the UK Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition refuses to make changes to VAT rules in the same way that it has done for others. Scotland will have the only police force in the UK that is not VAT exempt. Even academy schools in England have had their VAT status changed. That shows the UK Government’s attitude to Scotland—Scotland cannot have what the UK Government gives to others, because of who is in government. The UK Government is not interested in making things better, only in telling us what we cannot have—does that ring any bells? Here in Scotland, however, we have a Government that is willing to do things for the better.
I agree with the cabinet secretary that the sooner we are allowed to have the full range of powers that we want for this Parliament, the sooner the people of Scotland will see the benefits. This is a Government that can, not one that cannot or will not.
I support the motion.
16:49
Today’s debate on the detail in the bill has demonstrated the SNP’s centralising instincts—
Said with no irony whatsoever.
No, there is no irony, minister. I will explain.
Although there is a powerful argument for better national policing, that must be balanced with effective accountability and local input. Ministers have today not allowed that to be added to the text of the bill.
Other parties in the chamber disagree with the SNP on that matter, and today is a missed opportunity. I am disappointed that local councillors will not play a full enough part in the process, and I thought that Kevin Stewart’s arguments this morning totally undermined the SNP’s case.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not—the member has had his time.
Local circumstances are different, and there is a discipline that comes from knowing that one must account to people. I know from my mailbag that it is local policing, working with local agencies, that makes people feel safer. For most of us, that is the only time that we will meet our local police.
I believe that we will return to that issue. Unison’s Dave Watson commented this morning that there will be centralisation at a cost, with privatisation to come. Ministers have said nothing today to refute or allay those fears.
The proposed committee will need proper consultation. It will not be a Justice 2 Committee, but a committee of an entirely different character. We will all need to pause for breath on that, and the matter will need to be handled carefully and sensitively. The jury is out on that proposal.
There are good things about having a national police force, but that must be counterbalanced by local input. The bill is a missed opportunity, and we will have to come back and improve on it in the future.
16:51
The bill is a very important piece of legislation. As points of conflict and debate have tended to surround the new structure for the police force, I will focus my remarks on that. Other members have eloquently commented on the single fire and rescue service.
The debate about a national police force is not new; it has surfaced over the years. After all, we have a national health service and a national water and sewerage service, so why not a national police service?
I have always felt that a country’s law enforcement body occupies a unique position. Given the nature of what it does and the power that it has, there should be a respectful and respectable distance from the political process and a public confidence in how it discharges its role.
Interestingly, since devolution began, there has been discussion about how complaints against the police are handled and how we balance the sensitive and challenging job that we ask the police to do with the legitimate interest of the public, if police conduct gives rise to question, in having that concern addressed.
The present structure of several forces with a complaints investigatory function and a police complaints commissioner has provided that distance from the political process and served the public interest. However, the bill creates a very different beast. Graeme Pearson correctly described it as a national police force, and that is what it is.
I do not instinctively shy away from that beast. Indeed, as my colleague John Lamont said, my party supported the principle of a single police force, subject to two important conditions. Those were that the savings from such a proposal, having been costed in detail, would demonstrably preserve the presence of front-line officers, which my party were instrumental in securing, and that the distance from the political process and the public confidence in the ability to challenge any abuse of power would be protected. That second condition is of paramount importance when there is a single law enforcement body.
At stage 1, the bill as drafted did not allay the concerns of my party, and we chose to abstain at that point. It is disappointing that the strenuous attempts by Graeme Pearson and my colleague John Lamont to address some of those fundamental concerns and to improve the bill have been rejected.
The general tenor of the debate suggests that some of those fundamental issues of public interest are not fully recognised. Sarah Boyack made an important point in that regard. Speaking to a very senior police officer who had genuine concerns about the proximity to Government, I found that there was a legitimate anxiety about how the bill would work in practice.
Roseanna Cunningham suggested that we are being cynical about the ability of politicians to behave with integrity and probity. My view is that, when we are dealing with something so sensitive, we should create a system that anticipates that every barrel can have a bad apple and that identifies and deals with that possibility, rather than waiting for some disaster to happen and saying, “Goodness—why did we not do something better when we framed the legislation?”
I say with reluctance that, under the bill, the principle of a single police force—which my party supports—does not translate into practices that are safe or healthy. Therefore, with regret, I say to the chamber that my party feels unable to support the bill and we will abstain in the vote at decision time.
16:55
Scottish Labour was the first party to commit to delivering single police and fire services for Scotland. In our manifesto last year, we made it clear that single services would be delivered nationally but would function locally. Our proposal stemmed from the knowledge that emergency services are most effective when they operate in the heart of our communities and when they are accountable to those whom they serve. Today, half of that ambition has been fulfilled.
