Meeting of the Parliament 08 October 2014
I am afraid that four minutes is far too short to debate the 203 words in the motion that Graeme Pearson, the Labour justice spokesman, has put before us. Let us take words 7 and 8, and discuss what Mr Pearson calls “fundamental changes”. Those are operational matters that were in place long before Police Scotland was created—in police forces all across Scotland and south of the border.
The role of the Scottish Police Authority board was created to hold the chief constable to account, not to micromanage the chief constable, as Mr Pearson would like it to do. Mr Pearson and his Labour colleagues chose to ignore that and are calling operational matters policy decisions, to undermine Police Scotland. Stop and search was a policy that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats supported, yet today they use that important tool in Police Scotland’s toolbox to undermine the excellent work of police officers working to make our streets safe.
As for armed police officers in our streets, Mr Pearson has been found out. We heard it: we know now that the Labour justice spokesman wanted a standing authority for his officers to carry firearms when he was director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency.
I believe that Mr Pearson should consider his position as a member of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. I could replace him easily, Presiding Officer, and I shall explain why. The motion lodged by Labour’s justice spokesman attacks the Scottish Police Authority for failing to hold the chief constable to account. Let me remind the chamber who has the remit to scrutinise all aspects of policing in Scotland. The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing has that remit. If Mr Pearson thinks that he has failed, he should reconsider his position.
The motion from Scottish Labour tells us more about that party than it tells us about Police Scotland. The motion is about Scottish Labour members wanting to micromanage our police officers. They did it when they were in charge and they want to do it now that they are in opposition. It is not about political interference from Scottish Labour; it is much more than that. It is about Labour politicians wanting to tell our police officers how to do their job. Labour members did not have a clue then, and they do not have a clue now.
I remember a North East Scotland MSP who was Labour justice spokesman—he has left the chamber now—supporting police reform at the time. Scottish Labour believed then that the change was essential to ensure that we had policing fit for Scotland in the 21st century and to maximise investment in front-line services right across Scotland. That is what Police Scotland and the cabinet secretary have achieved.
I understand why the Scottish Conservative amendment says nothing about elected police commissioners and why Margaret Mitchell did not say anything about that in her speech. It was another of the Liberal Democrats’ great ideas for getting elected, but people just cannot trust the Liberal Democrats on policing. One would think that Labour members would know that using Police Scotland as a political football will get them nowhere—exactly where the Liberal Democrats are today.
If someone should resign, it is Graeme Pearson, a member of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing who thinks that the role of that committee is to be a political tool to attack Police Scotland at every opportunity, in the media and here in the chamber.
I will be supporting the cabinet secretary’s amendment to the motion. There has been no fundamental change in the way that police operate.