Meeting of the Parliament 08 October 2014
Like other members, I welcomed last week’s announcement by the chief constable that he had jettisoned his policy of deploying armed police officers on routine duties. However, like many people, including many of my constituents, I wonder how the situation arose in the first place, why the checks and balances were not in place to ensure that such a controversial decision could be made without consultation or discussion, why the Scottish Police Authority did not intervene, and why the Cabinet Secretary for Justice stood aside and passed the buck.
Several weeks ago, a retired police officer informed me that he had observed armed police officers attending a contretemps between some street drinkers on Whitesands in Dumfries. On 2 August, Peter Lenthall, a retired Army officer from Penpont, observed an armed police officer in Dumfries supermarket, not attending an incident but buying his supper. Mr Lenthall, who has extensive experience of firearms, instantly recognised the weapon as a Glock 17. He approached the officer, expressed his concern and inquired how many rounds of ammunition it contained. The following Monday, Major Lenthall received a visit to his home by a sergeant, who told him that the change of policy had been approved by the cabinet secretary. Major Lenthall was then asked to sign a piece of paper, which he refused to do. Since then, another constituent has observed another armed police officer shopping in a different local supermarket. How was that ever considered to be acceptable?
It is not just the decision to change policing policy that has caused outrage; it is the way that it was done. I am sure that Dumfries and Galloway is not the only part of the country that is concerned about what is felt to be the imposition of the former Strathclyde Police’s policies and targets on the rest of Scotland. The relationship between the public and our police in Dumfries and Galloway has always been good.
Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary was well respected, and there was much concern about and opposition to the creation of Police Scotland. I supported a single force, but I was told—and I told other people—that local accountability would continue under it. However, local accountability in Dumfries and Galloway is simply not the same as it was. Many of us feel let down, and we almost feel as though we have let other people down. Unless the issue is addressed, there is a real danger of loss of confidence in the police, which would be extremely sad, as our local police at all levels do an extremely good job—they are absolutely exemplary.
The Labour motion asks the cabinet secretary to resign. I certainly do not do that lightly, because I am always happier playing the ball than the man. I know that those on the Government benches did not like the reference to the cabinet secretary’s decision on the release of al-Megrahi, but that was highly controversial, as everybody will remember, and it was hurtful to many of the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.
Then there is the cabinet secretary’s role, or lack of it, in the closure of police counters and control rooms, the latter again without local consultation. When Mr MacAskill came to Dumfries, he refused to meet the 30 staff who were losing their jobs at the police control room in the town.
In one of his most disgraceful speeches in this Parliament, he dismissed, insulted and trivialised the genuine concerns of Opposition politicians who were wrestling with a problem surrounding the proposal to abolish the requirement for corroboration in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and then he capitulated and did what we had been asking him to do and remitted the issues for further consideration.
The cabinet secretary has stood aside when communities and politicians have expressed concern over court closures, stop and search and the routine deployment of armed police, always excusing his inaction on the basis that those issues were operational matters for the police. I am sorry to say that the cabinet secretary does not seem to understand the difference between interfering and taking responsibility and showing leadership. If he is not able to do that, perhaps he should be considering a change of job.
15:40