Although the Government has delivered single police and fire services, it has not delivered services with the local accountability that modern services should have or with the transparency that the public demand. Today, provisions that would have provided accountability and scrutiny have been offered in good faith in many amendments but, to the detriment of the bill, those amendments have fallen on the deaf ears of the cabinet secretary and the SNP.
At their core, those amendments sought to redress the bill’s insistence on tipping the balance of policing towards the state at the expense of local communities. Labour’s amendments were a package to deliver a national police force and a national fire service that would work within local communities. We advocated a police force in which local authorities would have a say in the appointment of a local police commander, would have an insight into the funding for their area, and would be able to raise concerns about local policing issues directly with the chief constable. We envisaged a fire service in which local knowledge would be given due regard by the Scottish ministers. We envisaged that a minimum of a third of the members of the board of that service would be local authority representatives and that local authorities would be consulted before the appointment of local senior officers.
To oversee all those functions, Labour advocated an independent commission that would have been tasked specifically with scrutinising the services to ensure that they acted in the most effective and efficient way possible.
Labour’s amendments also sought to bring community benefit. For example, our amendment to empower people in supported workplaces would have given them preference in just one contract every three years. What kind of Government does not wilfully use the power that it already has to save our supported workplaces? This SNP Government.
Labour also lodged an amendment that would have provided a gender balance on the boards of our police and fire services, which deal daily with gender-based justice issues. In responding to that amendment, Roseanna Cunningham said that she could not support it because it did not account for all other minorities. I ask Roseanna Cunningham whether she thinks that Emily Davison, before throwing herself under the king’s horse, ever stopped to think that she should not pursue gender equality because making a difference in one area was unfair to others.
Is it not the truth that Roseanna Cunningham’s argument, like the SNP’s arguments on our amendments for greater transparency and accountability, is merely a fig leaf to cover the real reason for the Government’s regressive stance? The ideas are progressive, fair and correct but they were put forward by Labour. It is telling that one of the only Labour amendments to be accepted by the SNP was an amendment in the Government’s own words, which it remains convinced would solve the VAT issue.
We support the bill as a foundation—as a first step towards the police and fire services that Scotland deserves. However, we support the principle of the bill in the face of our grave disappointment at the SNP’s conduct throughout the bill process. We give a stark warning against the SNP’s ethos of dragging our vital local public services closer to the state. The reality is that the SNP, through its stubbornness and its failure from day 1 to listen to Opposition parties in the chamber, to stakeholders and to the Treasury, which has provided clear guidelines, has risked costing the Scottish people millions in VAT. The SNP has nobody to blame but itself, and the Scottish people will blame nobody but it.
Labour members are clear that we will hold the Government to account for the decisions that it has made in the Parliament today and that we will fight for democratic scrutiny and local accountability. We are also clear that, when the next Labour Government comes to power in the Parliament, we will work constructively with parties across the chamber to put in place democratically accountable and fully functioning police and fire services.
17:00
It is a good job that Jenny Marra was not here before last year. I do not recall much constructive working across parties in the Parliament when her party was in government with the Liberal Democrats from 1999 to 2007. Far more constructive working has taken place since 2007—that is easily seen by members. Members who have been here since 1999 know perfectly well that, when Labour was in government here, there was nothing by way of constructive engagement.
The minister refers to the interesting period since 2007. Did the minority SNP Scottish Government listen to others because it had to?
We listened to others and we are still listening to others, as is evidenced by the fact that we accepted some Opposition amendments today. I do not recall many Opposition amendments being accepted by the Labour Government before 2007, and I would be surprised if Annabel Goldie can remember any.
Despite those points and the fact that some speeches appeared to relate to another debate entirely, there is consensus behind the proposals, although members would not always know it. Stakeholders and the Parliament agree that the police service and the fire and rescue service need to be reformed, to safeguard and improve the services that they provide to Scotland’s communities.
We and the services have looked at the issue for more than two years. A wealth of evidence demonstrates that single services will deliver the most benefits. The services and stakeholders accept that and are working constructively with us to deliver the reform. John Finnie was right to remind us of the positives of that reform.
I thank the Parliament and the Justice Committee for their positive contributions to the bill. I thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for its consideration of key aspects of the bill; I also thank the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I extend my thanks to all the stakeholders who worked with us to shape the bill and who continue to contribute to the reform programme’s success. That work goes on—particularly in the services and in staff associations, trade unions, local government and other bodies.
