Hansard

It is with some disappointment that I feel the need to move this motion. It is my belief that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has abandoned his responsibilities in relation to police reform. He is tired and lacking in ideas, and he gracelessly refuses to listen, leaving a private power struggle between officials.

The real empathy that a human being in uniform can demonstrate towards members of the public has always been key to policing in Scotland. That humanity in the administration of law and good order remains, to this day, the foundation of policing by consent. It enables police officers to walk any street in Scotland, confident in the knowledge that they can deliver on their duties for the community. I have witnessed at first hand the impact on my community of such an approach to policing. I am in awe of the truly inspiring work that constables, sergeants and inspectors bring to my streets.

It is in that light that I speak to the motion in my name. Few subjects are more important than the need to ensure that policing throughout Scotland is delivered with full consent and in a way that takes cognisance of the public’s needs, particularly at times of crisis, rather than for the convenience of powerful senior executives, civil servants and politicians. This Government’s approach to the creation of a single police service has been inspired by the latter approach and blind to the former.

Scottish National Party members have been quick to remind me of statements that I made in my previous life as a chief officer in the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. I therefore remind the cabinet secretary that I expressed my views on precisely the principles that I have outlined, along with my commitment to a single police service for Scotland, more than seven years ago, when we first met, at Paisley police office.

I was disappointed then at the cabinet secretary’s lack of interest in the concepts, and I feel let down by him now. He seems to speak with no one and to take notice of or advice from no one. His incompetent handling of the Megrahi affair, corroboration, stop and search, and office and control room closures has been characterised by his view that everything is someone else’s responsibility.

The cabinet secretary’s absence from the debate on armed police was, in my view, the final straw. The long-running controversy around the arming of police officers is firmly his fault. He stood aside as chief constable and chair fought a silent war—pressing issues lost in a fog of egos and misinformation. A chief constable leads the service, delivering policing; the Scottish Police Authority should hold him to account for what he does, what he intends to do and how the service performs. With officers being allowed to bear Glock 17 firearms while on routine duties on our streets, none of those responsibilities was properly discharged. Mr MacAskill sat in his office, uninterested, asking, “Crisis? What crisis?” He said that the public were unconcerned—we know that that is not the case.

With office closures and the loss of 2,000 support staff jobs, the billion-pound police service in Scotland has developed in a haphazard fashion. Reviews by Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary for Scotland and the SPA, along with academic and media commentary, tell a worrying story about stop and search and the police use of firearms.

How do we deliver true governance? One reason for setting up a single service was the cabinet secretary’s view that the eight police boards were ineffectual. I agree, and I see from Vic Emery’s agenda piece in The Herald yesterday that the SPA chair seems to have got it, to some extent. He acknowledged that good governance had not been on display over the past two years.

I and others have been commenting on governance and operational independence, but only now are key officials beginning to face the issue. Statute does not recognise the concept of operational independence, but I would expect the chief constable to be unfettered in his ability to decide on crisis and emergency responses, while being sensitive to the need to obtain board approval for his policies going forward.

The cabinet secretary’s plea has been that he was avoiding political interference. That does not wash. If he had been so concerned about political interference he would not have engaged in a private briefing on arming the police outwith the knowledge of his chosen board members. I discovered only yesterday that the meeting was not even minuted.

I am left with the unfortunate impression of a politician keeping his fingerprints off, but nevertheless interfering with, policing. Whether or not it is true, that perception does not feel like open government.

At no time have I or my party criticised police officers. My criticism has always been aimed at the absence of action from the cabinet secretary to ensure that the authority has delivered on its remit or to address the failure of a costly SPA to properly demand of the chief constable full and timely briefing on policy issues.

The public have raised concerns, and so have politicians and academics. Even police staff and officers have begun to raise reservations. Therefore, to insist, as some members on the Government benches do, that it is much ado about nothing indicates a distance from reality that is worrying and reflects a preoccupation with politics and independence instead of governance and police scrutiny.

Because of that, the SPA board—I am one of the few members in the chamber today who has attended one of its meetings—has spent considerable time reviewing reports, rather than challenging the chief constable on options for the future to obtain the kind of information that true governance delivers. The board had no notion of the change in the firearms policy or its impact. The board had no notion that more than 600,000 people in Scotland were being stopped and searched. Only after those things became public knowledge did the board become aware that such impacts were being felt throughout Scotland. That is not governance, accountability and scrutiny, and it does not deliver policing by consent.

No one in this chamber has more respect for the police than I do. The officers on the streets have had a difficult and challenging time, particularly with the reforms that we have seen. I supported reform against a great deal of pressure from senior officers and others. The cabinet secretary may guffaw, but he is well aware of the support that I have given to the concept throughout the past decade.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The saying dates from Roman times, and people may feel it a sad reflection that it still has relevance today. Who watches the watchers? Let us apply that principle to our day-to-day management of what is now a powerful national organisation and one that I wish to be a success.

I hope that, in the years ahead, the service will meet the expectation that our communities will be well policed and that the weakest and poorest among us will be able to rely on it to deliver for them. I know that the service faces major challenges and I admire the executive for facing those challenges, but it does no one any good to continually suggest that all is well, that there is no crisis and that those who administer the law are the ones who are best placed to judge how to deliver it.

I expect the first question on any cabinet secretary’s mind to be about how to deliver true and effective governance of Police Scotland. The fact that that issue has not been at the forefront of the cabinet secretary’s mind in the past 18 months saddens me and is why I lodged the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that all fundamental changes in the way that Scotland is policed should be properly debated and that meaningful consultation, including with the Scottish Police Authority board members, should be carried out prior to any policy decision being taken; notes with concern the absence of any meaningful contribution from the Scottish Police Authority ahead of recent policy changes on stop and search, the allocation of routine police duties to armed officers and target setting; recognises that it is necessary for Police Scotland to police by consent and that this is in the interests of public safety and confidence in the police; believes that the responsibility for the accountability of Police Scotland lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who told the Parliament on 27 June 2012 that “the Scottish Police Authority’s ability to hold the chief constable to account for the policing of Scotland is wide ranging and allows the authority to scrutinise and challenge the chief constable on all of his or her functions and roles and on all aspects of policing”, and, in light of the cabinet secretary’s failure to provide effective governance of Police Scotland in delivering public accountability, calls on him to resign from his post.