Scottish Parliament, 10 May 2012

322 contributions from 73 members. The official report.

Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

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.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

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?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

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.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

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?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

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 in 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.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

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 Scottish ministers have known that from the outset, because the relevant statute provides recovery only for services that are funded by local rather than central Government.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

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?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

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.

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

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?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

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.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

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?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

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.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

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.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

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.

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

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.

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

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?

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

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?

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will conclude at that. Thank you very much.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

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.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

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.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

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 does 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.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

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.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

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

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

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?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

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.

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

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.

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

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

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

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.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

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.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

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?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

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.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

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?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

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.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

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.

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

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.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

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.]

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

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.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

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.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

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.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

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.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

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.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

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, were 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.

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

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—

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

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

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

Thank you.

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

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.

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

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 from 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.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

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

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

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.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

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 Brigade Union’s views on defining those functions in statute. Ministers, along with many members, met the FBU yesterday.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

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?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

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.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

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.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

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?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

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.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

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?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

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.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

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.

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (Meetings)

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

1. To ask the Scottish Government when the Minister for Housing and Transport last met the chief executive of Strathclyde partnership for transport. (S4O-00969)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I last met the chief executive of Strathclyde partnership for transport, Gordon MacLennan, on 13 March 2012.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I hope that the minister took the time to discuss the Gourock to Kilcreggan ferry crossing in that meeting. I acknowledge his responses to my correspondence on the issue and the time that he gave Jackie Baillie and me in a meeting about it.

The minister will be aware that the troubles that the current ferry crossing faces were entirely predictable and that the position is now becoming farcical. SPT’s response to passengers’ concerns is completely unacceptable, and it has led some to conclude that SPT is not merely seeking efficiencies for the public purse but is operating a hidden agenda to end the service altogether and blame the passengers for that outcome.

In the minister’s correspondence of 23 April, he discussed the future responsibility of current providers of ferry services. Is it not time that he discussed seriously with SPT future responsibility for the Gourock to Kilcreggan service? Passengers who use the service have come to the conclusion that transferring responsibility away from SPT would be a very good—

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I think that you have asked your question, Mr McNeil.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Duncan McNeil has raised points with me in the meetings that I have had with him and Jackie Baillie, and I have had discussions on the matter with Stuart McMillan. I have sought to raise with SPT the legitimate concerns that Duncan McNeil has raised with me. In addition to that, Transport Scotland has remained engaged with SPT as further issues have arisen—Jackie Baillie has raised such issues with me. I am happy to raise the issues, but I have made clear the extent of my responsibility in that regard, and I think that Duncan McNeil has acknowledged that. We can raise concerns, but I cannot rerun a procurement process that is run by another public body.

Of course, we do not currently plan to take over the service, which SPT has just tendered for. All that I can say in response to the points that Duncan McNeil raises is that I will continue to look at any further issues that he has and will ensure, as I have tried to do so far, that SPT responds timeously to the points that he raises.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

The disruption to the Gourock to Kilcreggan ferry service is not only affecting naval base staff; it is affecting national health service staff, who are struggling to get to work at Inverclyde royal hospital, due to the infrequency of the service. Will the minister ask Audit Scotland to investigate the tendering process, as the running of the service is clearly not delivering for passengers?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I repeat that I cannot rerun or interfere in a procurement process that is run by another public body in the way that might be being suggested. As the body in question is a public body that disburses public funds, it will, of course, be subject to scrutiny from Audit Scotland. If the member wants Audit Scotland to look at the matter, he should properly raise it with Audit Scotland.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am grateful for the minister’s on-going interest in the issue.

Since the contract was awarded, there have been numerous cancellations of service for reasons beyond our challenging weather. Initially, replacement vessels were not provided, despite that being a contractual obligation. Instead of a 10-minute crossing, the replacement bus service took around an hour and a half. There is now a replacement boat that seats 12 people instead of 50.

Aside from the unreliability of the service and the conflicting information that is given, passengers now have very little confidence in the service provision and the safety of the boat that is used. Does the minister agree that such poor standards fall below the service provider’s contractual obligations to SPT? Will he continue his extremely helpful approach and once again assist Duncan McNeil and me in securing a reliable and safe service for our constituents?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Jackie Baillie’s last point is very good. We are all trying to achieve the same thing. Again, I say that I cannot jump into the contract discussions or into a dispute where it appears on the surface that a contract is not being adhered to. However, I am happy to give the assurance again that I will continue to raise issues that are raised with me. I repeat that we are all after the same thing. We all want to ensure that the service runs regularly and reliably and according to the contract.

North Ayrshire Council (Meetings)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

2. To ask the Scottish Government when it next plans to meet North Ayrshire Council and what will be discussed. (S4O-00970)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives of councils, including North Ayrshire Council, to discuss a range of issues.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the minister agree that it is important for the Scottish National Party Government to work closely with North Ayrshire Council to ensure the delivery of joint objectives, such as tackling unemployment, boosting the local economy and improving service delivery? Will he congratulate Councillor Willie Gibson on becoming the probable leader of North Ayrshire Council after the SNP took seats from Labour, the Tories, the Liberal Democrats and independents to become the biggest party on North Ayrshire Council last week?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I take the opportunity that is afforded by the first occasion on which I am answering questions on local authority business after the local authority elections to make it clear that the Government will maintain its constructive dialogue with all local authorities in Scotland to pursue the objectives that we all share of strengthening the Scottish economy and delivering economic recovery and the high-quality public services on which members of the public depend.

I congratulate all members who were elected to local authorities. I pay tribute to those excellent councillors who decided to stand down or who were not returned for their public service, and I commit the Government to working closely with all local authorities. I pass on through Mr Gibson my good wishes to the members who were elected to North Ayrshire Council and I look forward to working with the council leadership.

Asylum Seekers (Support)

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had since May 2007 regarding providing support for destitute asylum seekers. (S4O-00971)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Supporting asylum seekers is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Border Agency and its delivery partners. However, the Scottish Government remains clear that, when asylum seekers are in Scotland, they must be welcomed and supported, and to that end we have had regular discussions since May 2007 with agencies and delivery partners regarding the support that they provide for all asylum seekers.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The minister will be aware of the change of housing contract which, according to reports, could result in hundreds of families becoming homeless and destitute, despite UKBA assurances. That could put a huge strain on resources in Glasgow. Is the minister aware of those concerns and will she meet me to discuss the issue in more detail?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am, of course, aware of the situation that is arising from the change of contract arrangements for the accommodation of asylum seekers. I would be happy to meet the member to discuss the issue in more detail. As I said in my initial answer, the matter is one for the UKBA. The Scottish Government does not have responsibility for the area, but the member is right to highlight the point that, if asylum seekers are not adequately and properly supported, that often has a knock-on effect on agencies that are operating in devolved areas of responsibility. It is in no one’s interests for asylum seekers and their families to be destitute and I assure the member that the Scottish Government will continue to seek assurances from the UK Government that all appropriate action will be taken in the area.

European Union Project Bonds

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how European Union project bonds could be used to support infrastructure investment in Scotland. (S4O-00972)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We are working with the Scottish Futures Trust to explore how EU project bonds could be used to support infrastructure investment in Scotland.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The European Commission and the European Investment Bank are looking to stimulate private capital for investment in key EU transport, energy and digital infrastructure through the immediate setting up of a pilot phase of a Europe 2020 project bond initiative for 2012-13, which could involve €230 million being invested in five to 10 large infrastructure projects. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that initiative provides an opportunity for us to proceed with the digital connectivity agenda, which is essential for unlocking the full growth potential of rural Scotland, particularly South Scotland, which I represent? Can he assure me that representations are being made to the EC and the EIB to push forward Scottish projects for inclusion in the pilot phase?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Scotland’s digital ambition is fully aligned with the EU 2020 strategy, and the Scottish Government views the project bond initiative as an essential mechanism for securing potentially significant levels of finance, which will be essential for delivery of our world-class targets. The Scottish Government is already exploring how Scotland can act as an early pilot and accelerate the key broadband initiatives that are set out in our infrastructure investment plan.

National Health Service (Staff Morale)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied with the level of morale among NHS staff. (S4O-00974)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I understand that, in what are very difficult financial times, all workers in Scotland, including those who work for our national health service, will feel under pressure in their working lives and in relation to their household budgets. That is why we continue to do all that we can to create and maintain a supportive working environment in the NHS. We are maintaining our policy of no compulsory redundancies; we are ensuring that changes to the workforce are in line with quality assurance and are discussed in partnership; and we are passing on the health Barnett consequentials in full to NHS Scotland. We will continue to do everything that we can to support the NHS and its staff in the challenges that they face in providing world-class care to the people of Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I accept that the cabinet secretary replies in good faith but, for the Scottish Government, ignorance is, indeed, bliss because, in response to my recent parliamentary questions about whistleblowers in the NHS, it did not know how many whistleblowers had raised issues, what legal costs had been incurred in dealing with such issues or how many NHS staff had been released with severance payments and associated non-disclosure agreements—that is shorthand for getting rid of whistleblowers. It appears that none of that information is held centrally. How can the Scottish Government have a clue about what morale among NHS staff is like without that essential information? What does the Government intend to do to get hold of it?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I take morale and whistleblowing very seriously, but I am sure that Annabel Goldie would accept that the question of morale is much bigger than issues associated with whistleblowing.

Working with health boards, the Scottish Government makes efforts, principally through our staff survey, to ensure that we understand the issues that affect staff morale in the NHS. I said recently in the chamber—in response, I think, to questions from Annabel Goldie and Dr Richard Simpson—that work had recently been done on the partnership information network policy on whistleblowing, which is extremely important. I continue to send clear messages to health boards on that issue.

Part of the answer to Annabel Goldie’s question is that, initially, it is for health boards to ensure that they have in place the right environment to encourage staff to come forward when they identify any potential service failings and to feel that they can do so safely. I would be more than happy to meet Annabel Goldie to discuss the matter in more detail and to hear whether there are things that we can do to further improve the arrangements that are in place, because the Government and I are determined to ensure that we give staff the space and the ability to raise concerns and to have them addressed.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In a recent survey, the Royal College of Nursing identified a drop in morale, particularly among nurses. I think that we would all recognise the challenging environment that they work in, especially given that more than 2,000 nursing posts have been cut from the NHS. However, in a spirit of consensus, will the cabinet secretary join me in welcoming international nurses day, which is on 12 May, and in recognising that much of what our nurses do forms the backbone of our NHS?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will answer that question entirely in the spirit of consensus, because I want to take the opportunity to welcome international nurses day and international nurses week. To mark international nurses day, I met a fantastic district nurse in Kirkintilloch earlier this week; in addition, I have recorded a message for the RCN. All of us should take the opportunity to thank nurses everywhere in Scotland for the tremendous work that they do in difficult circumstances. They do a fantastic job, and each and every one of us is indebted to them.

NHS Lothian (Management Culture)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has received the report into the management culture at NHS Lothian and, if so, what lessons can be drawn from it. (S4O-00975)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I received the initial findings from the investigation at the end of April, and I expect to see the final, formal report in the next day or two. The report will be published as soon as practicable thereafter. As well as sending it to the Health and Sport Committee, I will ensure that all members who have a constituency or regional interest in the matter get an early copy of it.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I very much welcome that reply. Has the Scottish Government discussed with Audit Scotland the remit of its audit in light of the experience with NHS Lothian? Secondly, can the cabinet secretary give us a report on the joint working between the Scottish Government and NHS Lothian on the sustainable operational plan to ensure that patients are seen and treated within the legal treatment time guarantees?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Sarah Boyack for both questions. On the first, I welcome the work that Audit Scotland is planning to carry out. We are in close dialogue with the organisation on the remit for the internal board audits that I have asked to be carried out in every health board over the next few months. Obviously, it is for Audit Scotland to set the terms of reference for its own audit, but I have made it very clear that the results of the internal audit should be made available to Audit Scotland to assist its work.

Sarah Boyack’s second question is also important. As I have told the chamber previously, an expert Scottish Government team is working with NHS Lothian to ensure that capacity issues are addressed not just in the immediate or short term but for the long term to ensure that the health board is able to deliver on the waiting time guarantee for all patients in a sustainable way. I expect nothing less of NHS Lothian or indeed any other board. The interim chief executive, Tim Davison, is working very hard on all these matters and I will be seeing him later today for an update. As I said in connection with the report, I am happy to discuss the on-going work in greater detail with any member who has a constituency interest.

Medical Isotopes

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the potential for the production of medical isotopes. (S4O-00976)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The supply of medical isotopes is an international problem that, as Governments and other stakeholders have recognised, needs an international solution. In 2009, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development established a high-level group on the security of supply of medical isotopes, whose main objective is to strengthen the reliability of supply. The group is currently developing a policy approach to address supply chain issues and move towards long-term secure supply. Significant progress has already been achieved on improving the situation through increased communication, co-ordination of research reactor schedules and a better understanding of demand-management opportunities.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The World Nuclear Association has shown that more than 10,000 hospitals worldwide use radio isotopes in medicine and that about 90 per cent of the procedures are for diagnosis. As a result, there is strong worldwide demands for this material. However, as the cabinet secretary knows, there is no Scottish production and only one English facility. Will she agree to ask Highlands and Islands Enterprise to carry out a full economic appraisal of the prospects of manufacturing medical isotopes in Caithness using the skills, talents and experience of the Dounreay workforce who are currently engaged in nuclear decommissioning?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

David Stewart will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to give him a hard and fast commitment in response to his question. However, I undertake to discuss his request with HIE to hear what its views are and to find out whether an argument can be made for taking the sort of action that he has just outlined.

As I said in my initial response, it is important to ensure a secure supply of medical isotopes not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom and indeed the world, and the international action that has been taken is intended to fulfil that objective. David Stewart obviously has an interest in this matter and I am happy to have on-going discussions with him and keep him informed of progress.

Hall & Tawse (Closure)

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has had discussions with the staff and management of Hall & Tawse Joinery following the announcement that the business is to close, given the impact on employment in the area. (S4O-00977)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Scottish ministers are always deeply disappointed to hear of potential redundancies and are aware of the impact on individuals, their families and the wider community. The Scottish Government acted immediately to provide support through the partnership action for continuing employment to all Mansell and Hall & Tawse employees and local PACE representatives are awaiting a response from the company regarding a suitable date for a meeting with all staff affected.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister consider directing his officials to talk to the parent company, Balfour Beatty, on potential redeployment options within its reshaped organisation? After all, Hall & Tawse has operated since 1880 and trained thousands of apprentices in Aberdeen, and it would be a shame for that heritage to be lost.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We will do as Mr McDonald suggests. He is quite right in what he says, which is why, despite the substantial cuts to its budget, the Government is continuing to support the construction sector in these difficult times by maintaining capital spend at £3,000 million in 2012-13.

Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S4M-02591, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in paragraph 3(b) of Rule 9.12 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[John Swinney.]

First Minister’s Question Time

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

We now come to First Minister’s question time. Question 1 is from Johann Lamont. [Applause.]

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am absolutely delighted to be here and that the local government elections went so successfully and smoothly.

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00663)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Wait a minute. We should just stop there, should we not?

Later today, I will speak to the managing director of the German company BASF, which, with the support of the Scottish Government, has today agreed to an £18 million investment in the Scottish company Equateq for a new manufacturing base on the Isle of Lewis. That will create 90 new high-quality jobs and secure the 10 that are currently there.

The creation of 90 jobs in the Western Isles is an extremely welcome development. To put the impact on the economy into context, in a city the size of Edinburgh, that would equate to several thousand jobs. I am sure that all members will welcome those quality jobs coming to an area whose economy is fragile but which is a wonderful part of Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that the First Minister is aware that the Western Isles are very dear to my heart and to my family. Perhaps people will welcome this announcement even though they are sceptical about some of the decisions that the Scottish Government has made in recent times that have had a significant detrimental impact on the Western Isles.

What lessons has the First Minister learned from last week’s local elections?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Unlike some members of the Labour Party perhaps, I think that simple arithmetic is probably in order. I am delighted that the Scottish National Party emerged with 424 seats around Scotland, which was a gain of 62 seats. I know that Johann Lamont is very pleased to have emerged with 394 seats, which was a gain of 46 seats. However, when a party increases its number of seats and its lead over its main rival and wins an election, there is a reasonable lesson for it to learn. For the Scottish National Party, it is not just an arithmetic lesson; we celebrate that political success.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

For once, the First Minister has indeed answered the question, because his answer is, “What lessons? None.” Let me tell him what I have learned. I have learned that people do not like it when a party’s priorities are put before theirs, and people’s priorities are jobs, childcare, schools and public services. The First Minister has put Scotland on pause by getting rid of nurses, teachers and local government workers, and the people of Scotland sent him a clear message last week. Yes, they had a message for us—this is about listening and learning—which was that we have made progress, but the Scottish Labour Party has a long way to go. [Interruption.] Yes, it is about learning lessons. However, what really took the gilt off the gingerbread for me was that while we had some remarkable results and were gaining support, the First Minister was losing support at twice the rate. Why was that?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I was trying to catch up there.

The SNP got more than 500,000 votes and Labour got 487,000 votes in Scotland. I do not know whether Johann Lamont saw the very interesting map on BBC’s “Newsnight”, which showed where each party is represented in wards across Scotland, but basically it was covered in yellow right across the country and indicated that the SNP, unlike the other parties, is truly the national party of Scotland and is represented in every area.

Johann Lamont asked me about the lessons to learn. The key lesson for all politicians is on turnout, which although it was not nearly as low as was suggested in some media outlets, nonetheless was less than 40 per cent, at about 38 per cent. That is not an acceptable turnout in a democratic ballot. All of us as politicians have work to do to increase the turnout. We can take some satisfaction from the fact that in virtually every area of Scotland we managed, this time, to conduct a single transferable vote ballot without breakdowns in the counting machines, long delays or a hugely unacceptable number of rejected ballot papers. That was rather better than the Scotland Office managed five years ago, if we care to remember, which led to my belief that the Scotland Office couldnae run a tap, never mind an election campaign.

Nonetheless, a turnout lower than 40 per cent—even if it was higher than many people were expecting or indeed reporting—should provide a lesson for all democratic politicians that we must offer the electorate substantive policies and a positive vision that is worth voting for and must engage more than we do at present to secure higher turnouts and higher democratic participation in future.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

There is a direct question to the First Minister in the fact that, in the past year, his support has gone down by a quarter. He has to learn some lessons from that.

Let me give the First Minister some clues. His obsession with the referendum, the delay over the referendum and the attempts to skew the referendum are not popular with the public. The First Minister’s failure to focus on what people care about—jobs, childcare and public services—does not go down well with the public. The fact that the First Minister has more time for Rupert, although sometimes he is Sir Rupert, for Sir Fred, although he is no longer Sir Fred, and for Sir Brian—he is still getting his knighthood, isn’t he?—than he has for the people of this country does not go down well with the public. When will the First Minister start listening?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am tempted to remind Johann Lamont yet again that I did not make Sir Fred Goodwin Sir Fred Goodwin, or make anybody else Sir anything. In the case of Fred Goodwin, the Labour Party did it.

In the run-up to the election, an SNP Government and a Labour president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made a hugely important, substantive announcement about the initiative taken by the Government and local authorities to protect the council tax benefit of some of the lowest-income, most vulnerable people in Scotland—something that is not happening south of the border but will happen in Scotland. I thought that that was a very substantial theme and of significance to the 560,000 low-income Scots—half of them pensioners—who will benefit from that substantive move by an SNP Government and a Labour president of COSLA.

Why, then, has the very last thing on Johann Lamont’s mind at First Minister’s question time over the past few weeks been jobs or the initiative on council tax benefit? She has not raised the substantive issues that are meaningful to people. Johann Lamont says to this Government that we should engage. When we do engage, then, and bring forward a substantial initiative that was called for by the Labour Party, let us have some discussion about what it means for the lives of ordinary Scots.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

First, on knighthoods, it was only the First Minister who gave Sir Rupert a knighthood. Secondly, on the council tax, I would advise people to look at the small print, because there is a £17 million deficit that will have to be covered by local government.

On the positive message from Labour, it was Labour across the country that spoke about jobs and services at every turn. That is why we got the response we did.

I thought that it was just me that the First Minister does not listen to; in fact, self-evidently it is also the public, his back benchers and perhaps even one or two on his front bench. Who is the senior source, who said,

“The people of Scotland don’t like arrogance”?

Or what about the wise words of self-styled rising star Humza Yousaf—and we need a new rising star after Derek Mackay’s last seven days—who said:

“We’ll lick our wounds. We’ll look at the numbers and see where we went wrong, hopefully.”

Well, we can all live in hope.

The First Minister is not daft. Is it not the case that he won on the arithmetic, as he said, but that in reality, on the politics, he got stuffed?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

What a classic illustration of engagement in the substantive issues facing the nation! What a lot of nonsense there is in the framing of that question.

The last thing that Johann Lamont wants to talk about is major jobs announcements or the fact that the latest employment figures show that Scotland has higher employment and lower unemployment than anywhere else in these islands. Those things are never mentioned by the Labour Party because they do not fit the Labour Party’s narrative nor its way of looking only at the negative, pessimistic side of politics. It never celebrates achievement and makes the most grudging acknowledgement of the important jobs boost to the Western Isles. I politely remind Johann Lamont that the Labour Party never introduced the road equivalent tariff or did anything else for the Western Isles that are obviously so dear to her heart.

The larger number of SNP councillors, the larger number of gains that we achieved, our doubling of our lead over the Labour Party and our winning the popular vote and having a councillor in virtually every ward across the country mean that if Johann Lamont wants to keep celebrating Labour Party defeats in Scotland, that will be fine by the Scottish National Party.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00655)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

The First Minister says that he wants to engage in a substantive issue so let us do so. When ministers allowed universities to charge students from the rest of the United Kingdom, they said that the whole system would be based on where someone lives. Anyone who lives in England, Wales or Northern Ireland would have to pay up to £9,000. A week ago, all that started to unravel when Northern Irish pupils were told that possession of an Irish passport could result in their fees being met by Scottish taxpayers. Yesterday, we found out that any UK citizen who has an Irish granny can get in for free through that loophole. It now emerges that anyone with a grandparent from any of the other 26 European Union nations could have their fees paid by Scottish taxpayers. The Scottish Government’s defence for such a massive amount of confusion appears to be that no one has noticed yet so it will all be all right.

That is not good enough. We need to clear up the confusion. We need to fix the Guinness loophole.

Mike Russell said that fees would be paid according to where a person lives. It now appears that what matters is the passport that a person holds. Which is it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Students who hold United Kingdom or EU nationality have been able to apply to universities for fee support for many years. That also applies to those with joint citizenship of the Irish Republic. There is no new entitlement under those arrangements.

What is new is the Tory and Liberal UK Government’s extraordinary and disastrous decision to introduce tuition fees of £9,000 per year. That is what created the issue that the Government must deal with. If we wind the clock back a year or so to when Ruth Davidson’s predecessor was asking questions, at question time after question time she told me that Scottish universities would never be adequately funded under the SNP’s proposed arrangements. It is now generally acknowledged, certainly by every principal in Scotland, that universities in Scotland are the best funded of any university institution in these islands. There has been fantastic investment in our university system. All the cries of doom and gloom and foreboding of disaster to come that the Conservative Party so disastrously deployed during the election campaign have come to naught.

Similarly, to answer this latest question, there is nothing new in the arrangements. There is no evidence of a serious difficulty affecting the universities. This Conservative scare story will dissolve just as surely as their scare stories about universities in Scotland not being properly funded did. The only semblance of truth in what Ruth Davidson says is that if the Conservative Party was ever allowed anywhere near government in Scotland, our universities would certainly suffer as the English universities are suffering at the moment.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

If joint citizenship applications are old news—old news that was put out by the Government only this morning—why were they not identified in the consultation on the 2011 order? Confusion has been compounded by complacency.

It is not just the Conservatives who are asking these questions. Robin Parker, the National Union of Students Scotland president, who speaks for students, says that he is desperate for clarity and the president of the University and Colleges Union, Gordon Watson, has warned that a huge rise in such applications is likely next year. Scottish taxpayers already fund EU students at our universities to the tune of £75 million a year, but the continued incompetence of the education secretary could cost untold millions and see thousands of Scots unable to study in their own country.

Apparently, the introduction of rest of UK fees was supposed to stop Scottish students getting crowded out of Scottish universities but this shambles makes a mockery of that aim and blows apart the budgets of our universities, which have already set fees for people who now might not have to pay. Given that the education secretary is in denial, will the First Minister step in and sort this out?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Nothing in Ruth Davidson’s question will change the fact that the calamity that she imagines will happen has happened no more than the calamity that the Conservative Party forecast last year happened. The real calamities happening in Scotland are in, for example, the way in which the regimental traditions are being traduced by the Conservative Party. Despite commitments and promises made by her predecessors and previous Conservative Party leaders to maintain the regiments, not even the cap badges are being maintained. Let us talk about the Conservative disasters of today, instead of imagined problems, which this Government will deal with in the same way that it has dealt with every difficulty that the Conservative Party has presented us with.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The First Minister has indicated that he is aware of the potential implications of the UK Government’s defence review for our historic regiments. I draw his attention to the concern and anger felt by my constituents in Angus and shared throughout Dundee, Perthshire and Fife at the possibility that the local identity and proud traditions of the Black Watch will be lost either through regimental merger and its simply being renamed 3 SCOTS. Will the Scottish Government seek to make Westminster understand just how unacceptable these proposals are for Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes, we will—and, indeed, are. Bruce Crawford wrote to Phil Hammond, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 2 March and Andrew Robathan, the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, on 11 April to signal concern about the rumours of such a move, with the threat to historic regimental names, and to seek further clarity on the transformation process. Those ministers responded that it was too early to discuss these matters in detail but that Nick Harvey MP, the armed forces minister, would update Mr Crawford in due course. We still await further contact from Mr Harvey’s office.

It illustrates the arrogance that is being shown not only to this Government and Parliament but to elements of Scottish regimental tradition that this is being splashed all over the newspapers while we still await Nick Harvey’s letter, telling us what the exact plans are. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have not only understated and underestimated the huge element of sentiment that that golden thread of tradition has acquired but have revived the save the Scottish regiments campaign, whose press release today, which I have just received, points out:

“Since the news of the Tories’ disastrous plans for the Scottish Regiments, less than 48hrs ago, a Facebook group for the Save the ... Regiments Campaign has attracted nearly 1,500 members and continues to grow.”

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will find that they face the same opposition to their plans that the Labour Party faced some years ago.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00654)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The British Prime Minister has pledged his support for equal marriage. Yesterday, President Barack Obama, too, declared in favour of it. Will the First Minister guarantee that he will bring equal marriage to Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I made my personal views clear during the election campaign and have not changed my mind in that respect. However, we are in a consultation process. I believe that we have received 60,000 responses to that consultation—it might be more—and analysing them is taking some time. The responses will be published next month and the process will take its course in the proper and usual manner. I do not think that Willie Rennie helps matters by trying to stop that process following its proper pattern. Regardless of my views or his views, he must understand that equal marriage is an issue that excites substantial interest among large sections of the Scottish population. If we are to get a resolution of the issue—as I hope we do—that is entirely satisfactory and which is in keeping with Scottish tradition and the tradition of this Parliament, whatever else we do and whatever side of the debate we are on, we must treat the matter sensitively and properly.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If a British Prime Minister and a US President can proudly declare their support for equal marriage, surely the First Minister should not be so timid. This morning, his own MEP, Alyn Smith, has said:

“too many politicians are too equivocal”

on this. Why has the First Minister chosen to be one of the equivocal people who are criticised by his own side, instead of proudly joining the progressive world leaders in supporting equal marriage? If it is good enough for Obama, surely it is good enough for Salmond.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I gently point out that, whatever else Willie Rennie might think about David Cameron, his description of him as a “progressive world leader” sums up the difficulty of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland. I do not know whether Willie Rennie believes that David Cameron is a progressive world leader but, if he does, that certainly explains the departure of any semblance of a Liberal Democrat party from Scotland. If he thinks that he will get any help or support from the Conservative Party, he should have a look at Ruth Davidson’s press statement from earlier this week, in which she described the Liberal Democrats as defunct.

I have made my personal position on the issue perfectly clear but, as First Minister of Scotland, I have a responsibility to ensure that the debate is handled sensitively and correctly. We have had a huge number of responses to the consultation, and we will proceed in that manner so that everyone, regardless of their views, understands that the responses are being properly analysed and that the matter will be brought to a proper conclusion.

Health Behaviour (School-age Children)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

4. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to address the findings of the recent World Health Organization survey, “Social determinants of health and well-being of young people: Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Study”. (S4F-00653)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It was a very encouraging report from the WHO. Young Scots are generally satisfied with life, they are smoking less and consuming less soft drinks, and they see themselves as performing well at school. We recognise that much more needs to be done, and we continue to work hard to ensure that Scotland is the best place in the world for young people to grow up in.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

It is clear from the report that there is room for improvement, but it is also clear that Scotland is moving towards being a healthier society.

With the support of the Scottish National Party Government, the minority Dundee City Council administration took steps to improve the health of all Dundee’s residents. Work started on a £30 million swimming pool, £300,000 has been provided to upgrade the city’s velodrome, 20 primary school teachers have been funded to undertake postgraduate training in physical education and £170,000 has been earmarked to improve the city’s infrastructure to encourage people to walk and cycle more often.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Does the First Minister agree that those may be some of the reasons why the people of Dundee elected a majority SNP administration last week?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes, I do. Not even the ranks of the Labour Party will want to claim the result in Dundee as a success for their party.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

There was a bit of a different result in Renfrewshire. [Interruption.]

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Why has the Scottish Government failed to deliver on the 2007 manifesto commitment that children should receive two hours of quality physical education each week from specialist PE teachers?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I think that Neil Bibby should reflect on the fact that that was a refrain of the Labour Party in last year’s Scottish Parliament election, which was another election that it lost across Scotland.

We have made very substantive progress towards those targets. The present position represents a remarkable transformation from the situation that we inherited. On a range of matters—PE at school is certainly one of them—I advise the new Labour members who replaced the Labour members who got knocked oot last year, to have a look at what happened in 2007, the position that we inherited and the substantial improvements that have been made. I see one of the older Labour members waving his hands. The new members do not even have to look it up, because one of their older brethren can tell them about the disastrous position that we inherited and about the huge improvements that the Government has implemented in PE and nursery care and across a range of social provision.

Ryan Yates (Independent Report)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take in response to the independent report published following the Ryan Yates case in Aberdeen. (S4F-00664)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am sure that all members will want to pay tribute to the courage and strength of character that were displayed by a grandmother who fought so bravely to protect her grandchildren from Ryan Yates. It was a despicable crime. Along with the police and other agencies, we will carefully consider the recommendations of the report. As Lewis Macdonald will know, Scotland has a robust system for managing sex offenders. The monitoring of such offenders is now tougher than ever before. However, if processes can be improved and strengthened further, the law enforcement agencies and the Scottish Government will take appropriate action following the report. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will in early course update Parliament on the actions that are being taken specifically in response to the recommendations.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I echo the First Minister’s sentiments regarding the victims and the witnesses of that horrific attempted crime. Is he aware that the separate funding stream for intensive support and monitoring of the most serious offenders on release is now no longer available to councils that face exceptional costs, which can run to six-figure sums? Is he aware that such funding was not available to Aberdeen City Council in this case, simply because Ryan Yates had served his full sentence and was therefore not subject to any licence conditions on his release? Does the First Minister agree that those issues need to be addressed urgently to maximise public protection and ensure that such incidents never happen again?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I would not want to disguise the fact that that is part of the local government settlement. However, I am sure that Lewis Macdonald will be the first to say that, because of the introduction of the floor in local government settlements across Scotland—something that many members of his party resisted—Aberdeen has had a substantial improvement in its position. The Scottish Government and, I am sure, members across the chamber, will want to look extremely closely at the specific recommendations of the report. I hope that, when we bring forward whatever further improvements require to be implemented, they will enjoy cross-party support.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Recommendation 14 of the report is that there should be legislative change to allow retrospective applications for orders for lifelong restriction on prisoners. Does the First Minister intend to implement that recommendation and, if so, how will he reconcile that with human rights legislation?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The member has put her finger on one of the recommendations that are being carefully considered. She is right to point out that there are attractions in the recommendation in terms of public safety but there are also obstacles that would have to be overcome in the legislative process. That is exactly the sort of issue that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is considering. However, I would not want to give the impression that there are not other specific recommendations in the report that are capable of implementation. I would not want any legislative difficulties that might accompany that particular recommendation to disguise the fact that the bulk of the report brings forward valuable information. All of us will want to see as much as possible of that, to further strengthen and improve our systems.

Postage Increase (Economic Impact)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

6. To ask the First Minister what impact the recent increase in the cost of postage will have on the Scottish economy. (S4F-00661)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It is a substantial increase at a time when small businesses are under pressure from ever-increasing costs and a continuing lack of access to lending from the banks. Far from us all being in this together, the United Kingdom Government, in agreeing to such a substantial increase, does not seem to have given much thought to the stresses on small business and the significant effect on the economics and finances of many small businesses.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The Royal Mail’s operating profit in the first half of the last financial year alone was £67 million. Does the First Minister agree that that level of profit indicates that the increase in the cost of postage was unnecessary and is part of the long-held Tory plans to undermine the Royal Mail and the Post Office as publicly owned institutions? Would this Parliament not do a better job of running Scotland’s postal services?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am certain that, given the demonstrable effect of the changes that we have made in the areas of policy and legislation that we control, there is the strongest argument possible that that legislative competence should be extended. I would like it to be extended to everything, in an independent Scotland. However, I hope that Labour members will consider whether they believe that the universal postal service at reasonable cost is safer in the hands of a Tory Government in Westminster than it would be in the hands of this Parliament. I hope that Labour members will consider that point, not just as far as the Post Office is concerned but with regard to many other areas of Scottish life, because the substantive evidence is that, in areas where we have legislative competence, we make improvements in the real-life experience of people in Scotland. That has certainly been true of this Government. Incidentally, it has also been true of this Parliament since 1999. That is a substantive argument for extending the powers and authority of this Parliament and substantially diminishing the powers and authority of the Tory Government at Westminster.

12:30 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—

Justice and Law Officers

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good afternoon. Question 1 is from Stewart Maxwell. [Interruption.] We will wait until he gets his card in.

Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (Prosecutions)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

1. I apologise, Presiding Officer. I got here early, as well, to make sure there were no problems.

To ask the Scottish Government how many prosecutions there have been under the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 for smoking in non-smoking premises and permitting another person to smoke in non-smoking premises. (S4O-00979)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

It has been reported to me that some of those who have been prosecuted view a fine as an occupational hazard or just another business expense. Is the number of prosecutions rising, falling or remaining steady year on year? Does the Scottish Government have any plans to increase the size of the fines or the fixed penalties that are issued to smokers and proprietors who allow smoking in breach of the 2005 act?

Lothian and Borders Police (Farm Watch)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made in implementing the farm watch scheme across the Lothian and Borders Police force area, in order to reduce the impact of crime on local farmers. (S4O-00980)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Recorded crime in Scotland is at its lowest level since 1976. It is important to recognise that the majority of farmers enjoy a crime-free working environment. The Scottish Business Crime Centre, in partnership with the National Farmers Union Scotland and Lothian and Borders Police, has produced a practical guide to crime prevention in rural and farming communities. Initiatives such as farm watch are an important tool in promoting farm security and crime prevention in rural and farming communities. If the information and advice from the police is followed, it should decrease the likelihood of someone being a victim of crime.

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

NFUS members in East Lothian and Midlothian have raised concerns that, although significant resources and commitment have been given to farm watch in the Borders, which is G division, elsewhere in the Lothian and Borders Police area, on-farm crime is not necessarily receiving as robust a response. I am not asking for the cabinet secretary to interfere in operational matters, but I wonder whether there is any scope to provide evidence of farm watch’s impact and success to date in order to encourage other divisional commanders to adopt the scheme more seriously.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I thank the member for raising the issue, because we need to recognise that it has affected not only the Borders but Dumfries and Galloway. Indeed, chatting to Adam Ingram at lunch time, I learned that it is also an issue in the South Ayrshire area that he represents.

It would be right for the member to raise the matter in other parts of the Lothian and Borders Police area and indeed elsewhere but our information so far is that farm watch is working well; after all, it is all about people working with other authorities on these issues. If the member were to raise the matter with the chief constable, I would be more than happy to echo his comments that such schemes are examples of good practice and that we should seek to introduce them not only in more rural areas but in areas such as Midlothian and East Lothian that have significant numbers of farming communities who should be protected and whom we should be assisting in that respect.

Cyberbullying

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive how it ensures that cyberbullying incidents are recorded accurately. (S4O-00981)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The aim of the Scottish crime recording standard, which was introduced throughout Scotland in April 2004, was to provide a more victim-orientated approach to the recording of crime and ensure uniformity in crime recording practices across police forces. Responsibility for ensuring compliance with the standard lies with individual chief constables.

As I noted in my reply to the member’s previous question,

“cyberbullying is not a specific offence in itself ... and may not be identifiable separately”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 16 April 2012; S4W-06346.]

in the annual “Recorded Crime in Scotland” bulletin.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Does the cabinet secretary share my concern, also expressed by parents and children’s charities across Scotland, about the growing prevalence of cyberbullying incidents and is he willing to meet me to discuss the issue in more detail?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I am more than happy to recognise that the issue exists. I do not know whether it is better to discuss the matter with me, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, or indeed the Minister for Children and Young People, but the member is right to point out that, in the world in which we live, certain aggressive behaviour, no matter whether it is related to tweets about football or, indeed, children, is unacceptable and deeply distressing and indeed can be criminal. As I have said, the issue might be better dealt with by those with responsibility for children but the Government is certainly happy to liaise with the member to see what we can do collectively to ensure that these matters are minimised and that we protect people from frankly unacceptable behaviour.

Mediation (Family Contact Disputes)

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to strengthen the role of mediation in resolving family contact disputes. (S4O-00982)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Scottish Government takes mediation services very seriously; indeed, the member might be interested to learn that I will be speaking on that very subject at a conference next Wednesday. However, although such services can play a valuable role in resolving family disputes, the Scottish Government believes that, where parents cannot reach agreement, it is right for a court to regulate matters in relation to contact.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

The minister will be aware of the devastating effects of contact agreements being broken without any explanation, usually as a result of a family dispute, and the consequent damage to children. Will the Scottish Government give some consideration to requiring parents who do that to present a case to the mediation service to ensure that a clear explanation is recorded and can form the basis for discussion to resolve disputes as early as possible?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I am aware that the member has a long-running constituency interest in these matters. The difficulty is that the member’s suggested approach raises some problems. For example, if domestic abuse were involved, mediation would not be appropriate. Moreover, a mediation service cannot act in a judicial way and compel parents to appear before it. The fact is that mediation works well only if people undertake it voluntarily; if they are forced into it, it ceases to be mediation. There are also cost implications in giving extra functions to mediation services.

Issues of contact can be very complex, and there might well be good reasons why contact does not happen after the court has ordered it. In the longer term, however, we should—and will—take a further look at issues around the enforcement of contact orders.

Sentencing (Impact on Children)

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive how it takes account of the rights of the child when a parent is being sentenced. (S4O-00983)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

It is the courts rather than the Scottish Government that decide sentences, and the courts will take into account any relevant factors before they make a decision on sentencing within the overall legal framework. The complete independence of the judiciary is at the heart of the criminal justice system in Scotland, and it is appropriate that such decisions are entirely a matter for the sentencing judge, who will hear all the facts and circumstances surrounding the offence and the offender.

At the point of sentencing by the court, it can request a criminal justice social work report. As part of the reporting process, it is possible for the report writer, if appropriate, to interview the children of offenders to consider the welfare, interests and needs of those children. The purpose of the criminal justice social work report is to provide the court with appropriate information that will be helpful in deciding the most appropriate way to deal with offenders.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Child impact assessments ensure that the child’s interests are represented in decisions about custody and release, and they highlight the needs of the child at those points. Does the cabinet secretary agree that such assessments are vital for the long-term protection and wellbeing of children, and that they possess the opportunity to rehabilitate the parents, because they know what will happen to their child after sentencing?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The member makes a valid point. That is why we as an Administration and we as a party supported Aileen Campbell’s attempts in the previous session to introduce measures that would have required the courts to consider the impact on the child.

It is important that anybody who imposes a custodial sentence—or, indeed, a non-custodial sentence in many instances—looks into the interests of and consequences for the child. At the end of the day, it must be for the sheriff or judge to make the final decision—that is a fundamental tenet of our democracy—but the member raises an important point. I am happy to discuss the matter with her, and I discuss it with Tom Welsh and the chair of the Judicial Studies Committee. The member is correct. In taking issues into account and imposing a sentence, it is important that the court is aware of and at least considers what the ramifications for children will be.

Legal Aid (Reform)

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive how it plans to reform the legal aid system. (S4O-00984)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Scottish Government has taken forward significant reforms to the legal aid system. In the 2007 to 2011 parliamentary session, financial eligibility for civil legal aid was substantially widened so that more than 70 per cent of the Scottish population potentially qualify for it. In addition, summary criminal legal aid was reformed, and improvements were made to the fee structures for civil legal aid, solemn criminal legal aid and criminal appeal fees for counsel. A further series of changes was made following the 2010 spending review to reduce expenditure while maintaining the broad scope of the legal aid system.

In October 2011, the Scottish Government published its detailed plans for the on-going reform of the legal aid system in Scotland in the paper entitled “A Sustainable Future for Legal Aid”.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

The Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Bill was introduced the day after my question was lodged. I understand that one of its purposes is to ensure parity in the payment of charges in criminal, civil and children’s legal aid cases. Constituents of mine who have been involved in civil cases, such as divorce cases, have raised concerns with me that some applicants for legal aid may be able to conceal sources of income or capital assets. What procedures are used to prevent fraud? Will the bill that the cabinet secretary introduced last week tighten them up?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The bill that was introduced last week is a separate matter, but the member raises an appropriate point. It should be borne in mind that making a false declaration is a criminal offence. That would be a matter for the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and I assure the member that the board takes such matters seriously. I am sure that the chief executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, Lindsay Montgomery, would be happy to advise the member of further steps that it takes to ensure that fraud is not perpetrated.

The member may very well be at one with us on contributions in criminal cases. It has always been my view that there has been a manifest injustice in a victim of domestic violence, for example, finding herself liable to making contributions to obtain the appropriate civil orders for her protection, despite her keeping a roof over the heads of the children, while the perpetrator of the violence has received criminal legal aid without making any contribution. That has happened in many instances, and there is no basis for it. Equally, if someone who can afford to buy and run a car and meet all the costs that go with that indulges in drink-driving, it is perfectly clear to me that they should be capable of making a contribution towards criminal legal aid.

I will be happy to advise the member on the issue that she asks about, and I have no doubt that the Scottish Legal Aid Board could provide further information. I hope that we can work together to ensure that there is some parity. The purpose of the bill that we have introduced is to ensure that, by bringing in contributions in criminal cases, we can continue to provide access to legal aid to those who, like Elaine Murray’s constituents, need protection.

Prisons (Contraband)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to involve local communities in preventing the entry of contraband into the prison estate. (S4O-00985)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Scottish Prison Service, working with the police and other partners, has developed a variety of initiatives, including the new prison watch scheme. That innovative scheme has been a great success in Edinburgh prison, where it was piloted. Encouraging local people to work with the SPS and the police to catch those who try to introduce drugs, phones and other illicit items into our prisons is the way forward. I am confident that the success that has been achieved in Edinburgh will be repeated in Aberdeen and Peterhead prisons.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Involving the local community in helping to keep contraband out of prisons is particularly important in areas where the prison is sited close to local residents, as is the case in my constituency, so I am delighted that the prison watch scheme has been launched in HMP Aberdeen. Given the success of the pilot scheme in Edinburgh, will the cabinet secretary look at rolling out the approach in other parts of the country, if the evidence shows that the project continues to reduce the level of contraband that gets into prisons?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Absolutely. The scheme started in Saughton on the initiative of an officer who serves there. I am grateful to the staff and the governor of the prison.

Maureen Watt makes a valid point about prisons that are located in the heart of communities. The situation might be somewhat different in Shotts prison or even Glenochil prison. It is a question of good practice. The scheme that has been piloted in Edinburgh is being rolled out in Aberdeen and Grampian prisons. I give the member an absolute assurance that, if the scheme works, we will seek to ensure that it works in every part of the prison estate.

Procurator Fiscal Service (Guidance)

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what guidance is used by a procurator fiscal in determining whether a case is tried on a summary or indictment basis. (S4O-00987)

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

In the recent case of Damon Brooke, who attempted to abduct a young girl last year, the sheriff commented that the fact that the case was dealt with as a summary prosecution meant that his hands were tied when it came to sentencing. Given that the nature of a crime is a highly significant factor in the procurator fiscal’s decision making, does the Solicitor General agree that there needs to be a review of which crimes fall into the category of solemn prosecution and which fall into that of summary prosecution?

Farmers Co-operatives

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to encourage the establishment of farmers co-operatives to promote local produce. (S4O-00989)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We support the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society to work across the public and private sector to support business models that enhance collaboration, gain economies of scale, reduce costs and promote Scotland’s outstanding produce at home and abroad. Among other things, since 2007, we have provided direct funding of more than £4 million to various farming co-operatives to develop and expand their businesses.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

I have an example in which meals on wheels are flown frozen from Wiltshire to Glasgow and then trucked a further 120 miles via a Scottish depot to my constituency of Midlothian North and Musselburgh. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that is patently absurd and that encouraging local produce through local purchasing makes good sense?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Yes—where that can happen, it makes sense. The Government remains committed to encouraging those who are involved in procurement, particularly public procurement, to buy more fresh, seasonal and high-quality produce, which often comes from local producers and suppliers. The Government has set in motion a range of actions to support that commitment, including publishing guidance that is aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises and public bodies. I am keen to hear more about the example that the member cites, because it is clearly causing concern. If there is any way in which we can help to change the culture locally, we would certainly support that.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

As a member of the Scottish Co-operative Party, I have a particular interest in the co-operative model, which is vibrant in the agriculture sector. Can the cabinet secretary give a reassurance that the Scottish Government will support the aims of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, which wishes to increase the availability of local food in partnership with the Scottish Association of Farmers Markets, in particular with regard to problems of town planning constraints?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Yes, I can give the member that assurance. The Government has given unprecedented support to farmers markets and has encouraged them to work together across Scotland. We recently gave the Scottish Association of Farmers Markets, I think, £200,000, which was the first grant that it had received as a body. I hope that that will help to make a difference. As I said in my previous answer, we have given £4 million to the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, to which the member referred. If the society wishes to bring to my attention any particular issues that will help to empower primary producers to deal directly with their customers and across the supply chain, I would be interested in hearing about that.

Salmon Farming (Sea Lice)

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to meet the international goals agreed in the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization “Guidance on Best Management Practices to address impacts of sea lice and escaped salmon on wild salmon stocks”. (S4O-00990)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I refer the member to written answer S4W-06830, which was published in the daily written answers report on 30 April 2012 and which states:

“The Scottish Government has supported, and continues to support, the sustainable development of the aquaculture industry and wild salmon and recreational fisheries in Scotland.

The draft report does not fully take into account the measures that the Scottish Government has taken, and continues to take, to address the issues highlighted. Examples include the continued work of the Improved Containment Working Group and proposals included in the recent Aquaculture and Fisheries Bill Consultation document. We are considering the way forward in light of responses to the bill consultation.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 30 April 2012; S4W-06830.]

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

As the minister will be aware, NASCO utilises four focus area reports in monitoring this issue and, according to its recent report,

“progress towards achieving the international goals for sea lice and containment”

had not been demonstrated in Scotland. Does the minister recognise that the reporting of lice levels on individual farms is fundamental in demonstrating progress towards achieving the international goals for sea lice?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

In my time as minister responsible for wild salmon and recreational fisheries and, of course, aquaculture, I have sought to promote dialogue between the interests that have to share the same ecological space. I am therefore very pleased to report that as a result of a series of workshops that we have run, and because of the way in which we have worked, the different sectors are now talking to each other. For example, the wild salmon and recreational fisheries industry has sat down with the aquaculture industry to examine the sea lice data that is collected in considerable detail. That is a substantial step forward. That data is collected and published in aggregate, and I am optimistic that we will find the right balance that will enable us to continue to drive sea lice infestation down from what are, in world terms, already very low levels to even lower levels and ensure that there is even less interaction between wild salmon and the aquaculture industry.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What is the Scottish Government doing to encourage an integrated system of fallowing of fin fish cage sites in sea lochs? Has it taken note of the fact that wild salmon and sea trout stocks in particular west coast areas are declining while east coast stocks appear to be rising?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Taking the second question first, I point out that the reduction in stocks is specific to specific rivers. Stocks are rising in some west coast areas and falling in others, but those trends are simply an extension of trends that were in evidence before any farms were established.

On the issue of fallowing, our recent consultation, responses to which we are now analysing, sought views on management areas for estuaries or lochs shared by a number of operators to ensure synchronised fallowing. In taking forward that proposal, we must work with the industry. As long as they serve the public good, I would very much like voluntary agreements to be reached in different areas—after all, they help us by keeping us out of the picture. Fallowing is certainly a very important part of the armoury in dealing with sea lice.

Animal Cruelty

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. I will do my best, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to tackle animal cruelty. (S4O-00991)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to animals kept by man and provides suitable powers for enforcement bodies. In the area of animal welfare, we are currently concentrating on developing new legislation on the welfare of animals at slaughter in order to implement European Union legislation early next year. Other issues under consideration include the use of wild animals in circuses, the regulation of equine establishments and the use of electronic shock collars for dog training.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has raised concerns about consistency in sentencing. I realise that the cabinet secretary does not have a direct input into sentencing, but I note that in one case an individual was given a life ban for not feeding a cat for four days, while in another, a repeat offender was given only a five-year ban for dog fighting. Is the cabinet secretary prepared to engage with the SSPCA on these matters and raise concerns directly with Cabinet colleagues and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank the member for raising the matter, although it is perhaps slightly more appropriate to the ministers in the justice portfolio who have just been answering questions. That said, I am happy to speak to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the issue and, if the SSPCA has any concerns, I urge it to write to me about them. The Parliament’s job is to legislate and ensure that the appropriate penalties are available to the courts, but ultimately it is up to the courts to decide on each case. Nevertheless, if the SSPCA wishes to write to me on the issue, I will look into it.

Walking and Cycling to Work (Glasgow)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking by means of its climate challenge fund to promote walking and cycling to work initiatives in Glasgow. (S4O-00992)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I recently announced the successful projects to receive funding from round 9 of the climate challenge fund. That included four projects totalling over £1.5 million in Glasgow that contained an element of sustainable transport. Projects included an award to the Glasgow bike station of just under £450,000 over three years for their a better way to work Glasgow project.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for his response and welcome the grants that are coming to Glasgow. I suppose that it is important that cycling and walking initiatives are supported. We know that their benefits are a boost to health and fitness, the reducing of stress and the saving of money, all three of which would probably benefit us all. Has the Government considered a cycle hire scheme with docks at train or subway stations, Commonwealth games venues or throughout the city to encourage more Glaswegians to get active and fit?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I have seen successful schemes of that kind in Brussels and London. It would be a matter for Glasgow City Council to pursue. During the next three years, we will invest more than £20 million in active travel projects and I would be happy for the Government to work with Glasgow City Council on that.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I applaud the Government’s work in creating the climate challenge fund. How much of the fund will be spent on plugging the gap that was created by the cuts to the active travel budget?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The climate challenge fund is about innovation and projects, so it is important that we focus on that. The example that was given in the original question is an example of real innovation. I cannot anticipate what the independent panel will recommend to ministers, but that sounds like the kind of project that should be pursued.