Meeting of the Parliament 08 October 2014
It is important to stress at the outset that since Police Scotland was formed more than 18 months ago, front-line police officers have worked tremendously hard to keep us safe from crime.
At the same time, those same officers have had to adapt to seismic organisational and cultural change against a backdrop of Chief Constable Sir Stephen House taking a number of controversial policy decisions with far-reaching implications. That has resulted in the new single police force attracting the attention of politicians and the public for the wrong reasons.
The chief constable’s policy on stop and search and the deployment of armed police officers to routine incidents, coupled with the closure or reduction in hours of dozens of police station front counters earlier this year, have been the subject of extensive criticism and deep concern.
It is significant that only after the decision on police station front counters was taken was there a belated consultation. Despite opposition, the proposals were still approved. The chief constable’s unilateral approach undermined the process of meaningful consultation and accountability that is central to our democracy.
There is an important point here that the cabinet secretary does not seem to understand. Politicians’ comments about and criticism of the lack of transparency and accountability are not political point scoring, as Brian Docherty, the chairman of the SPF, ill-advisedly suggested recently. Rather, such criticism is fundamental to the role of elected members of the Scottish Parliament.
Furthermore, although the rank-and-file officers did a splendid job policing the Commonwealth games, many MSPs have received complaints about the unfavourable conditions that those same policemen and women were subjected to and about how those grievances were handled.
More worryingly still, a survey by the ASPS of senior front-line police staff found that 11 per cent of those questioned felt that they had been bullied or intimidated. The survey also indicated a prevailing culture of targets, which certainly has implications in relation to stop and search and road traffic offences.
Consequently, the Scottish Conservatives firmly believe that, following the merger to form Police Scotland, it is essential that police staff and officers have a mechanism that offers them the means to raise legitimate concerns without fearing for their job security, where those concerns can be voiced anonymously, heard and treated seriously.
For that reason, my amendment calls for the creation of a whistleblowers hotline similar to the one that is currently in use for the national health service, which is also a critical front-line service.
The motion refers to the lack of any “meaningful contribution” from the SPA on the arming of police officers. It is totally unacceptable that the SPA, as the principal body that holds Police Scotland to account, was not consulted more widely on the standing firearms authority before the policy was introduced. It is little wonder that the SPA chairman Vic Emery has expressed concern that the body’s
“scrutiny role is very much after the fact.”—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 21 August 2014; c 481.]
The situation self-evidently cannot be allowed to continue. It is unacceptable and a dereliction of duty for the cabinet secretary to seek to absolve himself of any responsibility to address such a deeply worrying state of affairs.
The deployment of armed police to routine incidents has been a particular source of concern for the public. Indeed, the lack of transparency in decision making in Police Scotland erodes trust in the single force at a time when the police need to retain and increase that trust in local communities and throughout the country. That is the policing by consent to which the motion refers.
The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party has sought to be constructive in our scrutiny of Police Scotland. That includes making positive suggestions for improvement, such as introducing a whistleblowers hotline or employing retired police officers in schools to free up other officers to return to the front line.
The call in my amendment for the cabinet secretary to “consider his position” is not made lightly. However, when the general public’s trust in Scotland’s law and order enforcers is in danger of breaking down, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.