Members would not know it from Alison McInnes’s speech but, when it has been right to do so, we have changed the bill. For example, we listened to the calls for larger boards, to ensure that they have the necessary range of skills and expertise. As for her nonsense about the destruction of community working, it is just that—nonsense. In truth, the opposite will happen—local links will be strengthened, as described by Colin Keir.
As the minister with responsibility for the fire and rescue service, I particularly thank the Chief Fire Officers Association Scotland and the FBU for their constructive approach. I have been greatly impressed by the way in which the existing services and the FBU have worked together, and continue to work together, to plan for the single service. A huge amount of work has been done to ensure that the public continue to receive a high standard of service from day one of the SFRS. The joint working between management and employees has been exemplary and it provides a strong employee relations model for the new service to build on, so the contribution has been invaluable.
We want to build on that partnership approach. That will include the opportunity at some point for a trade union representative to be a member of the SFRS board. To facilitate that, we lodged an amendment to the bill at stage 2 to allow ministers, by order, to lift the disqualification on staff members, including union representatives, being board members. Discussion of that continues to be active.
I will talk about specifics. Graeme Pearson has—with great consistency, to give him his due—suggested a parliamentary commission. The Government fully supports the need for robust parliamentary scrutiny of policing and fire and rescue, but, as Christine Grahame reminded us, Parliament and its committees already have powers to inquire into any aspect of policing or the fire and rescue service, including requiring any person to attend proceedings to give evidence or to produce documents for such an inquiry. In addition, we have built into the new structure plenty of opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise. Strategic priorities, strategic plans and annual plans will all be laid before Parliament, as will the SPA’s annual report and reports from Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary and the police investigations and review commissioner.
Graeme Pearson spoke eloquently about his proposal to establish a Scottish policing commission, but Parliament is already responsible for scrutinising policing and there is a real risk that responsibilities would be blurred if we superimposed a new structure. It was for that reason that we could not support Graeme Pearson’s amendment. However, we were happy to support John Finnie’s amendment, which sought to make clear that scrutiny of police and fire and rescue services is a key role for Parliament but did not seek to dictate how that role should be carried out. I repeat our commitment to work with the Parliamentary Bureau to establish a new committee under existing standing orders, which would be a more flexible solution that could be adapted as the new service beds in.
Lewis Macdonald and others referred to the VAT issue. We are asking not for special treatment for Scotland, but for equal treatment for our essential police and fire and rescue services, and equal respect for this Parliament’s clear wishes. The Treasury’s decision is in stark contrast to its recent decisions in relation to new police commissioners for England and Wales and academy schools in England.
For those who have criticised our approach, I reiterate the fact that we have made every effort to co-operate with the Treasury and achieve a positive outcome for Scotland’s police and fire and rescue services. The Treasury has the powers to enable Scotland’s services to recover VAT; it just does not choose to exercise them, which is not acceptable. It is a tax on Scotland.
We costed our outline business cases responsibly on the basis that VAT would be payable, not because we assumed that to be the case, but because we knew that it would be the prudent approach. Even without the ability to recover VAT, the establishment of a single police service and a single fire and rescue service is the best option for Scotland and will deliver estimated savings of £1.7 billion over 15 years.
John Lamont talked about resources and savings. We believe that the police and fire budgets provide sufficient funding for the services to fully undertake their functions. Future budgets will be agreed following future negotiations around service requirements. As I said, the single police service and the single fire and rescue service will deliver estimated savings of £1.7 billion over 15 years, with annual recurring cash savings in excess of £130 million expected from 2016-17. CFOAS is certain that savings can be made by removing duplication. ACPOS has assured us that it is committed to implementing the police reform programme within budget.
Lewis Macdonald and John Lamont also talked about the business cases. Both business cases demonstrated that single services were the most likely to deliver the necessary savings and other benefits of reform. It was on that basis that we introduced the bill. Full business cases are produced to set out in detail the effect of delivering single services, but to enable full business cases to be produced, a series of critical decisions on the design and delivery of the services is needed. It is sensible and right that those decisions should be taken by the SPA, the SFRS board and the chief officers once they have been appointed. Parliament and the services would rightly be critical if ministers sought to take such decisions on the services’ behalf. The new services need to take ownership of the new structures that we are creating and make the detailed decisions that will enable full business cases to be produced. It does not therefore make any sense for the Government to produce full business cases before those decisions have been made. Had we done so, I do not doubt that we would be accused of trying to micromanage the new services.
Reform is vital if we are to protect and improve on the services that our communities receive. The bill provides the framework for that necessary reform. I therefore ask that members support our motion and pass the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill.