Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, May 10, 2012

Official Report 1109KB pdf

---

Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02800, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill.

09:15

I am pleased to open the debate on the general principles of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, and thank everyone who has helped to shape this important bill so far. In particular, I thank the convener and members of the Justice Committee for their detailed scrutiny and comprehensive stage 1 report, and I welcome their support for the general principles of the bill.

I should set out the context. In 2007, we set out to build a safer and stronger Scotland, and we have made significant and sustained progress. Scotland’s fire and rescue services and the police are performing well. Crime is at a 35-year low and the clear-up rate for violent crime is at a 35-year high. That is helped by the 1,000 additional police officers whom we have delivered into Scotland’s communities. Fire deaths are almost 50 per cent lower than they were a decade ago.

The police and fire and rescue services work with community partners to improve the lives of the people of Scotland and to support and help to sustain economic growth. The men and women of those services—whether they are bobbies on the beat, front-line firefighters or staff who carry out important duties behind the scenes—should be proud of that record of achievement, but the unprecedented cuts that are being imposed by Westminster mean that we need to take early, decisive action to ensure that we protect those achievements. We need to reform to protect and improve front-line services in our communities, particularly for those who need them most.

Restructuring to create single services is the best way to achieve that aim. Single services will also create more equal access to specialist support and national capacity and will strengthen the connection between services and communities. That is part of our wider public service reform programme, which focuses on improving outcomes for the people of Scotland.

I want to comment on the consultation and engagement that have taken place. As well as the two formal consultations, we have worked closely with the services, staff associations, trade unions, local government and others to shape our proposals.

Mr MacAskill’s microphone has gone off. Can we get it back on, please?

Will you resume your seat for a moment, Mr MacAskill?

09:18 Meeting suspended.

09:18 On resuming—

Mr MacAskill’s microphone is back on. Please continue, Mr MacAskill.

We have listened to senior officers, officers and staff in both services and the people in communities who rely on those services. I welcome the positive way in which stakeholders have engaged with us on reform and their commitment to ensuring that it is successful. Many have emphasised that commitment—for which I am extremely grateful—in their evidence to the Parliament. That positivity has been echoed in the work of the four committees that have considered the bill and delivered constructive and comprehensive reports. The bill has benefited from, and will continue to benefit from, that engagement and scrutiny.

The Government will continue to listen to Parliament during its scrutiny of the bill, to those who will be responsible for running and scrutinising the new services through their involvement in the 16 pathfinder pilots that we have set up to trial the new local arrangements, and to the bill sounding boards that we have set up to facilitate wider consultation with key stakeholders. If we work together, I am confident that we will deliver a robust, effective and high-quality act that meets the needs and expectations of Scotland’s communities and fulfils our ambitions for Scotland.

The main legislation underpinning policing in Scotland is more than 40 years old. The bill will repeal that legislation and modernise it to create a service that will be fit to deal with the changing and more complex demands of the 21st century. The statutory framework governing the fire and rescue services was modernised in 2005. The bill will therefore amend that to establish a single service.

The bill sets out, as has never been done in legislation, a detailed framework for the new services and it modernises their governance to provide an enhanced focus on delivery of local services.

For the first time, the bill clearly defines the respective roles and responsibilities of the key players: Scottish ministers, the Scottish police authority, the Scottish fire and rescue service board, and the chief officers of both services. Also for the first time, the bill provides opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise policing and fire and rescue services regularly and systematically.

The national governance structures will ensure a focus on the local. Single services will strengthen the links between the services and the communities that they serve by enabling individual local councils, not regional joint boards, to take on a new role at a national level and to shape services in their local area.

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s generosity in taking an intervention. What does he mean by a new role at national level for local authorities? How will that be an improvement on the current situation?

Matters will be dealt with locally and nationally. The local divisional commander will interact with the local authority at a higher level than the local authority would have interacted previously when delegates simply went to councillors or whatever. The opportunity to be in charge of what is happening locally and to play a part in what is happening nationally will be much greater than it ever was before as we move towards a national service.

As we have said—and I will be commenting on this later—there will be a role for locally elected representatives to play at the national level on the SPA, but the greater accountability at local level will allow for greater interaction between the divisional commander and more senior officers.

I welcome the Justice Committee’s constructive and wide-ranging report. I submitted a detailed, written response to the report yesterday and I will not attempt to respond to all 48 conclusions now, but I would like to consider some of the main issues that the committee raised.

The timescale for reform is challenging, but financial realities mean that we need to take early action to protect and improve the services. We need to set up the new services as soon as possible to maintain the momentum for reform, to reap the benefits, and to provide certainty for the services, their workforce and the communities that they serve.

The leadership of the services supports a start date of 1 April 2013 and I will continue to work closely with them and others to achieve that. That is just one step on the reform journey, and we will need strong leaders in place to lead the services into the future. I therefore strongly agree with the committee’s recommendation that key appointments such as the chief constable, chief fire officer, board chairs and the police investigation and review commissioner should be made as soon as possible.

The cabinet secretary will know that, in the past, I have raised the issue of specialist back-up and support services. Obviously the appointment of the chief officers and the boards will be crucial in that respect. I am sure that he will agree that as many as possible of those services should be spread around the country and that striving to do that should be a basic principle for the boards, the new chief constable and the new chief fire officer.

We share that view; indeed, it has always been a desire of the Government. Ultimately, the matter is one for the boards, the authority and the respective chief officers, but we expect the board and authority to reflect Scotland’s communities not only in respect of gender and ethnicity but geographically and to ensure that the benefits of a single service—by which I mean specialisation, the availability of services and other such fruits—are shared across the country. In any case, we are working hard to achieve all of this and expect the chief officers and chairs of the boards to be in place in autumn 2012.

I share the committee’s concerns on VAT. The main purpose of reform is to protect front-line services in the face of budget cuts from Westminster. Although we based our costings for reform on such a worst-case scenario, it would be a travesty if some of the potential benefits of the reforms were to be lost in that way.

Will the cabinet secretary clarify whether the reform process is being driven by the need for protection from the so-called budget cuts from Westminster or by a desire to ensure that Scotland has the best possible service?

I have always made it clear that I did not come into post advocating the creation of a single service. However, the budget cuts have made it a necessity. On that basis and after discussions with those involved in the services, we have decided to make a virtue of a necessity. We have to change if we are to deal with the fundamental cuts coming from Westminster. Nevertheless, as we do so, we should take the opportunity to ensure that we provide the best possible service and that we improve and enhance what are already outstanding services. I point out to Mr McLetchie that at the Scottish Police Federation conference a few weeks ago I received a standing ovation; meanwhile, as we speak, 20,000 officers are marching in London against the United Kingdom Government and the Home Secretary.

The Scottish Government is actively exploring with Her Majesty’s Treasury the new bodies’ VAT status and I can tell Mr McLetchie that we have been gratified at the Treasury’s willingness to discuss the matter. Although discussions are still at a preliminary stage, we as a Government are grateful for the Treasury’s attitude and are working together on a solution.

I welcome the committee’s conclusions on the role, size and composition of the Scottish police authority and the Scottish fire and rescue service boards. They will play a crucial role in the new services’ success, and the committee is quite right to point out that their primary function is to govern the new services and to hold the chief officers to account, not to provide local representation. As a result, we agree with the committee that we should not prescribe in legislation the boards’ exact make-up. It is more important that each board has the right combination of members with the skills and experience to do its job effectively.

On the size of the boards, I note the committee’s concerns about their having any fewer than 11 members and the views expressed by witnesses at stage 1. We will take a final decision on the matter after this debate, but we are happy to engage with members and other groups in that respect.

Critical to the success of the reform will be how the national boards and local authorities work with each other. The bill clearly links the national and the local by providing that local authorities will be consulted on strategic priorities and strategic plans, by placing duties on the chief constable and the SFRS that are tied to local service delivery and by ensuring that local plans reflect national strategic plans where appropriate. All that will be done while retaining the flexibility for local authorities to develop their own models of engagement and to formulate local plans reflecting local priorities and circumstances. The pathfinder pilots are considering how that will work in practice and their findings will inform any guidance on the issue.

The independent investigation of the most serious criminal allegations and incidents involving the police is crucial to ensuring public confidence and to meeting our human rights obligations. It is therefore important that the police investigations and review commissioner has everything necessary to carry out their job effectively. The Justice Committee has made a number of observations and recommendations on how the commissioner will carry out their investigations, which I will consider carefully before stage 2.

The reforms that are set out in the bill are essential to safeguard the vital front-line services on which communities depend. The reforms will improve performance by retaining local services for local communities while giving all parts of Scotland equal access to national expertise and assets. The new services will enhance partnership working at local level. Further, at national level, the Scottish Parliament will have more opportunities to scrutinise the performance of services and to hold them to account.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill.

09:31

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on behalf of the Justice Committee. We were appointed as the lead committee for consideration of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, with the Local Government and Regeneration Committee as the secondary committee. I thank that committee for its report on the parts of the bill that relate to arrangements for local authorities and implementation of local police and fire and rescue services. We are grateful to the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which also reported on the bill, helping us to gain a wider understanding of the financial and technical issues. Finally, I thank all the witnesses and those who provided written submissions, some of whom found themselves in front of two or three committees within a matter of weeks.

I will begin by making clear the committee’s position on the general principles of the bill and then explain how we arrived at some of our main conclusions and recommendations. In our view, the general principles are to merge the current police and fire and rescue services into two single services, transferring the governance and oversight responsibilities from local authorities to new national boards. The key issue for the committee in considering the general principles was whether the new national structures could deliver the single services effectively throughout Scotland.

Some witnesses argued that the bill will erode the local authority role in policing and fire and rescue services, while others said that reform will not be detrimental to local policing or local fire and rescue services. The majority of committee members agreed with the latter view. We believe that reform presents an opportunity to enhance service delivery across communities in Scotland. The majority of the committee therefore supports the general principles of the bill. However, we raised a number of concerns about implementation of the reform, which I intend to discuss briefly.

We heard overwhelming evidence from police and fire bodies that the chief constable and chief fire officer should be appointed sooner than December, as originally planned. We recommended that both positions should be filled as early as possible to ensure that there is enough preparation time to be ready on day 1, which is 1 April 2013. I am delighted that the Government has listened to the views of the committee and witnesses on the issue and has agreed to start the appointments process in the summer rather than the autumn. I hope that the Government is as supportive of the other recommendations in our stage 1 report.

The committee heard evidence that there might be difficulties in achieving within the expected timescales the projected savings that are set out in the outline business cases for reform, which were used to inform the financial memorandum. We also heard that there is, understandably, concern among civilian staff, in particular about projected redundancies. We heard that 2,000 or more civilian posts could go in the police service alone. Therefore, we asked the Government to clarify the impact of those redundancies and to set out how they might affect the front line.

Another issue that arises from reform is that, unlike the current police and fire authorities and the joint boards, the new services may not be able to recover VAT. Regardless of whether that money will need to come from the police and fire and rescue budgets or elsewhere, we are concerned that the loss of the VAT exemption will result in an annual recurrent loss of millions of pounds from the Scottish budget. Therefore, we have urged the Government to pursue with the Treasury all available options to ensure that, like the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the new services qualify for a VAT exemption.

Leaving aside implementation issues, I turn to another theme that arose from the evidence. More robust accountability mechanisms are needed for the police service than are proposed in the bill, particularly as the police authorities and joint boards, which historically have provided the main democratic oversight of the police service, are to be abolished.

Some witnesses argued that there could be more accountability to the Parliament and that it could undertake more scrutiny, and the committee agreed that there is a strong case to be made for securing in the bill parliamentary oversight of the police. We noted that there were different ways of achieving that. For example, the role could be carried out by the Justice Committee itself, by an ad hoc committee or by a new parliamentary body along similar lines to the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. We have called for those and other options to be explored further by the Government. In any event, we think that we need to find a new way of ensuring that the principle of the police carrying out their duties with the consent of the public is, and is seen by the people of Scotland to be, upheld under the new arrangements.

The boards of the Scottish police authority and the Scottish fire and rescue service provoked much discussion among witnesses, and we received a variety of views—in particular, on their optimum size. Some witnesses argued that the boards should focus on scrutiny and have a larger membership, with councillors being their foundation. Others took the view that the boards should be governing bodies and that the skills and expertise of the members was more important than the boards’ size. The committee agreed with the latter view that the main function of the boards is to govern the new services and to hold the chief constable and the chief fire officer to account. We were reluctant to stipulate the size of the boards, but we leaned towards the view that a board of fewer than 11 members would not provide the breadth of knowledge and expertise that is required. We also agreed with witnesses that the boards must be as transparent as possible, to demonstrate accountability and to gain public trust.

There are a few other issues that I would like to touch on, the first of which is local budgets. With reform, it is intended that funding for the new services will be provided entirely by the Scottish Government. Some stakeholders suggested that budgets should be devolved to local authorities and local commanders, so that there is some form of accountability to the local authority for policing in an area. We believe that, in the interests of transparency, it would be helpful for local authorities to be given a snapshot of resource allocation in their area as of 1 April 2013, so that they can measure any future changes, such as the transfer of funds, assets and human resources. In addition, we have asked for clarification of whether, in practice, local authorities will have any influence over police resources.

Finally, the committee has urged the Government to put in place arrangements to ensure that the police investigations and review commissioner and his team are appointed as early as possible, so that the public can have confidence in how investigations of complaints against the police are conducted from day 1.

I reiterate that the majority of the committee supports the general principles of the bill, and I ask the cabinet secretary to consider fully our constructive suggestions on how it might be improved. I look forward to hearing other members’ contributions to the debate.

09:39

Labour’s approach to the general principles of the bill starts from our manifesto commitments last year. We said that we wanted to see

“a single police force for Scotland, with delegated authority and local accountability mechanisms,”

and

“a single fire and rescue service”.

We said that we believed that single services could improve performance, increase efficiencies and

“free up resources for the front line”.

We also said that there should be

“no cuts to police on the beat,”

that police jobs and police numbers should be protected, and that

“police officers should not be taken off the front line to cover the duties that should be carried out by police staff."

The committees that considered the bill raised a range of concerns—as we heard so eloquently from Jenny Marra—about what extra resources have been secured for front-line services under the bill, whether there are adequate mechanisms for local and national accountability, and what the impact of civilian staff redundancies will be. We share many of those concerns.

One aspect of this is the Government’s failure to find a way of maintaining the eligibility of services to recover value added tax, which is estimated to cost £22 million a year for the police service alone. The cabinet secretary said that he is still exploring how that can be addressed with ministers in the UK Government, but the views of Treasury ministers have already been made clear. They have been categorical not only in stating that a national police force is ineligible for recovery of VAT but in making clear that the Scottish ministers have known that from the outset, because the relevant statute provides for recovery only for services that are funded by local rather than central Government.

There may be a way for local authorities to have the ability to contribute, thereby showing that these are local services. Does the Labour Party have any suggestions to assist with that?

I am pleased that the convener of the Justice Committee has made that point. I asked the cabinet secretary on 27 March whether he had considered whether there was any way of keeping single services within the local government family in order to limit their tax liability, as suggested by stakeholders such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Unison. Indeed, Christine Grahame will know that point (b) in paragraph 32 of the Justice Committee’s report asks precisely the same question. Unfortunately, Kenny MacAskill’s reply to me on 27 March was that,

“Although we have given consideration to the suggestion that you mention, it still lacks clarity.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 27 March 2012; c 1229.]

The responsibility for fleshing out the suggestion clearly lies with the Scottish Government, as it introduced the bill. If the Government did not do so in advance of stage 1, I hope that it will do so in advance of stage 2. I struggled to find a response to paragraph 32(b) in the Scottish Government’s response to the Justice Committee’s report.

It seems that the trigger for exemption from VAT is local delivery, yet the UK security services are exempt. Is the member aware of that?

The precise statute under which VAT recovery is available to police and fire services relates not just to local delivery but to local funding. As the Justice Committee convener suggested, that is the nub of the question, and ministers have yet to answer that question.

Christine Grahame rose—

I am delighted to take a further intervention from Ms Grahame.

Even if I were to accept the argument that there is not a solution as we have suggested, could the member say what the Labour Party’s solutions would be if it was in government? Has it investigated and explored other ways of ensuring that the VAT exemption remains?

Mr Macdonald, I will give you extra time because of all the interventions that you are taking.

I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for that constructive and enlightened approach on this occasion.

I am of course willing to bat the question back to Ms Grahame’s party and Government, because this is not something that ministers have had to think about only since they were re-elected in May 2011. As Mr MacAskill pointed out to me in committee when I asked a question on this matter, the Scottish Police Services Authority has been paying VAT since the Scottish National Party was first elected in May 2007. If Mr MacAskill and his colleagues have not found a way to persuade Treasury ministers to take a different approach to VAT on the SPSA over the past five years, it stretches credulity to think that they can intervene with Treasury ministers and persuade them to change their minds at this late stage. Clearly, there is a fundamental flaw in the way in which the Scottish Government has introduced the bill.

The Government argued in the outline business cases and the policy memorandum that single services offer greater savings than regional services. That is one of the main reasons—not the only one—for providing a single service in place of a number of regional services. However, the savings of around £20 million each year are cancelled out by the VAT liability. In judging what is the best model, ministers appear to have said that, on the one hand, they will go for the single service because it saves £20 million but, on the other, they will proceed with a bill without having solved the VAT issue even though it will cost £20 million. That is why witness after witness questioned how significant savings could be made, not just to pay the VAT, but to achieve the other economies that the cabinet secretary has promised, and which he said today have driven the Government’s approach to the bill, while maintaining police numbers as he has also pledged to do.

The savings must come from somewhere. The fear is that cuts to civilian staff posts will put the delivery of front-line services at risk. As we have heard from Jenny Marra, more than 900 posts have already gone and some 2,000 more posts are under threat. Dave Watson of Unison told the Justice Committee that one result of that will be that police officers will be paid

“at great cost, to do jobs that they are not qualified to do.” —[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 1015.]

In its response to the Justice Committee yesterday, the Scottish Government replied to those concerns by implying that the only civilian posts under threat are administrative support posts in areas such as human resources and finance, where jobs will no longer be needed once the eight services are merged into one service. However, that is not what witnesses told the committee, and it is certainly not what trade unions representing police staff told me. Indeed, Mr MacAskill defended the approach taken in Lothian and Borders to replace police custody support staff with police officers at significantly higher rates of pay on the basis that a police officer could do something else when there was nobody to guard in the cells of the police station. That logic points in the direction warned of by Unison: reversing the civilianisation of roles that do not require a police officer, and taking the police service back to the 1970s and a less effective, less efficient and less professional era.

Is the member saying that the decision that was taken by the chief constable, and supported by the police board in Lothian and Borders, was wrong? I understand that the police custody support officer’s pay rate was higher than that for the police constable, and the police constable offered flexibility.

My concern is not with that specific decision—I highlighted the issue because the cabinet secretary chose to highlight it—but with the logic of the decision. If the view is taken that jobs that are carried out by civilian staff could just as well be done by police officers in their spare time, the risk is run that police officers cease to police. That is the fundamental risk that Unison and others have rightly highlighted. The consequence of such an approach is that, although the number of police officers stays the same, more and more are employed doing jobs that do not require the powers of a constable.

Maintaining levels of policing in our communities is not only about maintaining the headline number of officers; it is about whether officers are employed in policing. A constable who is employed in custody support in place of a civilian worker—whatever the relative rates of pay—is clearly not doing that policing job.

Such changes are not cost or risk free. For example, John Duffy of the Fire Brigades Union argued that redundancy costs in the fire and rescue service could be as much as twice the amount that is indicated in the outline business case. Part of the reason for the Government's failure to bring forward a full business case no doubt relates to the timescale that it has imposed on the process, which was a source of concern for many witnesses who gave oral or written evidence. In other words, the problems that are identified in the outline business case have not been solved, and the cabinet secretary said yesterday that the problems will not be addressed until the new services are in place.

I am glad that the cabinet secretary has accepted the wisdom of the committee’s findings on the early appointment of chief officers, but it would not be too hard to find examples of ministerial replies where autumn does not end until nearly Christmas, and summer appears to go on all year. It would therefore be useful if the minister could, when winding up, indicate not just the season but the calendar month in which the appointments are expected to take effect.

The Government’s concession appears to indicate that the initial timetable was inadequate The question remains—I speak from experience, as I am sure the minister appreciates—whether simply appointing the chief officers earlier will go far enough to ensure a smooth and efficient transition from eight police and fire services to one police and one fire service. Major changes of that kind require time to work through. For example the transition in local government in the mid-1990s involved shadow councils and a transitional year, but that has not been ministers’ approach in this case.

Ministers accept that the transformation in structures and culture in these services cannot all be accomplished before 1 April 2013. They now accept the need for chief officers to be in place early. I invite them to consider carefully whether, even at this stage in proceedings, a more phased approach, following the appointment of the chief officers, might produce a more effective delivery of the targets that ministers have set.

The bill endorses the general principle of local accountability but, like the committees, we are not sure that ministers have yet got that right. It is disappointing that they have rejected the suggestion of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee on the development of strategies for public engagement in local services, and it is even more disappointing that the Government has rejected the Justice Committee’s suggestion that local councils should be given a statutory right to specific information about the level of resources provided in each council area at the point of amalgamation of services. Given the concerns that are felt in many communities about the effects of centralising services, that seems a modest proposal, which the Government’s commitment to transparency in this process should have allowed it to welcome. It is a matter to which we are bound to return at stage 2.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform vital public services. In supporting the general principles of the bill at stage 1, we believe that ministers have more to do if they are to secure the prize of greater efficiency and better services. They should recognise the vital role that is played by civilian staff, stop the drift of police officers into civilian roles and address the issues of local accountability and democratic deficit in control of these services. I look forward to hearing ministers respond to some of those points this morning and to having the opportunity to improve the bill at stage 2.

In line with my always constructive and enlightened approach, you have about seven minutes, Mr McLetchie.

09:51

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. As I suspect will be the norm in speeches this morning, I will focus my comments on the establishment of a single police service for Scotland. The proposal for a single fire and rescue service, although equally important, is, in my judgment, a sensible efficiency measure and does not raise the same questions or issues of principle as the proposals for police reform do.

The Scottish Conservatives support the restructuring of police services in Scotland. Indeed, the creation of a single police force was a feature of our 2011 election manifesto. It is clear that in the current economic climate, savings have to be made throughout the public sector. A single force has the potential to create a more efficient police service for Scotland, and it is clear that the status quo of eight separate services is not an option, particularly if the current levels of front-line policing are to be maintained.

Our priority is to provide an effective, visible and local police service that is accountable to local people and communities throughout Scotland. Although I have expressed support for the general principles of the bill, we have a number of concerns on local accountability and the delivery of savings via the creation of a single police force, which I would like to outline this morning.

Any restructuring must ensure that police services are accountable to local people and that communities have a direct relationship with the police services that are serving them. The Justice Committee heard concerns from a number of witnesses that the bill does not strike the right balance between the determination of priorities at national level and local, community-based policing. The Government has invested a great deal of faith in its pathfinder projects—let us hope that that confidence is justified.

I have considerable concerns about the future employment of additional police officers who are currently funded by local authorities. According to Pat Watters of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, there are 600 to 800 such officers, and they are a key component of the 1,000 additional officers, who represent a pledge that we have sustained. Councillor Watters questioned whether councils would continue to fund those posts on the assumption that the additional funding would likely be transferred with the posts out of local government and into the new single service budget.

In its response to the stage 1 report, the Scottish Government asserts that local authorities will still be able to fund those additional officers and that the funding for them will not be transferred to the Scottish Government. It may be that our councils will be able to continue that funding. However, the fact remains that the Scottish Government will be unable to guarantee the continuation of funding for those officers, even though the new police service for Scotland will be their employer. As a result, the employment of between 600 and 800 front-line police officers will be put at risk. That is not good enough and we need to find a way to localise certain aspects of the police budget to allow that and other initiatives to proceed.

On a related matter, as Lewis Macdonald pointed out in his speech, the stage 1 report urges the Scottish Government to provide local authorities with a snapshot of resource allocation to authorities as of April 2013, so that they can measure any future changes such as transfers of funds, assets and human resources. I disagree with the Government’s response to that recommendation. Although it is true that councils will be able to request some of that information from local commanders, it is simply not good enough to rely on that. In the interests of transparency and accountability, local authorities should be provided with that information before funding for the new service is centralised.

The financial memorandum, which sets out the potential savings that would come from a single police force, has been based on an outline business case that was produced by the Scottish Government in July 2011, before it had decided which reform option to pursue. The memorandum states:

“It does not provide a plan or blueprint for the future delivery of the services and it is not intended to be used to set future budgets.”

Chief Constable Smith of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland told the committee that the financial memorandum 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.]

On 22 February 2012, the bill team told the Finance Committee that work for the full business case was being developed, but a full business case has still not been produced. Accordingly, the Scottish Government has not been able to provide ahead of today’s debate a full breakdown of the projected savings from having a single force. Despite the indications from the bill team, the Scottish Government’s latest response now asserts that a full business case is a matter for the police and fire services themselves and will be completed at the earliest opportunity available to the services. In my judgment, that is too little, too late. Full figures are fundamental to the argument for creating a single police and fire service, and it is important that Parliament is given the necessary information before debating the bill.

Accordingly, the Scottish Government’s assertion that a single force could achieve £130 million of savings within a year, with a total saving of £1.7 billion over 15 years, is highly questionable. The Government is rightly committed to maintaining the 1,000 extra police officers we helped to secure during the previous parliamentary session but, as police staff wages represent approximately 80 per cent of the total police budget, the protection of police officer numbers will ring fence a large proportion of total police spending to make financial savings. If those numbers are to be maintained, the question is how many police staff posts will need to be lost in order to achieve the level of savings that the Scottish Government is claiming will be made.

The Scottish Government has already set savings of £88 million by 2014, of which more than £50 million must be made by reducing police staff costs, which will amount to more than 2,000 full-time posts. That is not an insignificant number, especially given the fact that, last year, the total number of police support staff was around 7,000. At a time when police staff levels have already been reduced by 1,000 posts in the past two years, it will clearly be a challenge to achieve a further reduction in staff numbers via voluntary redundancy alone. It is worth noting that Chief Constable Smith told the Justice Committee that his

“personal and professional view is that the savings that have been set out in the bill will not be achieved”. —[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 972.]

The stage 1 report raises concerns about the timetable for the appointment of a chief constable and the preparedness of local authorities for change. It is worth considering whether some delay would be appropriate in that connection. That would not only address the committee’s concerns about the appointment of the senior officers but, of course, allow time for the production of a full business case.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill in so far as it seeks to reform our public services in a manner that protects front-line services. As it progresses, we will continue to press for a police service that is accountable to local people and delivers real savings to the public purse.

We move to the open debate. The time limit for speeches is six minutes, but we have a bit of time in hand and, if any member wishes to take an intervention, I will do my best to compensate them for that.

10:00

As the cabinet secretary has made clear, this reform process has been driven largely by Westminster cuts. Nevertheless, it is important that we constantly review our public services. Indeed, the Christie commission has played a vital role in that respect and the current approach to shared services will certainly be applied to the new services. As far as the Scottish police service is concerned, the status quo is not sustainable if we are to maintain front-line numbers.

There has been wide consultation on the proposals and I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the debate in either written or oral form. I certainly think that, as a result of the bill, we will end up with something that is more democratic and accountable and allows more scrutiny.

I am well aware of the concerns that have been expressed about support staff numbers. However, what have not changed are the statutory requirement for an efficient police service and the monitoring role of Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary. Mr McLetchie quoted Chief Constable Smith in his speech, but Chief Constable Smith also made it clear that there was no movement of police officers into back-room positions.

Although I understand people’s concerns about the creation of a single service and the potential for political interference, I must reaffirm the cabinet secretary’s point that the bill clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of Scottish ministers, the police authority, the chief constable, the local council and the local fire officer and police commander in each local authority area. It also makes it clear that only the chief constable can direct police officers and only the Lord Advocate or the procurator fiscal can direct the chief constable in the investigation of crimes. Neither provision is a change to the present situation.

We also have an opportunity to strengthen links with communities. In the Highlands and Islands, Orkney sends two delegates to Inverness once every six weeks. Under a regional model, it would send only one delegate perhaps to Aberdeen once every six weeks; however, under the proposed model, the entire council will have hands-on involvement with the local commander with regard to police and fire services.

How will the council exchange views with the new police force? At the moment, representatives go before a board. If, as the member suggests, the whole council will be involved, what shape will that involvement take?

Of course, the pathfinder pilots are still on-going—indeed, there is one in my area—but the fact is that the policing plan will play a key role. I imagine that there will be widespread consultation on that from community council and community beat-officer level up, with the aim of delivering a plan that is appropriate to each area. Moreover, the local authorities must be involved in setting priorities that are appropriate to them.

I think that the snapshot that a number of members have mentioned is terribly important. We already have a commitment to maintain 17,234 officers, and we need a similar commitment to a baseline for front-line fire and rescue officers that will allow scrutiny to be carried out. I think that it is remiss of the committee’s report not to pick up on the fact that security in that respect partly comes down to something that is formally called regulation 19, which many police officers will be very familiar with. In my opinion, the bill alters that regulation unnecessarily, and I hope that that issue will be addressed.

The committee spent a lot of time discussing resources and resource allocation models. I should point out that, in each of the forces, tensions already exist between the localities and the centre, and we need to understand how they will be dealt with in the allocation of resources. Assistant Chief Constable Finlay of the Police Service of Northern Ireland told us in evidence that, under its current tactical tasking model, it is the merit of the individual bid for additional resources, not the rank of the person who makes it or the locality from which it comes, that is important. We also heard about the sharing of specialist services, which is important, particularly in a large landward area such as the one that I represent.

The appointment of the chief constable and chairs is important. We know that the boards’ primary function will be to oversee the new services and hold the chief officers to account. The composition of the boards will therefore be important. There should not be a bidding war, as happened at one time, to see whose area can be represented. We need people with the appropriate skills to do that work in very public bodies.

We have heard about early appointments in autumn 2012. That is quite right. That is the response, but that is subject to the progress that is made and a role for the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland, which is important.

Scrutiny has been touched on. Jenny Marra accurately reported what the report says. A sub-committee of the Justice Committee to fulfil that role is another option that we could actively consider, and I think that it will feature at some point.

It is important that leadership is shown. I pay credit to the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Fire Brigades Union, which have grasped what many would consider to be a very difficult issue and moved it forward.

I could say many things, but I would like to touch on the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the advice that we received from Assistant Chief Constable Finlay and Sir Hugh Orde. The report mentions the human rights aspect. We have commended the model that applies in the PSNI. I would like to see human rights references included in the oath that Scottish police officers take, the training and, indeed, the entire ethos of the new service.

Can you remind me whether I have six or seven minutes, please, Presiding Officer?

You have six minutes, so you need to start winding up.

I will conclude at that. Thank you very much.

10:06

As a member of the Justice Committee, I am pleased to associate myself with the comments and recommendations in the report.

We gathered an abundance of evidence that identified various areas in which positive decisions and sensible resolution are needed. Many of the recommendations have already been commented on and, given the time that is available, I will not be able to analyse in depth all that has been said. Suffice to say, the bill must not only deliver the cost cutting that the SNP Government seeks; more important, it must deliver at a community level by improving police and fire services for the people and communities of Scotland. The Government has a duty to provide a credible strategic vision to deliver the difference.

Lewis Macdonald maintained that we are talking about a once-in-a-generation change. In my view, the bill proposes the most fundamental changes to the police and fire services in more than 200 years. The end of the current tripartite arrangements prepares the ground for a slimmed-down hierarchy but creates new accountability, governance and scrutiny challenges. A national police service demands significant and effective democratic oversight.

Various witnesses, including Robert Black, in particular, identified the need for proper governance. The Auditor General spoke powerfully in connection with what he described as a “democratic deficit” in the bill’s arrangements, particularly in regard to policing—a vacuum in the way in which democratic accountability is delivered in the bill. Should any cabinet secretary exercise powers to appoint, to pay, to obtain reports from a chief constable, convener and board, to sack a chief constable and to provide the police and fire services with their budgets, all through a civil service that is outwith the immediate oversight of a democratically elected group? The police exercise powers to arrest, to use force, to detain, to report for consideration of prosecution and to aid the conviction of a citizen. Would it not be proper for those functions to attract the highest level of democratic accountability? In Scotland, that should mean a proactive role for the Parliament.

Policing requires the consent of the public, and that consent is built on the knowledge that elected representatives at the national level effectively oversee the professionals concerned in the management and oversight of the police and fire services.

The Scottish police authority is not designed to offer democratic accountability and nor is it likely to do so, although it should be capable of effective governance of policing, as should its sister board in relation to fire and rescue. The Government suggests that the Justice Committee could deal with accountability issues. Alternative views have been expressed on that today. In my view, the Justice Committee has neither the available time nor the current focus to call to account the police, fire and associated bodies in the bill on an on-going basis, particularly in the initial years, as will be necessary to deliver properly for our communities. Equally, an ad hoc committee of the Parliament would be an insufficient response to deliver on these most important areas of public policy in action.

The way forward is to set up a commission of the Parliament, similar to the arrangements for the Auditor General, that is designed to operate in a non-partisan fashion and is tasked with proactively seeking appropriate evidence from witnesses on the arrangements that affect those who are responsible for the range of services that are covered in the bill.

I seek confirmation from the cabinet secretary that local police and fire and rescue boards will be made fully aware of the full range of resources that are currently provided in local authority areas and that support staff will receive the same support and job security that are currently extended to police officers. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will know about the growing concern in many areas that, without proper monitoring of the resources and services that are now provided, those areas will lose out. Will he therefore ensure that a comprehensive assessment is carried out for each board area to allay those fears?

Little has been said about the support from forensic services or about those who will provide information technology support for the new single police force. It is imperative that the cabinet secretary reaffirms the absolute need for independence in respect of the preparation and delivery of forensic services, as requested, for police and fire services. Concerns were recently raised in the High Court about the process of forensic reporting, which is worrying. The cabinet secretary’s planned arrangements for the future should take account of those concerns and ensure that there is no repetition of those worries. The arrangements for the SPSA integration provide little evidence on the IT solutions to unify the different reporting and recording systems in the eight separate police services and fire brigades. We need more detail and greater urgency on that.

It has been reported in the press that a salary in the region of £200,000 will be allocated to the heads of service. Does the cabinet secretary believe that those heads need such a salary, particularly in the current severe financial times? I do not think that they do and I do not think that the public believe so, either.

10:13

It is a privilege to take part in a debate that I believe will be regarded as the beginning of the greatest change to Scotland’s emergency services in generations, as Graeme Pearson suggested in his excellent and thought-provoking speech. The financial benefits of the reforms are obvious, but I am certain that the structure will also allow us to maintain world-class services of which Scots can be proud and which other nations will continue to envy. We must also recognise the fantastic scope to create modern and dynamic services that are more suited to the constantly changing demands that are placed on them in the modern age. Stephen House, the chief constable of Strathclyde Police shares that view. He has stated:

“I believe that we should have one, single national police force for Scotland ... not because”

it is

“the cheapest option—but because it is the right option.”

Scotland’s police force has witnessed dramatic change in the past and has continued to evolve and improve. In 1973, just before the last restructuring, Scotland had 20 chief constables and 11,000 officers. Today, we have eight chief constables and more than 17,000 officers. I believe that the reforms are another example of a progressive shift away from a top-heavy structure to a focus on the front-line provision of community safety and law enforcement.

Of course, the fact that we are restructuring our police service is not an admission that something is drastically wrong and that a radical shift is required. In fact, the opposite is true. In the past 10 years, Scotland’s fire and rescue services have performed remarkably well, with deaths from fire reducing by almost 50 per cent. The success of the police force has been similarly impressive. As the cabinet secretary indicated, crime is at a 35-year low, detection rates have improved and there are record levels of public satisfaction with the service that is provided. Very often, that is down to the commitment and excellence of individual police officers, on which we should congratulate them.

Following last year’s riots in England, Professor Stephen Reicher from the University of St Andrews and Dr Clifford Stott from the University of Liverpool concluded in their paper, “Mad Mobs and Englishmen? Myths and Realities of the 2011 Riots”, that the riots were caused largely by insensitive policing. They made it clear that there were no riots in Scotland because different policing attitudes prevail, with officers in Scotland being much more engaged and willing to talk to the public than those south of the border. Anecdotal evidence from Scottish police officers who were drafted into England to help subdue the riots confirmed that that was accurate; a number of such anecdotes were discussed at last night’s police and fire reception, which I and a number of colleagues attended. It was pointed out that many rioters and young people in London and Manchester were shocked when Scottish officers struck up a friendly conversation with them. That approach is extremely important.

In view of that, it is essential that we maintain the effective approach of policing by consent that Jenny Marra mentioned, and that we retain the current number of front-line officers, so that such policing can be delivered. However, it has become apparent that, to achieve that, we—in line with every other western European country—must reform the police to gain maximum efficiency and to protect services. In essence, if we want things to stay the same, things will have to change.

The Finance Committee took evidence from a variety of key stakeholders, including the Fire Brigades Union, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation, COSLA and a number of regional police and fire and rescue services. Following those evidence sessions, the economic case for reform of the police and fire services was compelling.

The outline business cases for police and fire reform show that, together, the single services will deliver estimated efficiency savings of £1.7 billion over 15 years. I understand that Mr McLetchie has concerns about that figure, but the bill team gave robust responses to questions on the issue from members of the Finance Committee. As we have heard, it is anticipated that, from 2016-17, annual recurring cash savings of £130 million will be made across police and fire and rescue services. The majority of those savings will undoubtedly come from a reduction in duplication, improved procurement and the sharing of resources.

For the police service alone, it currently costs £30 million to run the chief officers association, the eight police boards, the eight command teams of chief officers and the eight different corporate development systems, while £5 million is spent on the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, £10 million on different information and communications technology systems and £1.7 million on procurement, because of the difference in specifications between forces. There is no doubt that, with a single service, significant efficiencies can be made in those areas, which could be reinvested in front-line services.

However, as I have made clear, the reforms will also help to create more dynamic police and fire services that are responsive to different challenges. Following reform, police and fire resources will be deployed more flexibly—some of that flexibility has already been introduced—and shared across the country, which will improve access to specialist services and assets, including firearms units, riot teams and specialised vehicles and equipment. That will help officers to tackle threats and to address needs that cross regional boundaries, and it will be particularly important when it comes to addressing the menace of organised crime and terrorism.

It is important to address fears that the new arrangements will disenfranchise local communities and will lead to a reduction in the quality of localised community policing, which I spoke so warmly of earlier. The bill strives to protect and, in fact, enhance the accountability of the police and fire services to local communities, and individual community requirements will continue to be prioritised.

The bill will ensure the creation of new independent bodies to hold the chief constable and the chief fire officer to account, while local area commanders will be given power and significant autonomy to make plans for their own areas; it will not be the case that such direction comes from the centre. In addition, the bill makes it clear that, under a single fire service, more responsibility will be devolved to front-line managers, who will work with locally elected officials and community planning partnerships to deliver locally focused and accountable services.

Through their councillors, local communities will have a far greater say in how policing is delivered. In my local authority area, two councillors out of 30 are on a joint police board of 34. It is estimated that, under the reforms, that will change to 12 councillors, who will have a direct and formal say in policing in the area.

I am proud that the SNP Government is taking this bold step to reform our police and fire services, and I am pleased that the two main Opposition parties are supportive of the direction that we are going in. It is important that we continue to provide high-quality services. In the face of unprecedented cuts from Westminster—cuts that David McLetchie tried to deny earlier—this approach to our emergency services is far more progressive than the policies of the coalition Government, which will slash police numbers by 16,000. Had this Parliament not been established, no doubt we would suffer the same cuts.

Once again, the SNP Government is leading the way and demonstrating an ambitious and positive way forward.

10:20

I am sorry that Jenny Marra is not here because I was going to commend her for deputising for me. I had not anticipated that I would be here today, due to circumstances—as they say—beyond my control. It is the first time that Jenny Marra has deputised for me and I hope that it is the last as I guard my convenership like a mother hen guards her chicks. If anyone dares to cluck at the next committee meeting, they will not get a supplementary. They have been warned.

That said, I turn to the bill. I want to touch on issues raised by the committee and questions that people would ask, such as about why we are reforming. Is it just to save money? That is no bad thing in itself. Does a single service mean that local needs and requirements will be sidelined? Will the central belt—the great conurbations of Glasgow and Edinburgh—dominate? Will the Highlands and Islands, with very able advocates such as Dave Thompson opposite, get more than the Borders gets? Will the appointment of a single chief constable for Scotland risk politicising the police? Who will hold him to account? Those issues were raised by my colleague Graeme Pearson. Will people, in particular civilian staff, lose their jobs? Will there be cost savings? At the end of the day, will we have better policing? The day after the establishment of a single service, will my constituents see any difference in day-to-day policing? Those are reasonable questions.

On the issue of why we are reforming, I accept that reform has, to a degree, been driven by the cuts from Westminster. They are not so-called cuts; they are real. However, as the cabinet secretary said, we have made a virtue out of a necessity. Having eight constabularies has been a historical accident. Some, such as Strathclyde, are huge. In Lothian and Borders—my patch—we have had the chief constable for Lothian and divisional commanders in parts of my constituency in the Borders and Midlothian, and it works swimmingly. We do not notice any joining of the seams. With a population of 5 million, it is not ridiculous—in fact it is quite practical—to suggest that we have a single police force and a single fire and rescue service.

However, reasonable concerns were raised about how local issues will be addressed, and the committee raised them in its report. We must consider those issues, even if just to allay unnecessary anxieties. We did not want to put something formally into the bill about disputes—it would be like a red rag to a bull, as it would encourage dispute—but we need to ensure, certainly in the early stages of a police force, that local communities feel that they still have a say in what is happening in their area. David McLetchie raised an important point about the additional police that local authorities have been provided with. I note what the cabinet secretary had to say and I accept it.

I move on to the politicisation of the police. The committee raised issues about the Scottish police authority. It was clear from the evidence of some witnesses—I shall not name them because it would be embarrassing for them—that if we had local authority representation, there would just be a scrap about resources and so on. The view that was generally accepted was that the authority would hold the chief constable to account and have a strategic overview. I am beginning to speak like a convener—I must get out of that habit.

I am concerned about civilian staff. The Government has said that there will be no compulsory redundancies. I hope that there are opportunities to retrain civilian staff if voluntary redundancy is not available to all or if they do not want to take it.

Less has been said about fire and rescue. So much has changed in the delivery of fire services—I am thinking of my grandfather, long dead of course, who, way back at the beginning of the last century, drove a fire cart with horses. What they dealt with then was fires. That is why they were called the fire brigade. They put out house fires and factory fires. What fire and rescue services do now is far more diverse; in fact, fires are probably the least of the things that they deal with. I recently went into one of the big fire trucks and it had computers, inflatable canoes, gadgets for climbing and descending mountains and all sorts of other material. Regrettably there were cutters, which are needed for one of the biggest issues in rural areas: vehicle accidents. It is a whole different world. The committee’s report says that, although we do not want to see it in the bill, we want some codifying and examples to show how the service has changed. Also, because of recent tragic events, we would like to see not demarcation lines but some firm guidance to the fire and rescue service on what it can and cannot do and what it is expected to do.

I want to touch briefly on human rights, because I am very cross about something in the press today, saying that the Justice Committee never deals with human rights. The remarks were made using the example of four oral evidence sessions that took place in November. I do not know how the rest of the committee members feel but I am hopping mad—I had to be contained. The press release that has been released is very calm compared with what I said because I had a bit of therapy before releasing it. The Justice Committee’s report deals with human rights at paragraphs 336 to 340. The convener of the cross-party group on human rights ensures that the committee deals with the issue. So—this time, on behalf of the committee—I say that we do treat the issue of human rights seriously.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will finish my point. If the authors think that that is academic research, then I can tell them that it is gey poor and that they should consider looking at the rest of the work that the committee does.

I apologise to Ms Marra but I must conclude on that point.

On the point about parliamentary scrutiny, I say to Mr Pearson that my mind remains open to a commission but he will need to flesh the idea out; we need much more detail and I do not know whether we have the time to do it because we would have to take a serious amount of evidence.

You can take Ms Marra’s intervention if you want.

Does the convener agree that it is a sign of the most robust committee, Parliament and Government that they are open to having scrutiny of something as fundamental as human rights reviewed?

I do not mind that at all, and I welcome it, but—my goodness!—to look at four oral evidence sessions and to quote what the cabinet secretary said as if the committee said it is not academic research. I would be happy to meet the people who said those things, but my hands would have to be tied together.

Thank you very much, Ms Grahame—ebullient as ever.

10:27

Before I make my speech, it would be remiss of me if I did not mention those who are on strike this morning in the Public and Commercial Services Union. I wish them all the best for their campaign and for today as they picket Parliament in the rain.

The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, which will constitute the greatest upheaval to police and fire services in Scotland for more than 40 years, presents us with a delicate balancing act. On the one hand we have the requirement to save money, reduce duplication and increase efficiency. On the other hand, our ultimate responsibility as legislators is to ensure that any public sector reform has the interests of the people at its heart. To sacrifice the latter for the former would be to fall victim to the same misconception that drives policy south of the border. Quality must always come before cost.

Several aspects of the bill are of concern to me. The first is the predicted timescale for the bill. Any fundamental reform to public services should not be entered into lightly regardless of the benefits that might accrue. I am concerned that police chiefs giving evidence to the Justice Committee have already expressed doubt about their ability to implement the changes effectively in the current timeframe. To amalgamate eight police services and eight fire services in less than a year is an enormous undertaking. Throw in the suite of savings, efficiencies and enhancements that the bill purports to make, and the problems begin to look insurmountable.

A major proportion of the projected cost savings in the police are to be made through staff reductions. To achieve that, the new force must shed 1,100 staff by 2013-14. Assuming that the bill is agreed to before the summer recess, with the new force scheduled to begin operating in April 2013, there is a very narrow timeframe within which to make the necessary redundancies. To compound that, we have yet to establish whether the target of more than 1,100 is even attainable. The limit on compulsory redundancies means that we will have to rely on voluntary redundancies and, in the current financial climate, it is doubtful that a sufficient number of people will wish to leave the police force.

Even if that were to be achieved, due process will require a prolonged period of negotiation in order to draw up fair, legal and transparent terms of severance. As a result, it seems unwise to adhere to any specific timeframe for achieving the necessary reductions. With every month that passes beyond the current schedule, more funds will be expended and less money saved.

I am sure that, like me, members will have received letters and e-mails from Unison members about the bill’s proposals. In line with its commitment to improving the quality and scope of policing, one of the Scottish Government’s flagship pledges is that there will be no reduction in front-line staff. Over the past few years, many individuals and organisations have expressed doubt about the veracity of the Scottish National Party’s claim of 1,000 new police officers on Scotland’s streets. I do not want to detract from the recent achievements of the Scottish police, but it has been suggested that a substantial proportion of those officers are performing back-office tasks in lieu of having a general reduction in support staff. There is no point in ring fencing funding for front-line police officers and then consigning them to back-office functions.

Chief Constable Smith said that that was not the case. Is he wrong?

The unions and those who work in the positions have told us that those are the facts. We need to weigh their remarks and whether they are wrong against the evidence of one person.

Equally, it is unfair and inaccurate to view support staff as being in some way inferior to those on the front line. Indeed, labelling a workforce that covers everyone from administrative workers to information technology and communications staff as “back office” does those people an immense disservice. Front-line police depend on support staff to function effectively; neither is easily dispensable and both are not interchangeable. Indeed, a chief superintendent told the Justice Committee that any changes to staff ratios that occur under this bill must strike

“the right balance between police officers and police staff—the right people with the right skills ... doing the right jobs”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 972.]

and concluded that that would present a very “significant challenge”.

We need to strike the correct balance not only between cost and quality and between front-line officers and support staff but also between integration and accountability. Rolling eight police and fire services into one raises the obvious risk of creating an overcentralised hierarchy and it is imperative that, in attempting to achieve savings through the centralisation of resources, we do not rupture the bonds between the police and local communities.

Under existing arrangements, funding for the eight police forces comes from a variety of sources, with local authorities directly providing a substantial amount. Such an approach not only allows for VAT savings in the region of £20 million but creates a direct link between local funding and local services. As funding for the single police force will come from a single block grant provided by central Government, it is not clear how that essential link will be maintained. The Scottish Government has stated its belief that the new arrangements will enhance councillors’ influence on local police and fire services through their involvement in the strategic planning process, but the fact is that final accountability for the distribution and spending of money will always reside with the body that holds the purse strings. Given that the Scottish police authority will have ultimate responsibility, local councillors will have no authority over budgets and no oversight of the police in their area. It is difficult to envisage how such an arrangement will give councils greater influence; in fact, it might have an adverse effect on their ability to make long-term plans and set long-term objectives. Because of uncertainty about future funding levels, they will find it more difficult to tailor policies to local requirements.

In highlighting these issues, I emphasise that the changes made under this bill must enhance the police and benefit local communities. Although I am confident that we can realise the bill’s goals of making savings while improving services, that will happen only if it is subjected to long and rigorous scrutiny that takes into account the views of all parties. We must ensure that the bonds between the police and local communities remain strong and that different authorities retain the flexibility to vary police strategies according to local need.

I call Humza Yousaf, to be followed by Alison McInnes.

10:33

I welcome the Parliament’s broad consensus on the bill’s general principles. I appreciate that the next member to speak might well disturb that consensus, but the fact is that, as we have heard, reform of Scotland’s police and fire service is necessary to allow the Government to keep its commitment to maintaining front-line services and to remove much of the duplication that exists across the eight services.

The committee has benefited greatly from the expert knowledge and excellent contributions of two former police officers, John Finnie and Graeme Pearson. Much to the disappointment of some committee members, we still have to recruit a former fireman to the committee but perhaps that situation will change in time.

Members: You mean firefighter!

Indeed. It is the 21st century and, as members have reminded me, I mean “firefighter” not “fireman”.

A number of issues have been highlighted that need to be discussed in relation to such a big change in one of our front-line services. The issue of timescales came up often. Although most witnesses said that the 1 April deadline might be challenging, the vast majority stressed the importance of appointing the chief constable and chief fire officer sooner rather than later. That will no doubt help the considerable changes to take root by providing clear leadership. However, the Government has a challenge in making the appointment when the police authority has not yet been created. I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary or the minister how they intend to do that. In the meantime, I welcome the Government’s confirmation that it will bring forward the recruitment process.

My colleagues have talked about the importance of the single police force being accountable and transparent to the public, so I will not spend too much time on the topic. However, I will touch on the evidence to the Justice Committee of Sir Hugh Orde, a former chief constable of the PSNI, who spoke about how the police board in Northern Ireland held him to account publicly at at least 10 meetings a year. Those meetings were televised and Sir Hugh was available for interview afterwards. That transparency proved successful, so it is important that we consider including that element in Scotland.

As has been said, the bill gives the Parliament the opportunity to have a formal role in scrutinising the police and fire services. In written evidence to the committee, the Auditor General for Scotland said:

“it is ... essential that the legislation establishes a formal mechanism to give the Scottish Parliament, as the democratic forum covering the whole of Scotland, a major role in ensuring there is open, participative and transparent oversight of policing in Scotland.”

I agree that the Scottish Parliament is the ideal body to provide such scrutiny. The democratically elected representatives of the public have the mandate to ensure that there continues to be policing by consent, which is a tradition and a fundamental value that must be maintained in relation to our police service.

The committee has had somewhat tentative discussions on how that parliamentary scrutiny should take shape, which we mention in the stage 1 report. Should there be a stand-alone committee or a commission, or should the role be part of the Justice Committee’s remit? I imagine that that theme will play a central role in the discussions as we move towards the next stages of the bill. It is fair to say that members of the committee are split on the issue, although most of us are open-minded. Graeme Pearson articulated well the case for a parliamentary commission. Although I am keen to explore that further, my first instinct is that it might involve further bureaucracy and resource at a time when we can ill afford either. However, I am still open-minded on the issue and willing to hear the arguments.

The member mentioned the example of Northern Ireland. Is he aware that the people who formed the board in Northern Ireland are all elected members of the Northern Ireland Assembly?

I believe that elected members have an important role and I certainly do not discount the member’s idea of having a commission. However, when the PSNI was set up, the financial circumstances were very different from those that we are in now. We must consider all the elements.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I know only too well the demands on that committee. We have had a somewhat quiet May, but that is a rarity.

Members: Shh!

Sorry—I am not meant to say that. However, I am keen to further explore the possibility that John Finnie mentioned of setting up a sub-committee of the Justice Committee to take on that important scrutiny role. I am sure that we will continue to discuss the issues in the months to come.

Concerns have rightly been raised about the reduction in support staff as a result of the reforms. Those staff have specific skills and play a vital role in the police force. I know that the Government, along with the police service, will aim to minimise any reduction in the number of staff. However, the myth that, as a result of the reduction, police officers will be taken away from patrolling the streets to fill out paperwork all day in a back office was firmly knocked on its head.

The issue was raised in the committee and dealt with by Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation, who said:

“The nature of police work means that, once an officer lays hands on an individual and takes him or her back to the police station, that officer is off the street. There is no naivety in the public that police officers will spend eight, 10 or 12 hours of their shift on the streets. If that happened, it would create an interesting relationship between the police officer or police service and members of the public.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February; c 1013.]

Furthermore, Andrea Quinn of the SPSA said that it is “disingenuous” to try to define staff as either front-line or back-office staff.

The member will recognise that other witnesses suggested other things. Does he agree that some civilian roles are carried out by specialists and that although police officers are simply not qualified for them, they are beginning to be asked to do them?

The member must draw his speech to a close.

I accept that there are specialist roles but to make the assumption that those are the ones that will lose out and that will be carried out by police officers is jumping the gun. We must all pay careful attention to what happens as a result of a reduction in support staff and clarification is vital, but making false assumptions will do more harm than good.

I am aware that I need to wind up, Presiding Officer, so I reiterate and put on record my support for having more fundamental human rights in the bill and perhaps even in the oath, as there is in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the committee’s report and its recommendations.

10:40

I do not want to keep members in suspense so I start by saying that the Scottish Liberal Democrats remain opposed to the bill. We do not agree with the principle of a single police force or a single fire service. We still have serious concerns about the loss of accountability, local control and political independence. We have not been convinced by the arguments about how the new services will function in practice and we have serious doubts about the outline business case and the estimated savings.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the process has been the missed opportunity. When the Government announced its initial consultation last year, it did so proclaiming that it went into it with an open mind. In the consultation, a clear majority of respondents were not in favour of a single national service. Indeed, ACPOS’s submission stated that a single police force will affect front-line delivery and will increase the risk of a fall in performance, which, it noted, might lead to an increase in crime and more victims. However, the Government still declared that it was persuaded that a single service is the right option. Unfortunately, that means that, rather than being presented with a golden opportunity to modernise our emergency services, we are being pushed towards a centralised and politicised future that will ultimately be to the detriment of local services across the country.

I have only a little time and there is much to cover, so I will jump straight into some of the highlights, if we can call them that, of the evidence that the committee heard at stage 1.

First, on cost, many of the Government’s arguments in favour of a single service have been made on the grounds of the efficiency savings that will be made, but the picture painted by the experts has been far less clear. For example, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers states that:

“The business case is deficient in many respects. It is not clear how the proposed reform will improve outcomes that are already very impressive ... The claimed efficiency savings ... rest upon some questionable assumptions”.

ACPOS, the Chief Fire Officers Association Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation all agree to a large extent that there is no detail in the business case, and the Government has introduced no evidence that allows us to say with any confidence what, if any, savings the single services will make. Calum Steele of the SPF summed it up very well, telling the Finance Committee:

“I very much doubt that anyone could know whether the service would be cheaper or, indeed, more expensive in the future. It is just finger in the air stuff.”

Worse, the Government is so determined to make those as yet unsubstantiated savings within its accelerated timescale that it is happy to put cost cutting ahead of positive sustainable reform. ACPOS’s Chief Constable Smith, the lead on preparatory work for the bill, summed it up, saying:

“The danger now is that we will be so focused on making cuts in financial budgets for next year and the following one that we do not get into what the exercise should be about, which is developing the best model of policing for the benefit of the people of Scotland.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 22 February 2012; c 669.]

The Government’s haste to push through these politically motivated reforms and to justify them with an unrealistic timetable of savings is putting the future of Scotland’s police and fire services at risk. Not content with putting our emergency services at risk with an unrealistic timetable, the devil is in the detail of the Government’s plans.

One of the key strengths of Scotland’s policing is and has long been the fact that it is local. It is largely funded by local councils, managed by local officers and officials, accountable to local people and responsive to local needs. The simple fact is that no matter how the Government might try to argue that local ties will be retained, that strength will be lost under a single force.

I gave the example of Orkney, where the arrangements are made in Inverness rather than Kirkwall. Surely the member must concede that the proposals for having a local commander who is answerable to a local committee is an enhancement of local democracy.

I do not concede that at all. As we have heard, there was a great deal of discussion in the committee about the tension between national and local priorities. Nothing in the bill makes it clear how local priorities will come to bear.

Indeed, we get the best out of our fire services for the same reason. Managed at a local level, they are far better placed to react to local needs, to prioritise and to adapt. A centrally run service simply cannot hope to work as well for Ellon as it does for Edinburgh.

Allied to that is the concern raised by many about the future of retained fire stations under the new service. Such stations are absolutely vital for much of rural Scotland—Grampian, for example, has 33 part-time and only three full-time fire stations—but the Government cannot yet guarantee that retained stations will not be closed when the new service comes in.

In fact, many have highlighted a real concern in that regard. With funding coming directly from Government and controlled by a Government-appointed board and chief officer, will the new service not find itself subject to one of Alex Salmond's favourite mantras: “He who pays the piper calls the tune”? Will a centrally based fire service recognise the value of retained stations and make their continued funding a priority? As COSLA put it,

“It is all very well saying that they must have”

a local area plan agreed

“but, if the instructions from on high do not fit into that, what do the local commanders respond to? Do they respond to the local authority agreement or the edict from on high?”—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 21 February 2012; c 633.]

Is the member seriously suggesting that, in areas such as mine where the vast majority of fire services are delivered through retained fire stations, someone somewhere is going to say that that will not continue to happen? What an absurd suggestion.

I have been asking the minister for such assurances for a long time now and have been consistently batted back with the response that it is an operational matter for the new service. If she wants to give me a guarantee that fire stations will not be closed, I will accept it gratefully.

Of course, all of this leads to the issue of political interference. The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, Reform Scotland, ACPOS, the Scottish police authorities conveners forum and the Auditor General for Scotland have all questioned the power of direction in the bill and how it fits with the operational independence that we should be holding at the heart of our police service.

I recognise that the will of the chamber is such that, despite our objections, the bill will progress to stage 2, when we intend to lodge amendments to rectify some of its worst aspects. However, for now, we cannot support the Government's mistaken plans for the future of our police and fire services.

10:47

I welcome the committee’s report. Like Christine Grahame, I will start by asking why we need a single service. Unlike Alison McInnes, it seems, I feel that we have a great opportunity to modernise and make a generational change in these vital services. Although I agree with John Finnie that we find ourselves in this position partly because of the Westminster cuts, I have to say that it is often when people are faced with the biggest challenges that they get the best returns.

Every other western European country has a single police force. Although Finland introduced the regional model that some have advocated for Scotland, it returned to the national model years later. At this point, I must welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to maintain the 1,000 extra police officers, because they are particularly valued at a local level. Indeed, that very factor, which has been mentioned quite a lot this morning, will become more important as we move on with this debate.

A lot has changed since 1975, when the current structure was introduced. I was only six years old and, as members will see, I have changed slightly since then. Christine Grahame mentioned some of the equipment that was used in those days. As a member of the Strathclyde fire and rescue board, I was invited to Paisley’s festival of fire and recognised a fire engine from the late 1960s that was being used when I was a small child. The fact that it had a wooden frame shows how much the equipment has changed since that time.

We need flexibility in the deployment of resources; after all, where organisations can work together and make a difference, such resources can be deployed and shared across the country. For example, Strathclyde Police’s helicopter is valued by just about every other police force and there is a lot of debate and argument over who gets to use it. Strathclyde fire and rescue board had many debates about aerial rescue pumps, which basically bring together two different bits of machinery and can help to cut costs. I do not want to bring up any old debates that I had with Mr Malik on the fire and rescue board, but the board itself discussed whether those pumps represented the right way forward. Strathclyde Fire and Rescue had aerial rescue pumps, whereas Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service had had them but did not order any more. The proposed reforms might give us a uniformity of service. The scale of the new service will give us much greater opportunity to make such purchases.

As a member of Strathclyde fire and rescue board, I welcomed the focus on the local, which the cabinet secretary talked about, because scrutiny and local accountability are extremely important. I have seen the value of that. Even at a Strathclyde level, there could have been more devolution. I welcome the part of the bill that provides for that. I suggest that, in my area, Renfrewshire Council, Inverclyde Council and East Renfrewshire Council, which have come together on the civil contingencies group, could work together on a joint police and fire board. No one else has discussed the idea and, as I am no longer a councillor, it is nothing to do with me, but it might be a good way of providing access to officers.

It is important that fire and rescue services continue to be involved in community planning. In Renfrewshire, we have ensured that they have been involved in their local area committees and various other council committees. That is something that the public want. There is a huge difference between how the police were perceived locally in Strathclyde in 1974 or 1975 and how they are perceived now. There is a difference in the way in which they talk. I remember that, when I was convener of Paisley South local area committee, the most exciting part of the evening was when the fire and rescue service and the police reported back—that was the part of the meeting that the public valued and wanted to have some form of interaction with. There needs to be more flexibility and engagement on how services are delivered throughout Scotland. We need to ensure that we take the public with us and that there is local accountability.

We have an opportunity to change for the better the present valued services. We have the potential to create dynamic organisations that can deliver for the whole country. It is important that we discuss the bill’s proposals and arrive at a logical and workable conclusion. I welcome the committee’s report and look forward to the continuation of the debate.

We have used up almost all of the extra time that we had, so I must now confine members to their allotted time.

I call Roderick Campbell—you have six minutes.

10:52

As others have indicated, with a few exceptions, the argument that there should be a national force has been accepted. While Unison and the Lib Dems think that it is wrong in principle, others such as Reform Scotland think that the Scottish Government has not provided sufficient justification for running from the centre a service that, historically, has been delivered at a local level. Reform Scotland also argued—unconvincingly, I would say—that each local authority should be represented on the national police authority, regardless of whether it is the size of Clackmannanshire Council or Glasgow City Council, because that reflects the current structure of local authorities.

Unison’s concerns are, understandably, about the protection of jobs. In that context, even if we accept ACPOS’s figure that there will be 2,000 redundancies, those are to be achieved cumulatively by 2015-16. We are talking about voluntary redundancies being achieved over a period rather than all at once. Of course that will not be an easy task, but it is important to reflect on the evidence of Stephen Curran of Strathclyde police authority, who said that the ratio of police to support staff was 4:1 in Strathclyde, in contrast to Lothian and Borders, where it is closer to 60:40. Therefore, we face different problems in achieving voluntary redundancy in different parts of Scotland.

I am reassured by the comments of Chief Constable Smith on the issue, and Calum Steele’s remark that

“We must look at the jobs that we do and ask ourselves not who does them, but whether they need doing in the first place”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 1009.]

is highly pertinent.

As for the Lib Dems, despite the fact that they highlighted the issue at last year’s Holyrood elections and this year’s local elections, there is scant evidence that there is concern about it on the doorstep; there is a much greater concern about maintaining the number of police on the beat.

I agree that people are not concerned about the issue at the moment, but it might be the case that people are concerned about it once the horse has bolted and they see their local services being eroded.

Time will give us the answer.

As the report makes clear, the committee was not hung up on the number of people who should be on the board. “Quality over quantity” must be the mantra. As has already been said, even though the committee has not reached a view on what form parliamentary scrutiny of the police and fire services should take, we saw the need for such scrutiny. We clearly need a strong democratic element to policing and, like Humza Yousaf, I believe that we need to take on board the Auditor General’s comments about the need for open, participative and transparent oversight.

The FBU favours the involvement of the Justice Committee. Although I accept that that would place a considerable strain on the existing structure, my inclination is more towards that approach or to a tweaking of the committee structure, rather than some form of police commission. However, as Graeme Pearson indicated, we must listen to all the arguments. Clearly, there is a need for post-legislative scrutiny of the move to single services. I would have thought that a timescale of at least five years would be sensible for drawing informed conclusions.

There was a lot of discussion about the interaction between the national police board and local commanders and local authorities. The results of the pathfinder project may impact on the issue, but it is clear that some flexibility in local arrangements is required. That need for flexibility must be right. Local police plans will be different—that is already the position between the Borders and Lothian, as was highlighted in the evidence to the committee.

In relation to the question of resources for local commanders, we need more clarity about what that might mean in practice.

There was a difference of view among the witnesses about forensic services. Some, such as HM inspectorate of constabulary, argued that the chief constable should have clear operational direction over forensic crime scene examination. That view was supported by most senior police representatives. Against that view was Andrea Quinn of the SPSA, who was an active supporter of what is inelegantly described as the “sterile corridor”. In the SPSA’s written submission, that arrangement was described more elegantly as “clear demonstrable impartiality”. However, the important points to stress are that Ms Quinn accepted that the chief constable and his command team should decide what crime scenes the SPSA should go to and when. Although senior police officers criticised the arrangement that has prevailed since 2007, neither Chief Constable Smith nor Chief Superintendent O’Connor, in response to questioning, was able to point to any examples where the arrangement had been detrimental to the interests of justice. I am therefore not persuaded that we should change the position outlined in the bill to make the forensic service directly accountable to the Scottish police authority and not to the chief constable.

We all know that, under the Human Rights Act 1998, public authorities must act in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights. We are also aware how the related provisions affect the Scottish Parliament. However, there is a body of opinion, represented by the Scottish Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International, that believes that human rights considerations ought to be on the face of the bill. In that respect, I must declare an interest as a member of Amnesty International, but I share the view that there is a lot to be said for having explicit recognition of human rights in the bill and certainly for embedding that in any appropriate code of ethics and training.

Although we may not quite have the social and cultural history of Northern Ireland, it would be good if we, too, could ensure that human rights are at the core of policing. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s response that it will consider any appropriate amendments in that respect.

10:58

I am keen to ensure that the quality of service provided by the fire service and the police force locally in some areas is not only retained but rolled out across Scotland. Some fire brigades and police services have achieved very high-quality standards that I would not want to see eroded by some of the other services that perhaps have been lagging behind and are trying to catch up to that standard. It is important that the local authorities that have made huge investments and have been prudent and professional do not feel that they have lost a quality of service that has taken a long time to build. It is important that confidence remains in place.

I have had discussions with various people and I had the opportunity to sit on the Strathclyde police authority and the Strathclyde fire and rescue board. The amount of work and the diversity in the services is amazing. Policing is not only about attending to a fight in a back court or chasing a robber in the street. It is about everything from community safety to liaison and supporting communities.

Our officers are overstretched as it is. When an officer comes on duty, he or she has almost back-to-back inquiries. Because of the huge challenges that they face, officers do not really have the opportunity to mix with communities that they had in the past. However, the job is one that most officers enjoy and they do it well under difficult circumstances. Obviously, our job is to ensure that we protect that historic engagement with communities. I learned amazing things about what Strathclyde Fire and Rescue does for communities while I was on the board: fire alarms, community safety—things that were not done in the past. Those things have helped to save many lives. The credit for that goes to our officers in the field. That is why it is imperative that we continue to build on the standards that we have achieved historically in Scotland. I am pleased to say that I genuinely believe that our services are envied around the world because of those standards and the level of quality that we provide.

We have an opportunity to ensure that we can share that good practice by selling quality training to people around the world. We can do that by ensuring that our training facilities are in place. Strathclyde Fire and Rescue is building a purpose-built centre for training its own officers. That facility could also be used to deliver services to others. Tulliallan could also be used—it is a place that delivers the finest training opportunities. It has done so for people from overseas in the past. I want to see that service retained and built on so that our officers can share good practice around the world. That would not only support us here on a national level but promote our badge overseas as being a country that engages with people in a positive way. We used to do it, but that role changed over time and we need to rekindle that effort.

I also believe that there will be opportunities for our young people when we have a national service—we can be more focused on what we deliver for them. There is a lot of youth unemployment and we need to try to change that trend.

The Government promised another 1,000 officers on the beat. It has been suggested that most of them are working in back offices—yes, that happens, but it is not our job to micromanage. Our job in the Parliament is to ensure that we put the mechanism in place to deliver that service. It is up to the senior officers to ensure that they improve that service. If there are shortcomings, it is our job to support those officers so that they can overcome those difficulties. We need to be positive and focused and, when people bring shortcomings to our attention, we should deal with them. We should not be ashamed of doing that.

I wonder whether there is also an opportunity to enhance the service in terms of our ambulance services. Currently, the Scottish Ambulance Service board shares its medical director with the NHS 24 board. Why are we not doing something similar elsewhere? Is there any mileage in the proposed Scottish fire service being amalgamated and merged with the Scottish Ambulance Service, or in the Scottish Ambulance Service merging with NHS 24.

At the end of the day, we are talking about our uniformed services and about services to our communities. We are talking about focusing our resources to ensure that we have the best of services on the street, so that our communities benefit from the most efficient services possible. Let us not restrict ourselves to the fire and police services—we should also examine the Ambulance Service. That would enhance the quality of the service that we already have. It would also allow us the opportunity to look at the Ambulance Service from a different perspective and to see what mileage there is to enhance that service’s quality as well, because that service is also overstretched. I believe that there is a job to be done there as well. I am keen to hear whether the minister will comment on that—

You must close now, please.

Finally, if I am allowed to, I was wondering—

You must close now, please.

Thank you.

11:04

I am delighted to take part in the debate. My Justice Committee colleagues and I have heard from some of the country’s most eminent fire and rescue service and police officers. I thank my colleagues for the tone in which they discussed the issue and welcome the genuine support for the bill’s principles.

The reforms of these two services are being made not because of any major structural deficiencies but because of the Westminster Government’s swingeing cuts to the Scottish budget. I agree with George Adam that the necessity for change gives the Parliament the chance to modernise both services and ensure that the services are suitable as we move further into the 21st century. I am sure that most people—even Alison McInnes—accept the principle of change. After all, as Christine Grahame and Graeme Pearson have pointed out, even the Bow Street runner and local fire brigade models of the past had to change to keep up with the times.

As various speakers have made clear, the proposed changes centre on the governance of both services, how representative the national boards are and how accountable services are at a local level. There is also the matter of parliamentary scrutiny. I completely agree with those who have called for the chief constable, the chief fire officer and other members of the service to be appointed early. It is vital that the posts are filled as soon as possible and I am delighted that the recruitment process has been brought forward.

On the composition of the national governance boards, I am content with the idea that a majority of positions should be held by those with professional expertise. I suspect that the number of board members should be more than the 11 that the committee has suggested should be the minimum. There should, of course, be councillor representation, but it is simply not practical to follow Reform Scotland’s suggestion and include a councillor from every authority. The board would end up looking like a soviet-style politburo, which I do not think would be terribly effective.

It was suggested that the councillors should have some experience. However, as Chief Constable Kevin Smith of ACPOS pointed out to the Justice Committee, it is unlikely that current members of police boards across the country have been vetted to a degree that has allowed them to scrutinise sensitive aspects of policing. How much training will be required to ensure that elected members are not out of place on what will be a professional body?

There is also the question of how much time a councillor will be expected to give to the governance board if the workload is as heavy as has been suggested. How will the amount of extra time spent dealing with board issues, particularly in the early days when training will be a major factor, impact on elected members’ responsibilities to their constituents and council?

I believe that the bill’s proposals hold no dangers for local planning and accountability. As the cabinet secretary has said, the senior officers of both services will still be in dialogue with local authorities and communities through local commanders.

Now that I have stood down as a member of the City of Edinburgh Council, I have to say that I have often wondered just how effective police boards, in particular, have been because of the lack of vetting that I mentioned earlier. I would not want any elected member from any chamber to be involved in any operational interference and believe that local accountability could be streamlined without any detrimental effect on policing and fire and rescue service provision. Community planning should be just what it says.

I am glad that the committee decided not to recommend a uniform method of local accountability. Every area is different and one model might not fit all. We will need to take into consideration the results of the 16 pathfinder pilots once they are known.

With regard to the fire and rescue service, I was struck during the committee’s evidence-taking sessions by the closeness of the views of senior officers and the FBU on many of the issues under discussion. There appears to be a desire for reform, particularly in the areas of operational clarity and expectations of the service. Given certain high-profile incidents relating to local decision making on rescue, that kind of clarity must be welcomed.

In evidence, John Duffy of the FBU suggested that local fire boards had a problem similar to that which I highlighted earlier in relation to police boards. He said:

“A councillor’s understanding of what they are expected to scrutinise the chief on has been derived from information given to them by that chief. That fails straight away.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 13 March 2012; c 1154.]

I suggest that the present set-up for boards in both services needs to be reformed.

During the Justice Committee’s deliberations, it was fascinating to listen to the different views of those who were good enough to give evidence. I was particularly taken by the evidence from Sir Hugh Orde on the problems of setting up the Police Service of Northern Ireland and how he was held to account by the local authority, as my colleague Humza Yousaf mentioned. Although I do not believe that model to be totally right for Scotland, his evidence shows that problems can be overcome if the will is there. I encourage the Scottish Government to continue to discuss with Westminster the problems in relation to VAT, which do not exist in Northern Ireland.

After attending a conference some months ago at which representatives from many nations discussed the merits of a single national police service, I am convinced that the Scottish Government’s actions, which were introduced as a result of financial reality, are the right way forward, because they work in the real world. The desire to reform both services is strong. I am delighted to have been a member of the Justice Committee that produced the stage 1 report.

11:11

As other members have done, I will focus on the bill’s proposals for a single police force for Scotland. The proposals for the fire service are less contentious and appear to be a sensible efficiency measure. However, any restructuring of the fire service must involve the retention of a visible and effective firefighting presence. I hope that, by making savings, the bill will protect front-line fire services.

Crime remains a real concern for many people in Scotland. Too many people live in communities that are blighted by crime. The challenge is to step up the fight against lawlessness, antisocial behaviour and violence so that our citizens can live free from crime and the fear of crime. The question that we must ask is: how can we maintain the service that the police provide within the current financial parameters?

When public finances are under such extreme pressure, it is appropriate that we look to cut duplication and unnecessary costs across Scotland’s police forces to ensure that we keep police officers on the beat in our communities and not behind desks. However, making those savings will involve difficult decisions. With 87 per cent of the policing budget going on staffing costs and with large savings having to be found, it is clear that there is little scope for minor efficiency savings or tinkering round the edges.

The Scottish Conservatives therefore agree that it is appropriate to review the structure of fire and police services in Scotland. I certainly will not defend the historical police force structures if that means sacrificing more police officers who could fight crime on the streets. However, our support for the bill has been conditional on three factors: that local accountability is protected; that real efficiency savings are delivered; and that front-line police numbers are protected. The Scottish Conservatives have real concerns that those conditions will not be met by the bill as it stands.

On local accountability, any restructuring must ensure that police services are accountable to the people whom they serve. We need a system that involves local residents, so that communities have a direct relationship with the police who serve them. It would be regrettable if the bill simply amounts to yet another attempt by the Scottish Government to grab power, remove local accountability and centralise services. At least there is a recognition of the importance of local accountability through the proposal in the bill to create, for each local authority, a local commander who is responsible for the delivery of local policing plans. However, we, like the Justice Committee, have serious concerns that that does not go far enough to counteract or balance the centralised single police force.

We argue that a better way of achieving local accountability would be to establish directly elected local police commissioners, which is a policy that the Scottish Conservatives have called for repeatedly. Under that policy, operational matters would remain matters for the police, but the police would be accountable to those locally elected police commissioners. Voters and residents would have a direct link to their commissioner and would hold them to account for local police performance. The UK Government is introducing elected commissioners in England. Will the cabinet secretary consider improving the bill by including that policy to enhance local accountability?

The second and third conditions for the Scottish Conservatives’ support for the bill are that efficiency savings are delivered and—crucially—that they are delivered alongside the protection of front-line services. When the cabinet secretary made a statement to Parliament on police and fire reform back in September 2011, he said that a single police force could achieve £130 million of savings within a year and a total saving of £1.7 billion over 15 years. I asked him:

“What systems does the Government plan to put in place to ensure that those savings are delivered?”

His reply was remarkably vague. He said:

“Those matters will be dealt with.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2011; c 1562.]

The Government continues to provide little detail on how it plans to ensure that the oft-quoted savings are delivered. During the Justice Committee’s consideration of the bill, a number of witnesses expressed concerns—we have heard them repeated today—about how the savings would or could be delivered.

John Lamont’s colleague David McLetchie mentioned that the single police force was in the Conservatives’ manifesto. On what projected savings was that based?

We came out in favour of a single police force before the SNP did. We believe that a single police force will provide not only efficiency savings but a better service to the people of Scotland. It is the Government that argues for the changes because they would make savings. That is the SNP’s principal argument for pursuing the reform. What are the savings and how will they be delivered? The SNP needs to produce a detailed business plan and the costed reasoning for how it will deliver the savings, not just for us here in the Parliament but for the taxpayer, who expects the savings to be delivered.

As we heard from my colleague David McLetchie, the savings that the Scottish Government has set out are based on simply an outline business plan rather than a full business case. I repeat the Justice Committee’s call for a full business case to be published as soon as possible, so that the Parliament and the wider Scottish public can understand better the savings and how they will be delivered. That such a case has not been produced ahead of the stage 1 debate is a serious oversight by the Scottish Government.

We believe that reform is necessary and that we should not be tied to historical structures that are no longer relevant to policing in modern Scotland. However, the Scottish Government must do more to persuade us that the bill as it stands will deliver local accountability and savings for the Scottish taxpayer.

11:17

The debate has been useful in highlighting the broad support for the bill’s general principles and in demonstrating the wide range of concerns that still need to be fully addressed. Graeme Pearson correctly stressed that the move from local to national police and fire services is important because it is a fundamental change in their character and not simply a modernising reform of the kind that might happen every 30 or 40 years. Therefore, it is all the more important that the Parliament and the Government get the detail of the change right.

Because the changes are profoundly significant, ministers need to think carefully—even at this stage—about the process and timing of change. They have conceded that, as was the view of many who gave evidence at stage 1, the establishment of single services on 1 April 2013 will not of itself create fully integrated, fully operational and fully effective services. There will be a transitional process—the question is simply about the point at which powers should be vested entirely in single national services rather than in the existing services.

David McLetchie was right to question why we have reached the end of stage 1 with only outline business cases, which have been subjected to significant criticism and which propose levels of savings that, as some have said, might not be achieved.

The VAT issue was not resolved before the bill was introduced. The fear is that the failure to resolve it will cancel out some of the savings that are meant to be made. Christine Grahame and John Finnie asked how the VAT issue could have been resolved. Of course, they were both signatories to the Justice Committee’s report, which called on ministers to look at giving local authorities the capacity to contribute to police and fire budgets.

On that basis, I commend to them a range of evidence on that question from witnesses at stage 1. Unison, which represents many of the civilian staff who will be affected, and COSLA, which represents local authorities and is the current third party in the tripartite arrangements, have made the case for structuring single services within the local government family. Jim Gallagher, a former head of the Justice Department, gave a similar view in his written evidence.

Of course, to do that might dilute the historic change to which Graeme Pearson rightly referred, and ministers might reasonably argue that part of their purpose is to break the link with local government at the national level, but that is not what ministers have said and, as I understand it, not what they intend. Kenny MacAskill has been clear that the authority boards for each service should include elected members from local government and, during stage 1, a number of people have argued that more councillors should be involved at that level. It is not clear to me why ministers appear not to have worked through options for maintaining local government participation at the national level in the funding of the services, which might have addressed the VAT issue that ministers have not been able to resolve thus far. Given the fact that the price of failing to resolve it might be more than £20 million a year, it will be disappointing if ministers or members of their party say that it is for others to flesh out how that should be done. The Government is in its second term of office; surely fleshing out solutions to such problems is properly a matter for ministers.

The other reason for not turning away lightly from the input of local government to single services is the issue of accountability, which has been raised by a number of members. It was highlighted by Graeme Pearson, by Jenny Marra on behalf of the committee, and by other members from all parties. The power of ministers to appoint, direct and require removal, in the interests of efficiency, concentrates unprecedented authority over policing in the hands of central Government. As Roderick Campbell said, it is essential that the commitment of elected politicians to human rights, transparency and accountability is anchored in statute and underpinned by the bill so that single services are provided without an undue concentration of power at the centre.

A number of speakers emphasised the Justice Committee’s recommendations on local accountability, which I support. The case for allowing local authorities, which are being encouraged to take a direct role in the preparation of local policing and fire plans, to know what resources are available to the police and fire services in their area seems eminently sensible. I do not really understand why the Government has not accepted that recommendation in full. No doubt the minister will comment on that during her closing speech.

Graeme Pearson was right to say that this is not just about what resources are available on 1 April next year. I suspect that local authorities will be quite interested in taking on the responsibility to lay out in front of joint boards what resource was available to them at the beginning of the process as well as what will be available at the end of it.

Graeme Pearson also made a clear case for a parliamentary commission, and I was interested to hear some of the responses to that suggestion. Christine Grahame thought that there might not be time to do it properly, and Humza Yousaf suggested that we might not be able to afford it in such financially tough times. Perhaps those reservations strengthen the case for ministers to think carefully about the phasing of the change. I also dispute the suggestion that scrutiny should be limited by additional cost. If the Scottish Parliament can rightly support scrutiny of the Scotland Bill and of other UK legislation, and support commissions in other fields—all of which are appropriate—surely it can support the best available arrangements for scrutiny of a single national police force, which otherwise will be entirely under ministerial control.

I was interested to note that Roseanna Cunningham seemed to assure Alison McInnes that no fire stations would be closed as a result of the bill. I have no doubt that that is a commitment to which she will be held. If the minister wants to intervene on that point, she is very welcome to do so, or she could comment on it at the end of the debate. It would be in no one’s interests if the commitment that she gave was less than clear to all concerned.

I am also interested to hear the minister’s views on Christine Grahame’s comments about the wider rescue functions of the fire and rescue service, and on the Fire Brigades Union’s views on defining those functions in statute. Ministers, along with many members, met the FBU yesterday.

Does the member accept that the committee did not want the wider definition or guidance to be put in primary legislation as that would have been too constricting?

I absolutely accept Christine Grahame’s point of fact and the reasons that lie behind it. I am simply asking for ministers’ response to the FBU’s position and their explanation as to why they have chosen not to go down that road. What they have to say might well be along the lines that Christine Grahame has indicated, but I will be very interested to hear it.

Finally, I turn to an issue that a number of members have denied is the single biggest problem with the current process: the loss of civilian staff from the police service in particular and its inevitable consequence—police officers doing civilian jobs. It is not adequate simply to argue that, just because chief constables have given an assurance that that is not happening, it is not happening. Such evidence must be subjected to greater scrutiny. When trade unions that represent staff and others tell us that the problems are real, we have to take what they say seriously not because we want to protect the positions of the civilian staff—not the warranted officers or firefighters—who do a fantastic job in those services but because we do not want the Scottish Government’s pledge to maintain police numbers to result in more back-room bobbies rather than police officers out on the beat.

I am keen to hear the minister’s comments on those critical issues and look forward to stage 2 and further debate on many of the issues that we have discussed.

11:26

I am grateful to all members for their speeches and their participation in the consideration of what is a very significant bill. We will reflect on all their contributions as we take the bill forward. After all, this is just stage 1 of the process and, as members know, a lot of discussion will take place from here on in.

Nevertheless, I think that we all agree on the need to reform, safeguard and improve police and fire and rescue services. I hope that even Alison McInnes will at least accept that, because the services are vital to the people of Scotland. Reform also offers a unique opportunity to sustain and strengthen Scotland’s services in the face of Westminster cuts. As members recognise, the services and the success of reform would be nothing without the skills and talents of all those who work in whatever capacity in our services. Indeed, that is why they will transfer on the same terms and conditions.

We and the services have been examining the issue of single services for more than two years now. A wealth of evidence demonstrates that single services deliver the most benefits. The services and stakeholders accept that and are working constructively with us to deliver that reform.

Understandably, the debate has centred principally on the police. However, I am also responsible for fire and rescue services and I hope that members will indulge me for a few minutes as I say something about them. It has become something of a joke that the new Scottish fire and rescue service should simply be called “and fire” because in the discussions on the bill everyone has talked about the police—“oh, and fire”. We need to emphasise how vital fire and rescue services are to every community in Scotland.

For a considerable time now, a great deal of work has been going on with different levels of the eight fire and rescue services. Some members might be surprised to learn that the FBU has been included in every stage of the reform process, and I thank the union for its consistent and constructive involvement. Not all the issues that the FBU has, or that we have, are completely resolved, but it is important that we are able to continue those constructive conversations. As we do that, we are resolving some of the issues.

One such issue is about the potential for FBU representation on the new board, which was an issue that I wanted to raise. We have been working closely with chief fire officers, the FBU and others to ensure that the new single fire and rescue service provides the best service to all communities. That will require a partnership to underpin the new service. As the service develops, I want the board and management to work constructively with the trade unions and the employees whom they represent. More to the point, we are exploring ways in which the board can ensure that it has direct input from the employee side. That is an on-going conversation.

As a result of the discussions with the FBU, is the minister interested in and committed to providing a statutory definition of the rescue services that have evolved in the past few years?

I appreciate Jenny Marra’s point, but it is on a slightly different issue and I want to finish my point about representation, on which points still need to be discussed and resolved, on the union side and on our side.

I come to the issue of the fire and rescue functions, which Jenny Marra asked about. The current functions were debated and agreed by Parliament fairly recently. At present, we do not consider there to be any difference between the functions that are covered in primary legislation and those in the Fire (Additional Function) (Scotland) Order 2005, so we are not convinced that restating them in one place would be of any benefit. Any need for greater clarity is best dealt with through the fire and rescue framework, which sets out the overall strategic priorities and objectives for the service. Lewis Macdonald referred to the framework, which is a vehicle that can be amended more easily and rapidly than primary legislation. That view is shared by the chief inspector of fire and rescue authorities, although it is fair to say that the issue is still under discussion. Indeed, I talked to the FBU about the issue and other matters at lunch time yesterday and last night.

The primary function of the boards is to govern the new services and to hold the chief officers to account. We agree whole-heartedly with the Justice Committee that the composition of the boards should not be prescribed in legislation. However, we take the view that the boards should reflect all relevant experience, including that of local authorities. We want to ensure that that experience is represented at board level. We have heard the views of stakeholders and members on the size of the boards, but we have yet to take a final decision on that—we will do so after this debate. We understand the arguments about smaller versus larger. We all want to achieve an optimum number that provides the best way for the boards to develop.

I will mention some non-bill issues that have been raised. One of those is to do with resources and savings, which I say is a non-bill issue because it is not covered in the detail of the bill. We believe that the budgets for police and fire provide sufficient funding for the services to undertake their functions fully. Future budgets will be agreed following future negotiations on service requirements. The single police and fire and rescue services will, together, deliver estimated savings of £1.7 billion over 15 years, with annual recurring cash savings in excess of £130 million expected from 2016-17.

The CFOA 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. Of course, budgets are an on-going issue to which all Governments at any time must have serious regard. The full business cases for the new police and fire and rescue services will influence and determine the detailed design of the new services, so their production is a matter for those services and not for the Scottish Government, although we expect them to be completed as soon as possible.

Does the minister not accept that the ability of Parliament to properly scrutinise the legislation would be greater if the Government produced full business cases before the conclusion of the legislative process?

As Lewis Macdonald knows perfectly well, delivering legislation and delivering budgets are not the same. We wanted to involve people in the whole process and not simply to provide a fait accompli. That approach goes to the heart of how we have tried to manage the process all along.

On VAT, the purpose of undertaking the reform is to protect front-line services against Westminster budget cuts. It would be a travesty if some of the potential benefits of that reform were lost to the Exchequer in VAT, and officials continue to explore the options with the Treasury.

I reassure Lewis Macdonald that the outline business cases prepared by the Scottish Government assumed the worst-case scenario that VAT could not be recovered. If the new services are able to recover VAT, the annual savings deliverable from reform from 2016-17 would be £157 million, rather than £131 million. That is an outcome that we all wish to see.

I will deal with some of the specific issues that members raised. Lewis Macdonald talked about the timing of reform. We agree that the 1 April 2013 timescale is a challenge—the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and I have said that all along—but we wanted to reduce the period of uncertainty, so a judgment had to be made. However, we accept that work will be on-going after 1 April 2013.

Graeme Pearson made a very strong case for a particular scrutiny position that he wishes to see brought in. Indeed, I heard about that position in detail at last night’s reception. When he was outlining his case, I do not know whether he was aware that the issue is one for the Parliament to consider rather than the Government. I noticed the Presiding Officer carefully attending to the detail of his proposal, so who knows what conversations may yet take place on the back of his thoughtful contribution?

Alison McInnes’s was the one discordant voice in the debate. It is unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats have not yet taken the lesson that the electorate continues to deal out to them, particularly in relation to this issue. There are quite clear arrangements to enable local authorities to shape local service delivery, and it will be for local authorities to make the decisions on how to do that. That, in a sense, is also a response to some of the comments made by Hanzala Malik. We will see a variety of different models emerging. Local authorities are entitled to make decisions about how best to deliver local scrutiny and accountability, and it is only a matter of time before we will be able to ascertain which model turns out to be the most useful.

It is worth reiterating that what is being shaped in Scotland is a better, more streamlined and more efficient future for both services.

Will the member give way?

I will carry on, as I am in my last minute.

I ask members to compare the position in Scotland with that south of the border. In England, the police are in uproar over the Winsor review, which is not being implemented in Scotland—20,000 police officers are out demonstrating—and there is effectively piecemeal privatisation of fire services. We have not wanted to take, and we will not take, either course of action in Scotland. What we are doing is in stark contrast to what is happening south of the border.

I thank every member for their contributions. A lot of points have been raised, but not all have been dealt with and we promise to follow-up on the specifics. Reform is vital if we are to protect and improve on the services that our communities receive. The bill provides the framework for that, and I ask members to support it.