Scottish Parliament, 8 October 2014

284 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is consideration of business motion S4M-11143, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a revision of today’s business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Wednesday 8 October 2014—

(a) after

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions

Education and Lifelong Learning

insert

followed by Ministerial Statement: Future of Scotland’s Railways

(b) delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.30 pm Decision Time—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

Education and Lifelong Learning

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is portfolio question time. As ever, to enable as many members as possible to speak, I would prefer short, succinct questions and answers to match.

First Aid Cover (Primary Schools and Nurseries)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what provision primary schools and nurseries make for first aid cover. (S4O-03571)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The provision of first aid in primary schools and nurseries is a matter for the education authority or nursery provider itself in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 and, where appropriate, the Schools (Safety and Supervision of Pupils) Scotland Regulations 1990.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

A constituent of mine has questioned Glasgow City Council about first aid in its schools, which seem to rely entirely on volunteers and often have no cover whatever. That concerns both my constituent and me. Is the minister willing to look into the issue and perhaps raise it with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As I said, the 1990 regulations make certain specifications in the area and, in the first instance, any specific concerns that the member has should be raised with the local authority concerned. The Scottish Government is leading a review of the administration of issues such as medicines in schools.

Referendum (Evaluation of Help for Young Voters)

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what evaluation will be done of the work carried out by schools to help prepare 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum. (S4O-03572)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Education Scotland undertook an interim evaluation of a sample of primary and secondary schools between January and June 2014 to evaluate the approaches that were being adopted to promote political literacy and to prepare young people to vote in the referendum. The evaluation involved discussions with school staff, with partners including the Electoral Commission and with pupils themselves, and it found that, in best practice, schools demonstrated clear vision and strong leadership for the development of young people’s political literacy. Education Scotland is committed to sharing that good practice more widely.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am sure that, like me, the minister welcomes the cross-party support that exists for 16 and 17-year-olds voting in future elections. Does he agree that, during the referendum campaign, different schools tended to take different approaches and that, if 16 and 17-year-olds are to get the vote on a more permanent basis in the future, a more consistent approach to how young people engage in the political process should be taken across all schools?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As both I and the member have mentioned, schools have an array of different strategies to support the development of responsible citizenship, and one of the tenets of curriculum for excellence is to encourage that diversity of approach. However, many schools have also established successful engagement with partners, including the Scottish Parliament education service and electoral registration officers, who have ensured that, this time around, young people have taken up the right that I think we all want them to take up in all future elections.

Information and Communication Technology in Education Excellence Group

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in implementing the recommendations of the ICT in education excellence group. (S4O-03573)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

A range of activity to take forward the recommendations has been undertaken. Investment in glow has continued and, last weekend, glow was fully transitioned to a new, flexible, cloud-based arrangement. Nationally procured core services including collaboration tools, email, blogs, wikis and storage have been implemented and users can now personalise their own glow services through a library of educational applications.

Support and training are available to help teachers to make informed decisions on how best to use glow, and options for the future evolution of glow are being considered.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Some local authorities, including Dumfries and Galloway Council, are now considering how pupils’ use of their own information technology devices in school might have a positive impact on teaching and learning. What advice and support is the Scottish Government offering to councils that are considering introducing that policy?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

We are at the stage at which it could be said that glow is almost device agnostic—it is encouraging of new approaches—and we are supportive of that attitude. Through our technical and operational advisory group, which is comprised of ICT managers, information security officers and others, we will continue to promote that diversity of approach.

Relationship, Sexual Health and Parenting Education (Guidance)

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

4. To ask the Scottish Government when it will publish updated guidance for the delivery of relationship, sexual health and parenting education. (S4O-03574)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Relationship, sexual health and parenthood education is an integral part of the health and wellbeing organiser of the curriculum. We will publish finalised guidance on that later this year. We recognise the importance of the guidance and want to ensure that we strike the right balance.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Youth Parliament has conducted research about the extent of RSHPE in schools, and “Lessons for Scotland from the Jay Report into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham: A Barnardo’s Scotland discussion paper” has shown its importance for child protection. What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that we have top-quality RSHPE in all schools?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Marco Biagi rightly highlights the importance of the issue. The contribution of the Scottish Youth Parliament and others has been important in highlighting a range of issues including, for instance, the importance that the SYP attaches to teaching young people about consent.

We all agree about the importance of ensuring that quality sex and relationship education is in place and we work together with many stakeholders to ensure that that happens.

College Mergers (Effect on Staff)

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how many further education college staff have had pay reductions or an increase in working hours following the recent merger process. (S4O-03575)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government does not hold such information centrally. It is for individual colleges as employers to determine appropriate pay, terms and conditions for their staff.

Ken Macintosh

I am sure that the minister appreciates the difficulty in trying to harmonise terms and conditions throughout Scotland, particularly when lecturers might have enjoyed different salary levels, levels of contact time or study leave. Will he assure me that lecturers in, for example, the newly merged Ayrshire College who might previously have enjoyed more favourable terms and conditions will not be forced by underhand tactics—such as being forced to apply for jobs at lower grades—to accept lower terms and conditions of employment?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am glad that Ken Macintosh is converted to the concept of national terms and conditions. He and his colleagues voted against it in the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Act 2013, but I am glad that he welcomes it now.

I am keen that harmonisation takes place through negotiation between the trade unions and employers but, as the trade unions will no doubt confirm, that negotiation will have to ensure that no individual suffers in the process and that, over a period, all individuals are satisfied that their interests are being met. That is the aim of the harmonisation process within colleges and nationally, and I am keen that it produces the best results for all staff individually and collectively.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary mentioned the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Act 2013. One of the key strengths of that act was the reintroduction of collective bargaining in the college sector, a move which the Labour members of the Parliament voted against. Will he confirm that the colleges will take that forward in the future?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Absolutely. I am glad that all members—I hope it is all members—now support national pay bargaining, because it is an important element of the reforms that took place.

Colleges Scotland is providing support for a series of committees that will determine the new national salary and terms and conditions of service for the sector. The first meeting of the national joint negotiating committee for college staff took place in June 2014. The process will be difficult and complex, because there were many, many terms and conditions. Indeed, I have made that point often in this chamber—at one stage, there were 43 sets of terms and conditions and only 41 colleges. It will take work, but the unions are engaged in the process; management is engaged in the process; and it is backed by the Government.

Post-study Work Visa (Reintroduction)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government about reintroducing the post-study work visa. (S4O-03576)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government was opposed to the abolition of the post-study work visa and we want the ability to reintroduce the visa in Scotland. Last week, we submitted evidence to the UK all-party parliamentary group on migration inquiry into the closure of the post-study work route. The evidence made clear the negative impact that the closure of the route has had on international student numbers, on businesses and on universities and colleges.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. Can he confirm that he will work with Universities Scotland and others who wish to see a reintroduction of the post-study work route to ensure that the Smith commission will consider devolving immigration?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Indeed. Of course, the clearest and most obvious way to have immigration controlled by the Scottish Parliament would be to support independence. However, given the present constitutional set-up, it is more than possible to see how migration and immigration issues could be devolved. Indeed, if Gordon Brown is honest to his intention of introducing a federal structure, there are federal structures that work in that way. For example, in Quebec, there is shared sovereignty over the issues of migration. Of course, in those circumstances, I would want control of the issue to be vested in this Parliament so that we can advantage Scotland and advantage those who want to come and study and work here.

College Sector (Severance Packages)

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how much it has spent on severance packages in the college sector since 2011. (S4O-03577)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The information is not held centrally, but I have asked the chief executive of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to write to the member.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary knows, almost £500,000 in severance payments was shared between the principal and the vice-principal of the former North Glasgow College, and Audit Scotland has raised serious questions over the process that led to those packages being agreed. Can the cabinet secretary tell me who was involved in the agreement of those packages and what knowledge he had of them at the time?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Of course, the Government has no knowledge of arrangements that are made between employers and employees, but I am very happy to say to the member that I thoroughly disapprove of circumstances in which individuals are seen to be in receipt of payments whose amount is questioned by other people. I have said that about university salaries, I have said that about other salaries, and I say that about severance payments. A sense of responsibility needs to be observed in such matters, so I am quite happy to work with the member and others to ensure that, if questions are raised—as there have been over that case and others—those questions are fully investigated and any responsibility is understood.

Autistic Spectrum Disorder (Awareness and Understanding in Schools)

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to increase awareness and understanding of autistic spectrum disorder in schools. (S4O-03578)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Education authorities have duties to identify, make provision for and review the additional support needs of their pupils, including pupils with autism spectrum disorder. To improve awareness and understanding of autism in schools, I launched the autism toolbox website in April, at Grangemouth high school. Delegates included teachers, educational support staff and pupils. The toolbox website encourages best practice in schools. It also provides a forum for updating and disseminating good practice.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I am grateful to the Scottish Government for launching the autism toolbox. Can the minister update the chamber on how that is being promoted within education authorities and in individual schools and how it will be monitored and reviewed? Can he also consider how issues around autistic spectrum disorder and other additional support needs are captured in teacher training to ensure that newly qualified teachers have a good grounding in and understanding of those conditions?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The member has a commendable record on raising these issues. Scottish Autism has contacted all education authorities with the offer of awareness sessions about the toolbox. The sessions have already reached more than 1,500 delegates. To enable the Scottish Government to monitor the promotion of the toolbox, Scottish Autism provides us with regular updates about the take-up of awareness sessions and about the usage of the toolbox.

Gaelic-medium Education (Number of Pupils)

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

9. To ask the Scottish Government what the trends are in the number of children in Gaelic-medium education. (S4O-03579)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The overall trend in the number of children in Gaelic-medium education shows an increase, as can be seen in the number of pupils entering primary 1 Gaelic-medium education classes, which has increased from 406 in 2011-12 to 428 in 2012-13, 486 in 2013-14 and 536 in 2014-15.

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

The minister will no doubt be aware of the £36 million investment that is planned for a new school for Kilmarnock, £1 million of which will support a magnificent Gaelic two-to-18 campus. With a project of that scale being delivered, does the minister see further opportunities to develop Gaelic and perhaps to reach out to parents in the wider community to encourage them to take an interest in Scotland’s language?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The Scottish Government is always happy, as Willie Coffey says, to reach out to the community of parents who, whether they are with or without Gaelic, have an interest in ensuring that their children have a bilingual education. The support that is on offer from the Scottish Government has been made use of enthusiastically in East Ayrshire.

Postgraduate Masters Degrees (Student Funding)

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

10. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on funding for people studying for postgraduate masters degrees. (S4O-03580)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In the academic year 2013-14, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council introduced 850 fully funded postgraduate diploma and masters places up to 2016-17. Encouraging more Scottish students to participate in postgraduate study is a priority for the Government. Increased participation in postgraduate study can help to improve employment prospects for graduates and the competitiveness of the Scottish economy. We have been examining our overall support package for taught postgraduate students, and I intend to make an announcement about that in the near future.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I am aware that, last year, the cabinet secretary announced that Scottish postgraduate students who study eligible courses will be able to get an additional loan of up to £4,500 from 2015-16. Has consideration been given to extending the number of courses that are eligible for the incoming loan facility?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am glad that Roderick Campbell has drawn attention to the additional loan for living costs that will be available from 2015-16. I acknowledge his long-standing interest in the matter, in particular in the funding of the postgraduate legal diploma.

We are examining our overall support package for taught postgraduate students, as I have said, including the eligible course list, which is a complex matter given the range of subjects. As I promised Roderick Campbell, I will make an announcement about that in the near future.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to hear that postgraduate funding is a priority for the Government. Taught postgraduate degree fees for humanities at the University of Edinburgh increased by 42 per cent last year from £7,000 to £10,000, with a significant reduction in the number of Scottish students doing postgraduate study. One course at Edinburgh has had no Scottish students for four years. What is being done to help Scottish students and students from poorer backgrounds to access those postgrad courses?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am glad that Mary Scanlon is concerned about that. It is important that we support students in every way that we can. One of the main disincentives for study, both at undergraduate and at postgraduate level, is the level of debt that will be incurred. In Scotland, we have the lowest level of undergraduate debt, and I intend to keep it that way. We now want to ensure that postgraduate students, given the debt that they incur, are similarly helped. The announcements that I have made to date have been directed towards that aim.

More can be done. We are operating in a hostile financial environment, and in an environment in which there is considerable pressure south of the border to increase student borrowings. If Mary Scanlon will lend her support to the Government in its aim to keep Scottish education free, that will assist Scottish recruitment to postgraduate study over time. I will be glad to have that support from Tory members.

National Qualifications (Grades)

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

11. To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that grades awarded in the new national qualifications are considered to be equal across all subjects. (S4O-03581)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The Scottish Qualifications Authority is responsible for ensuring that standards and grades remain consistent across all subjects from year to year, and it has robust processes in place to ensure that. The SQA is confident that those standards have been applied to the new qualifications certificated in 2014.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Is the minister aware of the article in The Times Educational Supplement Scotland on 12 September with the headline “Teachers reach boiling point over physics marking”, in which education experts are reported as expressing concerns that the new national exams are making science subjects too difficult and that teachers in physics in particular are concerned that their subject will suffer because good marks have been so hard to come by this year? Does he recognise those concerns and how would he respond to the experts and teachers who believe that science subjects in general, and physics in particular, will suffer a long-term decline in relation to other subjects because obtaining good marks will be comparatively more difficult?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The member will of course be aware that the issue of marking is for the Scottish Qualifications Authority. However, I can say that the SQA, which has 15,000 experts across different subjects, goes to great effort to ensure that no cohort of people sitting an exam is in any way disadvantaged or advantaged and to ensure that, from year to year, the grade boundaries take cognisance of any variations that are perceived in the exams. In the year that has gone past, a record number of people got highers. In fact, I think that I may be right in saying that record numbers have gone forward for highers in science subjects, at a time when the pass rate has not gone up. That shows that in Scotland we are not only maintaining high standards of which we should be proud but increasing access.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

On the implementation of the new national qualifications, we have teachers who have never been so angry and parents and pupils have been worried and stressed. Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning told the Education and Culture Committee that he has made mistakes. When people make mistakes, the normal thing to do is to apologise for them. Will the minister do what Mike Russell did not do yesterday and apologise to teachers, parents and pupils in Scotland for his Government’s mismanagement of the curriculum for excellence, or is he, too, happy to hide behind everybody else?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

If that was a question rather than just a series of complaints about humanity, I would like to say that I think that we should, as a country and an education system, be very proud of the efforts that teachers and young people have gone to and of their achievements. We certainly should not say anything that suggests that this year’s qualifications are somehow to be disparaged. There is every reason to be proud of this year’s achievements. Of course we want to learn from the way in which we implement things and do things even better in the future, but we should be proud that, this year, the number of highers is up, as I just mentioned. There is every indication that young people are achieving and achieving well.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 12, from Jenny Marra, has not been lodged. An explanation was provided.

Children and Young People’s Summit

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

13. To ask the Scottish Government how plans for the children and young people’s summit are progressing. (S4O-03583)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The children and young people’s summit will bring together children, young people, those who support them and wider civic society. It will provide an opportunity to harness the renewed interest in the positive, energising and consented improvement that we have seen over the past two years. That was personified in the two young women whom I met yesterday at a visit to indi youth in Castlemilk, who are bright, articulate and interested in contributing to decision making.

The gathering will be the beginning of a process that will involve conversations with children and young people taking place around the country. Those conversations will inform future policy and will drive improvement in services for children and young people. The Scottish Government will convene the summit, with the participants determining the most effective way to involve interested citizens at grass-roots level in improving services for children and young people.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Will the minister confirm that young people from every local authority area will be invited to attend the summit, thereby ensuring that the widest possible range of opinions from all parts of the country, taking in urban and rural in all its forms, can be canvassed?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Yes. I am happy to confirm that a wide range of children and young people from right across Scotland will be invited to engage in the conversation. We want to hear from children and young people from right across Scotland and we have asked Scottish Government officials to plan on that basis.

At the recent public meeting of the Cabinet that I attended in Arbroath—the member was there, too—I had the pleasure of meeting many engaged children and young people from Angus. We want to ensure that that breadth of talent is involved and that those voices are heard and listened to. We need to capture the momentum that the referendum process has created among our young people and harness it for the betterment of our country.

Colleges (Number of Female Students)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

14. To ask the Scottish Government what the head count, enrolment and full-time equivalent figures are for female students at colleges in 2014 compared with 2011. (S4O-03584)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In keeping with normal practice, college sector figures for 2013-14 will not be available until January 2015. The latest figures, however, show that in 2012-13, 53 per cent of college students were female, the same percentage as in 2011-12.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The trend that we have seen over recent years is that, while the full-time equivalent figure has gone up, the head count number has been going down, indicating that fewer women are studying in our colleges.

When I had a round-table discussion with single parents from Levenmouth, they said that the biggest barrier to women going into college was the affordability and availability of childcare. There is an on-going review of the childcare workforce, but what analysis has the Government done of capacity in the childcare sector, which could specifically address the needs of parents who are seeking to go back to college?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The biggest difference that could come in transformational childcare was laid out in the Government’s white paper, “Scotland’s Future”. Claire Baker chose to campaign against the white paper, and therefore she should be aware of the consequences of her action and the actions of her colleagues.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is outrageous.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Actions always have consequences, and Claire Baker should recognise that.

We want to continue to do many things to assist women in Fife and elsewhere. Let me give the member two examples. First, we will continue the process that my colleague Angela Constance has taken forward—Levenmouth will be a pilot area for the Wood commission—so that we can ensure that lots of opportunities are created to assist young women in the circumstances that Claire Baker mentioned.

Secondly, we will present the situation as it should be presented, by showing that the full-time equivalent figure is based on real qualifications that are being provided in colleges. Those real qualifications lead to employability. The number of students achieving higher national certificate and higher national diploma qualifications, which are recognised and valued by employers, has gone up 36 per cent since 2007-08. Those are real qualifications with which we will help.

There are many other things that we are trying to do, but it becomes more difficult if this Parliament does not have full, normal powers, and Claire Baker cannot escape the consequences of her own actions.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the number of people studying for HNCs and other recognised qualifications has increased, which boosts the chances of our young people getting work?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

He has just said that.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am happy so to confirm. The number of students achieving those qualifications has risen by 36 per cent since 2007-08.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That is the same figure as before—36 per cent.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The number of people getting degrees is up 121 per cent over the same period. Mary Scanlon did not have that figure, but I am happy to give it to her.

It is the policies pursued by this Government that have improved the quality of opportunities for young people and the skills supply to our economy. The United Kingdom Commission for Employment and Skills says that 78 per cent of Scottish employers that recruited a college leaver found them well prepared for work—the figure is higher than the closest comparable figures in other UK nations. That is a result of the reforms that this Government has taken forward, in the teeth of opposition from the Labour Party and others.

Further Education and Lifelong Learning (People in Remote Areas)

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

15. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports people in remote areas into further education and lifelong learning. (S4O-03585)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The matter is of great concern and interest to me as a constituency member, and as the cabinet secretary.

The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council pays college regions that deliver in rural areas a premium totalling around £8 million. Our reforms have meant that colleges are increasingly funded on the basis of need. That has led to several colleges that operate in a rural context—such as Dumfries and Galloway College and Borders College in the member’s region—receiving additional activity. Record levels of student support mean that students of all ages are receiving better financial support than ever before to access college right across the board, in both rural and urban settings.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, living in more remote rural areas can pose a challenge for those seeking further education at colleges such as Borders College, which he mentioned, and New College Lanarkshire. Scottish Government statistics for 2012-13 show that the number of school leavers attending further education in those areas is roughly 6 per cent less than the national average.

Can the cabinet secretary set out in more detail what the Scottish Government is doing to support the development of outreach courses and specifically to provide transport support for links to colleges in those areas?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There are two areas in which I think that Claudia Beamish will be interested. One is the flexibility of transport support that colleges are able to provide. An example that is not in her region is the work that has been done by Dundee and Angus College, which has drawn in students by laying on transport. A similar approach has been taken by Borders College. That is very useful indeed.

In Claudia Beamish’s members’ business debate in September on the value of skills partnerships, Angela Constance gave a commitment to write to her about wider open learning opportunities—not just massive open online courses, which are of interest, but skills-based open learning, which is even more important, in my view. Those things are taking place.

Also of relevance is the joint development by Heriot-Watt University and Borders College of the Scottish Borders campus, which is creating new opportunities and drawing people to them. Further, I am strongly committed to the development of the Crichton campus as a centre for the whole of Dumfries and Galloway. That requires there being not only better transport links but, possibly, better student facilities on the campus for college and university students.

Much work is being done—and I have not even started to talk about the work that is being done in the Highlands and Islands, which is of importance, given that 13 colleges work together in that area to provide wide opportunities.

Education System (Alignment with Job and Career Opportunities)

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

16. To ask the Scottish Government how the education system can be more closely aligned toward job and career opportunities. (S4O-03586)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce published its report, “Education Working for All!”, in June. That report sets out an ambitious agenda for improving young people’s employability—of which the Scottish Government is fully supportive and to which I have referred in response to other questions today—including forging stronger links between schools, colleges and employers.

Later in the year, the Cabinet Secretary for Training, Youth and Women’s Employment will publish our implementation plan to take forward the report’s recommendations, benefiting learners and the wider economy alike.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is scope to fulfil suggestions made in the Wood report with regard to the secondary 1 to 4 junior secondary model for education that some rural authorities use, and does he agree that that is not incompatible with curriculum for excellence?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am happy to confirm to the member—as I have done before; I believe in writing to other members—that there is no incompatibility between curriculum for excellence and delivery models such as junior secondaries or small schools. That incompatibility does not exist; any contention that it does is wholly false.

The opportunity to have more diverse and richer models of delivery exists throughout Scotland. I encourage all authorities, including rural authorities, to consider that diversity and ensure that the flexible framework for curriculum for excellence is used to support a range of possibilities. If authorities do that, young people in rural and urban settings will benefit.

Increasing School Rolls (Support for Local Authorities)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

17. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to local authorities to ensure that there is suitable accommodation to deal with the projected increase in school rolls. (S4O-03587)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The statutory responsibility for the provision of adequate and sufficient school accommodation in Scotland lies with the local authorities. That said, the Scottish Government is investing £800 million in Scotland’s school estate through the £1.25 billion Scotland’s schools for the future school building programme. I was pleased and honoured to be involved in the new Mearns academy in Laurencekirk on Friday, which is a good example of how that programme is working.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

The City of Edinburgh Council is considering introducing cluster-based learning, although its strong preference is to build new accommodation. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the pressure on council budgets. Given the demographic pressure on Edinburgh and the council’s review of its school estate, can the cabinet secretary update Parliament on what discussions he has had with the City of Edinburgh Council and what particular support his Government is providing to help to ensure the right capacity and the right quality in our school provision?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The decision on how local authorities organise and establish their provision is up to those local authorities. I am sure that the member would defend the right of local authorities to make those decisions.

That said, my officials regularly meet representatives of the City of Edinburgh Council, and I have met the councillors, too. I remain open to discussion of the school estate throughout Scotland. Obviously, in the week of the budget, I do not want to say any more than that, but there is a constant examination of the need to ensure that the highest quality accommodation is provided and that we do our best to help areas that are under pressure.

Aberdeen City Council (Education)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

18. To ask the Scottish Government when it last discussed education issues with Aberdeen City Council. (S4O-03588)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives of Aberdeen City Council to discuss a wide range of education issues.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Labour-led Aberdeen City Council is failing to improve conditions in Victorian schools in the city, which is leading to difficulties for pupils, teachers and other staff. In fact, the council has just withdrawn funding that it had previously committed. What can the cabinet secretary do to ensure that Aberdeen City Council invests in schools such as Ferryhill, Broomhill, Ashley Road and Skene Square, in my constituency, to ensure that they are fit for the 21st century?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Aberdeen City Council is currently receiving revenue funding of more than £325 million. It is the responsibility of Aberdeen City Council to allocate its total financial resources to all services, including school maintenance, on the basis of local needs and priorities. Aberdeen has been allocated an extra £7 million over the period 2012 to 2015 as a result of the new 85 per cent funding floor formula that the Government introduced, which ensures that Aberdeen gets a better deal than ever before. The city will get a further £11.2 million in 2015-16.

The Scottish Government is also investing £800 million in Scotland’s school estate, through the £1.25 billion Scotland’s schools for the future programme. Aberdeen City Council already receives more than £28 million from the Scottish Government through that programme to build replacements for the existing Bucksburn and Newhills primary schools and for Torry and Kincorth academies. There will be even further investment in school infrastructure through the extension to the non-profit-distributing—NPD—programme, further details of which will be announced by ministers at the end of the week.

We remain committed to developing and building the school estate. That is the prime responsibility of local authorities, which deliver education, but the Scottish Government is a willing partner in ensuring, where we are able to do so, that that takes place.

Independent Schools (Charitable Status)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

19. I am somewhat surprised to be able to ask this question.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on independent schools having charitable status. (S4O-03589)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Independent schools, like all charities, have to meet the requirements of the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, including the public benefit test. Broadly speaking, as long as that test commands public confidence, qualifying independent schools will maintain charitable status. Whether individual schools meet the test is, of course, a matter for OSCR.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

I commend the cabinet secretary and his ministerial team on the efficiency of their responses to questions this afternoon. In that spirit, I ask them what their attitude might be to the extension of charitable status to cover all schools in Scotland.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That is an interesting possibility. I think that it was first mooted by Brian Monteith when he was a member of the Parliament’s Education, Culture and Sport Committee in a previous session. That proves not only that the education team has efficient responses, but that we have long memories. The idea was rejected at the time, but we should at least get some information on the matter in the future. If Mr Carlaw wishes to provide some information to us on the virtues of the proposal, I will of course look at it.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Does the cabinet secretary think that the test is stringent enough?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That is a matter for the Parliament to decide, as far as the legislation is concerned. OSCR has an obligation to meet the requirements of the present legislation. Whether that legislation should change and whether the test still commands public confidence are matters that the Parliament may wish to discuss at an appropriate time. At present, however, I am certainly not going to criticise OSCR, which is putting in place the test as it exists.

Future of Scotland’s Railways

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a statement by Keith Brown on the future of Scotland’s railways. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement. There should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am grateful to the Parliament for the opportunity to make a statement on the future of the ScotRail franchise.

This morning, I advised the Parliament that the procurement process for the ScotRail franchise had been completed on time and to plan. The Scottish Government believes that good public transport improves the lives of the people and the economy of Scotland. Following extensive consultation, Scotland’s railway has attracted a world-leading contract to deliver for rail staff and passengers.

The competition has been evaluated rigorously on the basis of the most advantageous balance of quality and price for passengers, staff and taxpayers, and the Scottish Government intends to award the contract to Abellio ScotRail Ltd.

The new franchise contract confirms the Scottish Government’s commitment to transform Scotland’s rail service. The new Abellio Group United Kingdom headquarters will add 50 new jobs to the 150 Abellio ScotRail HQ jobs secured in Glasgow. The franchise will commence on 1 April 2015 and will deliver investment in the service—investment for the benefit of passengers, staff and the taxpayer—for the next 10 years. The improvements that the contract secures will be felt right across the network for the benefit of all of Scotland.

Before I go into detail, I wish to remind members of the context of railway franchising. As members will recall from my statement earlier this year on the award of the Caledonian sleeper franchise, franchising is a requirement under the Railways Act 1993, and it precludes any UK public sector organisation bidding to operate a railway service. As I have stated publicly on many occasions, that is an unfair restriction that ought to be changed so that private and public sector bidders can compete equally. I have written to three Secretaries of State for Transport to request a change in law and each request has been refused.

Over 13 years, the Labour Administration chose not to widen access to rail franchising to UK public sector organisations, despite having ample opportunity to do so—the Transport Act 2000 and the Railways Act 2005 are silent on the issue. In fact, the Labour Administration supported franchising and its restrictions. In 2009, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Adonis, reassured the House of Commons Transport Committee that

“The evidence so far is that the franchising system has continued to prove its worth.”

I am left to deduce from its legislative silence and its vocal support for franchising that the Labour Administration was clearly happy to leave us operating these patently unfair procedures.

This week, we have started laying the tracks of the Borders railway, but the tracks of the franchising process were laid by Tory and Labour Governments at Westminster.

Earlier this week, I was asked to cancel the franchising process. Doing so might have left us liable for bid costs in excess of £30 million from our five bidders. Members should remember that it cost the Department for Transport more than £50 million for the failure of the west coast franchise, about which Ed Miliband said:

“It is a disgrace that it is going to cost £40m and perhaps more of taxpayers’ money because they have bungled this franchise.”

Nobody in the chamber can guarantee what new powers we will get and on what date, but we know that a delay in the process would be for a number of years. It would be costly and a bad deal for the travelling public, and I am not willing to put at risk the expectations of our passengers or the interests of the taxpayer by playing fast and loose with rail franchising.

Despite having to adhere to unfair franchising rules, we have always stated that we would do so competently. Accordingly, we set out a prudent programme for our franchise procurements, with a process managed by an expert team within Transport Scotland. We delivered the Caledonian sleeper franchise on schedule and, today, applying the same competent, prudent approach that has become the hallmark of this Government, we have delivered yet another successful outcome.

Following a pre-qualification process, we attracted five high-quality bids. The bidders, each of which has international interests, demonstrate the global appeal of Scotland. Their participation demonstrates the confidence that they have in Scotland as a place to conduct business. As members know, ministers play no part in the evaluation of bids or in the selection of the winning bidder—those matters are governed by the process that is administered by Transport Scotland officials—but I am advised that each of the bids was of high quality and, after a rigorous evaluation exercise, Abellio came out on top.

At this point, I would like to thank Arriva, FirstGroup, MTR and National Express for their participation and confidence in the Scottish Government’s vision for ScotRail. I also thank those many stakeholders who informed each of the bids. Particular thanks go to FirstGroup and its hard-working staff for their management of the service since 2004. Since that time, patronage has grown by a third, more than 200 additional daily train services have been provided, performance has improved from 87 per cent to nearly 92 per cent, and passenger satisfaction has risen to 90 per cent. Taken together, those are commendable achievements.

Our franchise specification puts passengers’ interests at the heart of the ScotRail service. It includes ambitious service standards and an emphasis on quality and effective operation. The new franchise will transform the passenger experience through improved provision of information, enhanced websites, a price promise to provide the best-value ticket and a Scotland-wide extension of smart and integrated ticketing, which will make travel simpler and smarter.

In addition to its price promise, the new franchisee will implement our commitment to bear down on fares to make rail a much more attractive travel choice. As of January next year, peak fares will be capped at the retail prices index and off-peak fares will not be able to increase at a rate greater than RPI minus 1 per cent. Jobseekers and the newly employed will also benefit from reduced fare schemes. In short, there will be fairer affordable fares for all.

A mobile ticketing application will enable passengers to buy tickets, search for travel information, book cycle hire and taxis from selected stations and obtain details on less busy services. Enabling choice and making journeys easy are key to getting our country on the move. Across the network, there will be more car parking spaces, more electric-car charging bays, more cycle spaces and at selected stations even a bike-and-go cycle hire scheme to enable end-to-end journeys.

Our station environments will be updated with more platform shelters, more refreshment kiosks and major enhancements at Aberdeen, Perth, Stirling, Motherwell and Inverness. All of that will build on the substantial investment that has already been made in Waverley and Haymarket and the improvements that are planned for Glasgow Queen Street and Dundee.

We all recognise the need for greater transport integration to join up journeys. At selected stations, cross-modal information screens will display arrivals and departures of other modes such as bus, ferry and air, and a key aspect of all that will be forging links with other providers to unlock journey opportunities across Scotland.

The franchise will deliver improvements on our trains to increase the attraction of rail travel. With high-speed trains, better journey times and more comfort, our seven cities will be linked by proper intercity rolling stock more in keeping with the intercity experience that we know passengers prefer. New electric trains will be delivered for the Edinburgh to Glasgow and the Stirling, Alloa and Dunblane services, and overall there will be a 23 per cent increase in carriages across the network to ensure that full advantage is taken of this Government’s substantial investment in infrastructure.

We asked for proposals to capitalise on the tourism potential of our railways, and the new franchisee came forward with the great scenic railway of Scotland proposition, which will cover the west Highland and Kyle lines, the far north line, the lines serving Stranraer and Dumfries and—from September 2015—the Borders. It will enable our railway to market Scotland’s scenery, its heritage and its tourist attractions to a wider audience. Trains on those routes will be refurbished, and there will be dedicated tourism ambassadors who will be trained to VisitScotland standards and will provide information on attractions, history and journey connections. I hope that community rail groups and local businesses will engage with the franchisee to grasp the very real opportunities arising from this marvellous, expansive initiative.

I have been careful to ensure that the interests of ScotRail staff are addressed in the new franchise contract. Accordingly, we have worked with the rail unions to ensure that staffing issues are appropriately covered, and I am grateful for the unions’ assistance in that respect. Of course, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 will apply. Moreover, pensions will be protected. We might be obliged by Westminster to franchise, but that does not mean that we should not get the best deal for staff anywhere, which is what I believe we have.

The contract contains commitments on 100 apprenticeships, training and staff development and, for the first time, trade union representation on the board of the company. The contract also sets out the franchisee’s extensive corporate social obligations to the community it serves. That is important, because a railway does more than provide a journey opportunity—it spreads and generates economic vitality and prosperity across communities.

That is why this contract is a good one. It does more than simply provide rail services; it seeks to help get Scotland on the move, economically and socially. We have struck a deal with the franchisee to ensure that there are no compulsory redundancies over the entire life of the contract. Over and above that, we have struck a deal to ensure that every person, whether they be directly employed or employed through a subcontractor, will have at least the living wage as a salary.

We are committed to delivering a safe, well-founded, properly resourced service as well as an audit process that ensures that the franchise process that we have just gone through stands up to scrutiny. It has been our intention to ensure that we get the best possible deal for fare payers and passengers, and I believe that we have done so, despite being obliged to go down the franchise route. This contract offers a better Scotland by providing improved services to rail passengers, whether they be residents or visitors, providing security for our railway staff and enabling economic opportunities for all in our cities, towns and rural communities.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Members who wish to ask the minister questions should press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The statement that we have just heard shows why the Labour Party, far from being taken seriously as a potential Government, is not even taken seriously as a potential Opposition any more.

I struggle to understand exactly what the Labour Party’s position is. George Foulkes says explicitly that we have the powers to nationalise the railways in Scotland, which is patently false. For 13 years, the Labour Party had the ability to change things, but it refused to do so. We have also heard the endorsement of the franchising process from prominent Labour politicians.

Perhaps the idea is that some things change. It is interesting that, as recently as a few months ago, the Labour Party’s own publication entitled, “Powers for a purpose—Strengthening Accountability and Empowering People” said:

“The Co-op Party report argues for a new approach”,

which Labour supports,

“in the longer term (i.e. after the end of the new franchise starting in 2015)”.

The Labour Party is all over the place on franchising. The reason why we are hearing such thunderous accusations is that it is embarrassed by the fact that we have ended up where we are.

The Labour Party asks why the franchise went to a publicly owned Dutch railway company. That is a natural consequence of legislation that allows public sector bids from other countries, but which refuses them from Scotland or the UK. It is the Labour Party’s legislation; the Labour Party laid the tracks for how we have to do the franchising, although I very much hope that that will change. We will continue to argue for the change.

Mark Griffin said that I have said one thing and done another. I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland three times arguing for that change. I would have liked to have Labour support in that, but we have not had it.

If Labour had wanted to change the process, it had the chance to do so. I do not dispute where the trade unions are coming from in relation to the matter; they have always held that position. They have never had the ability to change things. The Labour Party has, but it refused to do so. It should take responsibility for the consequences.

We have run a proper process and we have got a good deal for the people of Scotland.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for his statement and for advance sight of it.

As a North East Scotland MSP, I am, naturally, sad to hear that the Aberdeen-based FirstGroup has lost out in its bid to retain the ScotRail franchise. It is no coincidence that its tenure has seen a dramatic reverse in the decline of rail passenger numbers in Scotland. Its investment and sound management have delivered significant improvements in comfort and punctuality, as well as a substantial increase in the number of routes and capacity across the Scottish rail network.

The competitive nature of the franchising mechanism has played a key role in reviving rail transport in the United Kingdom. I believe that the minister’s announcement will further strengthen that recovery in Scotland.

The transport minister has done well to resist calls from the sirens of the extreme left, who would see us return to the investment vacuum and catastrophic management failures of state-owned monopolies in the 1970s. Keith Brown must guarantee that he will play his part in making the franchise a success. Will he give a sound undertaking that he will stand by the contract that he has signed and that he will not exploit the five-year break clause in an inappropriate way in order to end the contract before it delivers everything that it has the capacity to deliver?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I agree with Alex Johnstone’s comments about FirstGroup. It has done an excellent job and we have seen real growth in terms of patronage.

I do not share Alex Johnstone’s enthusiasm for franchising, as he well knows. It is an expensive process to go through and it is expensive for the companies involved. It presents an unequal playing field, as it does not allow public sector bids. I have argued that for some time.

Alex Johnstone asked about the situation with the five-year break clause in the contract. The break clause can be activated by either side—the Government or the company—and can be activated for any reason. However, there is no way that I intend to use “inappropriate reasons”, as he called them, to exercise use of the break clause, nor do I intend to “exploit” the break clause. The break clause has been put in because circumstances can change, and we have to be wary of that fact. All the tenderers for the contract knew that.

Alex Johnstone also asked whether I support, and will continue to support, the progress and ambitions of the contract. Of course I will. There are huge benefits to the contract, which is the result of very hard work by Transport Scotland officials, and of the Government laying out exactly what its expectations were, including those regarding cyclists and fare payers, who say that they are suffering because of high fares, especially throughout the rest of the UK. We have taken action on that already and we will take further action. I am sure that Alex Johnstone will be very interested in the £5 fare from Aberdeen to Inverness, Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dundee. The fare must be applied for in advance and there are restrictions to it, but it addresses the fact that some people want the cheapest possible fare.

I hope that despite some of Alex Johnstone’s comments he, like me, will be fully behind the success of the contract, for the benefit of passengers and of the staff who will deliver the services.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Many members wish to ask a question of the minister, so it would help us get through if we could have short questions and fairly short responses.

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

I welcome the substantial staff improvements and new jobs that will come with the new franchise: the living wage, trade unions on the board, 100 new apprentices and the protection of pensions and travel rights. Is it not the case that we must move ahead urgently to deliver those things for staff now, rather than have staff wait for years—perhaps forever—for new railway powers to come to the Scottish Parliament? It is simply not the time to put Scotland on hold, especially for an indeterminate period.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Stewart Stevenson is exactly right. It strikes me that people like Mark Griffin have to try to get over the fact that they were on the winning side in the referendum. Power over these things rests at Westminster. There is no guarantee of powers—I do not know whether Mark Griffin signed the petition to make sure that we get extra powers. If we were to delay or cancel the contract, that would impact on the new trains that we are ordering, on fares, on the benefits of the new services—reduced fares would not apply—and on the enhanced benefits for staff, including there being no compulsory redundancies in the whole term of the contract and the living wage being paid to every member of staff, whether they are subcontracted or directly employed. Those are real advances for the people who serve the customers. There are also real advances for the customers themselves.

People in Scotland will be interested in the Labour Party’s opposition to this material advance for fare-paying passengers and the staff who provide the services.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

In the light of the decision, which takes the prospect of public running of the railways out of contention for 10 years, does the minister still support the pitch that he made when he launched his deputy leadership, in which he supported public railways, and will that be included as part of the Scottish National Party’s proposals to the Smith commission?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will it be in the Labour Party’s proposals?

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Abellio says that there will be major investment in concourse and retail development in order to improve links between Aberdeen station and Union Street. I expect that that will be welcomed in my region. What are the anticipated costs and the timescale of the project? Will the minister assure me that there will be thorough community consultation on the project?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am more than happy to give the assurance that there will be thorough community consultation. The project, because it has infrastructure elements, involves various parties, including local authority partners. I will provide in writing the details on cost and the parties that are involved, and I will also underline the reassurance that I have given on community consultation.

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

I welcome the commitment for staff that is set out in the new franchise contract. It will see all staff and subcontractors being paid at least the living wage, the creation of 100 new apprenticeships and a guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies throughout the contract’s lifetime, as well as the protection of staff pensions, of their travel rights and of their representation on the board. That is fantastic. Does the minister agree that it is essential that, rather than putting Scotland “on pause”, those key staff benefits should be delivered at the earliest possible opportunity?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Maureen Watt is quite right. and those benefits will be delivered at the earliest possible opportunity. The one thing that surprises me is that I have not heard one word of welcome from the Labour Party for those key staff benefits.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

In keeping rail fares affordable, what difference will the £5 intercity fare and reduced ticket prices for jobseekers and those newly in work make to the people and the economy? What is the timescale for the delivery of more cycle spaces at stations and on trains and the introduction of a bike-and-go cycle hire scheme?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Jim Eadie will be aware that we have started the hire scheme. I was very pleased to launch the bike hire scheme and bike shop at Stirling station, which is just outside my constituency. There are also further benefits from the work of recyke-a-bike, a tremendous local scheme that prepares and provides bikes at cheap cost to local families. The work has started and it is on-going.

The new services will start on 1 April next year when the new contractor takes over the franchise.

We will get more information out on cycling, but the intention is to ensure that people are able to park their bikes more easily at stations and, where they can, to take them on to trains in greater numbers, for which we have had a real demand. Those advantages mean that we will have a much more integrated transport structure.

I mentioned that some of the concourse improvements and signage will also tell people about ferry and bus arrivals and departures. We obliged all bidders to look at that as part of their bids, to ensure far better connections with bus services, rather than the buses leaving five minutes before the train arrives. We should start to see all those benefits in the months to come, although we are seeing some of them already.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Delivering the living wage through procurement is a good thing, so it is a shame that the SNP did not think that a couple of months ago when it voted against that in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Since 2008, ScotRail has made £100 million of profit, 95 per cent of which has gone to shareholders. What are the projected profits for the new franchise holder? How much money will be taken out of and not reinvested in the Scottish rail network?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I do not know whether Neil Bibby is aware of this, but it was the Labour Government in 2004 that awarded the franchise to ScotRail in the first place. We used that same franchise framework. If the member has a concern about the profits, I say to him that we put in place provision to ensure that any excess profits are returned to the Government and we have applied that provision to the new contract, too.

On the member’s late conversion to the idea of the living wage, Labour did nothing about that when it was in power. There was no living wage in 2004 when the Labour Government had a chance to introduce it. This Government has taken action on a living wage not just for directly employed people but for people who are subcontracted. We are taking action; Labour only talked about taking action.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

In welcoming the announcement of a great scenic railway of Scotland scheme, bringing more tourists to the south-west, the Borders and the north, could I ask the minister to outline the benefits that will be delivered for my constituents in the south-west?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That is a very good point. I know that the scheme has already been warmly welcomed by tourism organisations across Scotland. As Aileen McLeod knows, not least because the first community rail partnership was established in her region, there is real pride in sections of the railway and we want people to take ownership of those. As I have said, there will be tourism ambassadors who will help people locate and get to the attractions and scenery around Scotland. That should benefit places throughout Scotland, including in the area that Aileen McLeod represents.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

I inform the chamber of hospitality that was provided to me by Abellio during the Commonwealth games in my position as the co-convener of the cross-party group on cycling.

There is a huge public appetite for bringing rail back into public hands—Green colleagues in Westminster are leading a bill that would allow the renationalisation of rail services as franchises run out. Can the transport minister confirm that the optional five-year break point in the franchise will allow a Scottish public sector operator to make a bid at that point, provided of course that power is devolved from Westminster to allow that to happen?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The sting in the tail is in the last part of Alison Johnstone’s question—provided that Westminster allows the powers to do that. We will argue for the maximum possible powers over the rail network in Scotland, as we have done for many years. We have argued for the franchising process to be expanded to allow public sector bids. There is no guarantee that a public sector bid will come along, or that it will be successful, but we have argued the case for such bids.

I have mentioned the five-year break clause already. We will exercise that only in a responsible and appropriate way. Who can say what the situation will be in five years’ time? We have to go into the contracts with the intention of seeing them through. If circumstances change, either for the party providing the service or for the Government, of course we will reconsider the contract, but we have to go into the process with the intention of completing the contract. That is what those bidding in the bidding process that we are obliged to hold expect and that is how we will proceed in relation to the five-year break.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

There seems to be quite a lot of good news linked to the contract. Will the minister confirm that, as well as taking on the First ScotRail staff in Glasgow, Abellio will bring new staff to Glasgow and site a new function there?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That is a very good point. Abellio intends to bring its UK headquarters to Scotland and site them in Glasgow. There will also be a shared services centre. In total, we are talking about 200 jobs, which is a major benefit. That shows the level of commitment that Abellio has to the process. It will be a jobs boost for people.

As I mentioned earlier, the idea of doing something to make it easier for jobseekers and the newly employed—perhaps before they start receiving a wage—to be able to get around the country more cheaply demonstrates the Government’s commitment to driving up employment and helping out some of the more disadvantaged people in society.

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)

Will the minister tell us his Government’s position—rather than his views on Labour’s position—on using the powers that the Parliament already has to consider a co-operative, a mutual or a not-for-profit franchise, as for example proposed by the rail union ASLEF or the co-operative movement? Further to Alison Johnstone’s question, will the five-year contract break allow a future Administration to go down that route or are we committed to 10 years of privatised railways in Scotland?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have answered the question on the five-year break twice now; the five-year break can be exercised by either party.

On Ken Macintosh’s other point about a not-for-profit bid, we have said from the start of the process that we would be more than happy to see a not-for-profit bid come forward. Some of the organisations that Ken Macintosh mentioned were very interested in that and were asked whether they wanted to put in a bid, but they said that they were unable to do so. If he looks into the matter, he will see that one of the provisions is that a bidder must have some background and experience in providing rail services. There is at least one public sector organisation in Scotland that is able to demonstrate that. We are not able to favour one bid over another—a fact that Ken Macintosh knows. We have always been ready to welcome any not-for-profit bid, but none came forward.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

That ends the statement by the minister. I apologise to the two members that I was unable to call. This afternoon’s motions make business extremely tight.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for notice of his statement, but I regret that announcements continue to be made in advance outside Parliament. I also put on record our appreciation of the work that staff have done on the franchise over the past 10 years.

In awarding the ScotRail franchise to Abellio, the minister has decided that profits from Scotland’s rail services should be used to invest in lower fares and better services in the Netherlands, rather than in Scotland. We now have a minister who claims to support a Scottish public sector railway but who continues with a franchise tender process that excluded that very option. Why does he say one thing in his deputy leadership bid but do something else in his position as minister?

Keith Brown should have welcomed calls by transport unions and Scottish Labour to suspend the franchise process so that further devolution could allow public bids to operate Scotland’s railways. Instead, he carried on regardless.

The Deputy First Minister recently wrote to the UK Government to ask that the roll-out of the universal credit be postponed in order to allow the talks on additional powers to be held in good faith. Why does the Government say one thing when it is making demands and the opposite when it is in a position to act?

The minister has shown that the Scottish Government’s record is one of hollow words and broken promises. In public, the Government talks about more powers, but when it has the opportunity to act, it abdicates responsibility. Why did the minister not show the leadership that the people of Scotland expect and allow the possibility that a Scottish public sector rail operator could bid for the franchise?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am aware that James Kelly came late to the chamber. I do not know whether he heard my previous responses. He may have missed the fact that Labour’s position is that we should look for a new approach after the end of the franchise that we are about to sign. That is the same as the position that he just outlined.

The Labour Party is all over the place on the matter and it is not being taken seriously because it has changed its position so often. It was the party that was happy to have franchising: Lord Adonis referred to franchising in glowing terms. The Labour Party did not change the situation when it had the chance; it did not change it through the Calman commission and it did not change it through the Scotland Act 2012. It did not even argue for that change.

A few months ago, Labour was arguing for us to let the contract; suddenly its position has changed. That is because the Labour Party is embarrassed by its past failure to act. We have acted to protect fare-paying passengers.

Policing

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-11114, in the name of Graeme Pearson, on policing.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

If that is the case—if there is that causation—why did crime in England and Wales fall 15 per cent last year, and why is it at its lowest point since records there began 33 years ago?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Crime in England and Wales has not dropped as far or as fast as it has dropped in Scotland, but the decline in police numbers is significant and huge. Numbers are predicted to decrease by 11 per cent, although Mr Pearson’s colleague Yvette Cooper suggested that a 12 per cent cut in police spending would be manageable. The Winsor reforms have been imposed on the service and morale is, unsurprisingly, at rock bottom. Following a record low turnout for a national peacetime election of 14.9 per cent, police and crime commissioners were introduced at an estimated cost of £100 million, which could have paid for 3,000 officers—it has been a disaster.

I appreciate that members had concerns about some officers carrying firearms on routine duties. The overwhelming majority of officers—more than 98 per cent—are unarmed. Only 275 of our 17,318 officers are authorised to carry weapons. As they are divided across five shifts, only a small number will routinely be on duty at any one time.

The chief constable has listened to concerns, and I believe that the proposals that were announced last week address those concerns while ensuring that armed officers can still be deployed quickly whenever required.

The reviews by HMICS and the SPA that are under way are crucial, not simply to this issue but to more fundamental questions about how policing engages with the communities that it serves and how we strengthen policing by consent. I welcome the action that the chief constable has taken on those difficult issues, but some members are still not satisfied.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Not at the moment.

That is not only my view, but the view of Niven Rennie, the president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, who said this week:

“I would have thought the fact that our Chief Constable … has taken account of public opinion … would be welcomed and applauded … Despite this, the misreporting and political point scoring continues.”

We see more of that again today.

During the passage of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, members from across the chamber rightly stressed the importance of there being no political interference in policing. We listened, and we placed that principle at the heart of reform. It is central to the way that Scotland is policed and to the way that we want it to be policed. Members would understandably be horrified if we did anything else. That is exactly why the chief constable should not be directly accountable to me or any other politician and why he is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority. Mr Pearson appears to want to roll back from that.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I am coming into my last minute. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We have come a long way since the early stages of reform and the arrangements are now much more effective. The SPA stands for not simply holding the police to account but strengthening the very principle and practice of policing by consent, which is something that we can all support.

We should applaud the continued strong performance of our police and recognise that Police Scotland, working with the SPA, is listening to concerns and acting on them. Unlike Mr Pearson and his colleagues, this Government will never use policing as a political football to score cheap points. We must not undermine officers and staff.

This week, Brian Docherty, the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, expressed grave concern about some politicians engaging in point scoring. That is exactly what we have seen today, and it is especially disappointing at a time when policing has been widely praised following the outstanding policing of the Commonwealth games, the Ryder cup and, of course, the referendum.

This is a time to celebrate Scottish policing, not to castigate those who serve us with such distinction. I reject the terms of Mr Pearson’s motion and propose an alternative.

I move amendment S4M-11114.2, to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert:

“acknowledges that policing in Scotland continues to perform excellently and, despite UK Government cuts, reform has ensured that crime remains at a 39-year-low, violent crime is down by almost half, crimes of handling offensive weapons are down by 60%, homicides are at their lowest since records began, police numbers are 1,000 higher than they were in 2007, compared to more than 14,000 officers being axed since 2007 in England and Wales, and confidence in the police is high and rising; recognises that Police Scotland listened to public views and opinions about stop and search and armed police and adjusted its approaches accordingly; further recognises that the current Scottish Police Authority and HM Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland scrutiny reviews will enhance the way that policing relates to the people and communities it serves; notes that, during the passage of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, members from across the Parliament stressed the importance of ensuring that there is no political interference in policing, and, following a period where Scotland’s policing has been so strongly in the international spotlight at the Commonwealth Games and Ryder Cup, calls on the Parliament to recognise the very positive impact of Police Scotland and to congratulate officers and staff for their excellent work.”

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The member must conclude.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is the cabinet secretary’s duty to ensure the effectiveness of the checks and balances that should guarantee the enforcement of essential accountability for and transparency of policy decisions that are taken by the chief constable of Scotland’s single force.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that the member must close.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In that respect, the cabinet secretary’s stewardship has been totally inept.

I move amendment S4M-11114.1, to leave out from “responsibility” to end and insert:

“establishment of a whistleblowers’ helpline for police officers and staff would help achieve this objective; considers that the ultimate responsibility for the accountability of Police Scotland lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and believes that, in view of his inept stewardship of justice issues, including policing in Scotland, the cabinet secretary should now consider his position.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We are very tight for time this afternoon. If members wish to speak in the debate, they must press their request-to-speak button. Members must stick to a very strict four minutes.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Does the member agree that the fact that there are now only five or maybe six Labour members in the chamber and the fact that only half the afternoon has been devoted to the issue show more clearly than anything that this is purely a political stunt?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are approaching your final minute, Mr Stewart.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I agree that it is completely a political stunt. I would go much further, because I agree with Brian Docherty that this is about “point-scoring politicians” interfering in operational matters.

When the public have been unhappy with situations, there has been a fairly quick reaction. On stop and search and arming of officers, there has been a quick response from HMICS, the SPA, local policing boards and the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing—the entire shebang. We are about to see the changes to which those concerns have led. That is the right way to deal with things, and it shows the right level of scrutiny, challenge, responsibility and accountability.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Come to a close, please.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

From some members, we have seen flip-flopping on the issue to create instability and to interfere and point score.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that you must close.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

That has got to stop.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Members must keep strictly to four minutes, please.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am afraid that four minutes is far too short to debate the 203 words in the motion that Graeme Pearson, the Labour justice spokesman, has put before us. Let us take words 7 and 8, and discuss what Mr Pearson calls “fundamental changes”. Those are operational matters that were in place long before Police Scotland was created—in police forces all across Scotland and south of the border.

The role of the Scottish Police Authority board was created to hold the chief constable to account, not to micromanage the chief constable, as Mr Pearson would like it to do. Mr Pearson and his Labour colleagues chose to ignore that and are calling operational matters policy decisions, to undermine Police Scotland. Stop and search was a policy that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats supported, yet today they use that important tool in Police Scotland’s toolbox to undermine the excellent work of police officers working to make our streets safe.

As for armed police officers in our streets, Mr Pearson has been found out. We heard it: we know now that the Labour justice spokesman wanted a standing authority for his officers to carry firearms when he was director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency.

I believe that Mr Pearson should consider his position as a member of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. I could replace him easily, Presiding Officer, and I shall explain why. The motion lodged by Labour’s justice spokesman attacks the Scottish Police Authority for failing to hold the chief constable to account. Let me remind the chamber who has the remit to scrutinise all aspects of policing in Scotland. The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing has that remit. If Mr Pearson thinks that he has failed, he should reconsider his position.

The motion from Scottish Labour tells us more about that party than it tells us about Police Scotland. The motion is about Scottish Labour members wanting to micromanage our police officers. They did it when they were in charge and they want to do it now that they are in opposition. It is not about political interference from Scottish Labour; it is much more than that. It is about Labour politicians wanting to tell our police officers how to do their job. Labour members did not have a clue then, and they do not have a clue now.

I remember a North East Scotland MSP who was Labour justice spokesman—he has left the chamber now—supporting police reform at the time. Scottish Labour believed then that the change was essential to ensure that we had policing fit for Scotland in the 21st century and to maximise investment in front-line services right across Scotland. That is what Police Scotland and the cabinet secretary have achieved.

I understand why the Scottish Conservative amendment says nothing about elected police commissioners and why Margaret Mitchell did not say anything about that in her speech. It was another of the Liberal Democrats’ great ideas for getting elected, but people just cannot trust the Liberal Democrats on policing. One would think that Labour members would know that using Police Scotland as a political football will get them nowhere—exactly where the Liberal Democrats are today.

If someone should resign, it is Graeme Pearson, a member of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing who thinks that the role of that committee is to be a political tool to attack Police Scotland at every opportunity, in the media and here in the chamber.

I will be supporting the cabinet secretary’s amendment to the motion. There has been no fundamental change in the way that police operate.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must conclude.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

There is no crisis. Today, Parliament needs to take the opportunity to congratulate officers and staff on their excellent work since the creation of Police Scotland.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 established Police Scotland. It did not. This Parliament established the Police Service of Scotland. However, on taking command of the national force, the chief constable swiftly presided over a rebrand.

Discarding the declaration of service in favour of a more commanding, uncompromising title was perhaps a premonition of things to come: armed police patrolling our streets; stop and search on an industrial scale, with hundreds of thousands of searches lacking a sound legal basis; and the dismantling of valued local services. Those controversies have sparked genuine public anger. The democratic deficit and formidable appetite for wider participation in decision making is clear to everyone—everyone except the justice secretary.

Police Scotland must openly welcome meaningful dialogue with the public and the SPA before it adopts a policy, not only once it is exposed by the press or politicians. Such engagement is one of the most important clauses in its contract with citizens. It is not a cumbersome requirement to be circumvented. Police autonomy cannot be limitless, and public consent is never unconditional, yet our justice secretary resolutely refuses to acknowledge that.

Back in the 1980s, Lord Scarman noted that the constitutional control of accountability meant that, although the police should exercise independent judgment, they were also the servants of the community and could not effectively enforce their judgment without the support of that community. However, the justice secretary is unperturbed about presiding over the erosion of policing by consent—the principal that the power of the police is derived from public co-operation, transparency and accountability. He seems untroubled that the foundations of our centuries-old, world-renowned policing model have been weakened by a unilateral shift to an enforcement model of policing that does not carry the support of the public, and by a poor governance model that has allowed the chief constable to draw more powers to himself.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Will the member give way?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I have little time.

The independent commission on policing for Northern Ireland examined how its single force could become rooted in and accountable to the communities that it serves, and the widely respected Patten report concluded that two words, “operational independence”, proved a significant barrier to ensuring that all public officials are fully accountable to the people whom they serve and their institutions. It argued that the philosophy of “operational responsibility” better reflects the need to still be answerable.

Fifteen years on, Scotland is caught in the same trap. Given the police’s extraordinary powers as a national force, they should be subject to unparalleled scrutiny. However, in the absence of codification of the chief constable’s scope and reach, he is all but exempt from any constraint.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are in your final minute.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Time after time, the cabinet secretary dogmatically obstructs and extinguishes rightful debate by invoking those two words, “operational independence”. Today, he again offers us a one-dimensional view of policing, saying that bobbies on the beat and crime figures trump any legitimate concerns. That is a patronising, disrespectful and disingenuous response to a debate that is fuelled by local communities and their reasonable expectation of accountability in Scotland’s national force.

Of course, we all have the utmost respect for the hard work and dedication of our officers. However, until these problems are resolved, the SPA, Parliament and the public will continue to be excluded from Police Scotland’s decision-making process, forced to react after the fact, even when the force appropriates powers to itself. The justice secretary’s failure to challenge that, and his blasé reaction to the concerns of those we represent, show that until he leaves office there is no prospect of reform.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please conclude.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary has long outstayed his welcome. His charge sheet is long. He has presented members with a succession of ill-considered reforms.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must close.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

He is unfailingly out of step with public opinion.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid you must close.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The justice secretary should not be afforded the luxury of quietly slipping out the door.

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)

I am sure that no one in Parliament needs to be reminded that policing by consent is the principle that underpins law enforcement in this country. Central to that philosophy is the confidence and trust in our police service that the public enjoy.

I have never doubted Mr MacAskill’s commitment to this country and to his post as Cabinet Secretary for Justice. It is simply, and unfortunately, the case that his time has come. Confidence and trust in the leadership that he provides to the criminal justice system and the accountability that he offers to Parliament have evaporated. I am sorry to say that it is now time for him to step aside.

I believe that we are witnessing the effect of an accumulation of poor decisions over several years—including, for example, the decision on use of stop-and-search powers, and the U-turn on corroboration—that have collectively led us to this point. For me, the cabinet secretary’s handling of the issue of armed police has been the straw that broke the camel’s back. I am staggered by how insensitive the cabinet secretary has been to concern from the public who have been faced with the prospect of highly visible armed police becoming a common presence on our streets. I am still confused, in fact, about whether Mr MacAskill shares that concern, and confided that view to the chief constable; whether he does not share that concern, and confided that view to the chief constable; or whether he just thinks that the question of the police carrying guns is none of his business.

MSPs questioned the cabinet secretary on the issue in the summer. I found his response to be both defensive and dismissive. Even if the cabinet secretary genuinely believes that the subject of armed police is not an issue for which he should be held accountable, does he not recognise the equally genuine public anxiety at the absence of any process of democratic accountability? The new national police service and the Scottish Police Authority are creatures of Mr MacAskill’s own making. He assured Parliament that the new relationship would be sufficient to provide the scrutiny and accountability that the public sought, yet it has fallen at the first hurdle.

Perhaps we should not be surprised, because when Audit Scotland reported on the process of police reform, the bill on which was taken through Parliament by Mr MacAskill, it revealed a horror show of poor decision making and inadequate leadership. As we all now know, a full business case for the merger of Scotland’s eight forces was never produced, despite Mr MacAskill’s officials specifically promising Parliament that that would be done. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent on buildings such as Bremner house that were never used. Again, that decision was taken not by the police but by the Scottish Government. Millions more were spent on staff redundancies, some of whom were subsequently re-employed, or were spent on—which is worse—removing posts that had, according to the chief constable, to be backfilled daily by serving officers.

According to Audit Scotland, the cabinet secretary’s failure to sort out the spat between Vic Emery and Sir Stephen House hampered the whole reform process, and it concluded:

“There have been difficult relationships between the Scottish Government, the SPA and Police Scotland throughout the reform process. Considerable work is now required to build mutual confidence, trust and respect.”

I do not believe that the cabinet secretary is the person to rebuild that trust, and I will conclude with one example of why that is the case.

Three of my constituents who are police staff are currently engaged in a long-running dispute over back pay. They won their case, but Police Scotland is refusing to settle and has employed a Queen’s counsel at what my constituents fear is greater cost than the amount in back pay that they are owed. When I wrote to the cabinet secretary to ask him to look into the case, I received yet another dismissive two-sentence reply. In different circumstances, I might have been prepared to accept the minister’s assertion, but his predilection for hiding behind the excuse of “operational matters”, for not facing up to or tackling difficult issues, and for sheltering in the shadow of the police’s reputation instead of leading policing in Scotland, leaves me in a position in which I simply have no confidence in him.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I would like to begin by reminding the Parliament of what the justice secretary said in evidence to the Justice Committee on 27 March 2012 at stage 1 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. He said that the bill

“defines and clarifies the operational responsibilities of the chief constable more than ever before by making it clear that only the chief constable has direction and control of the police service”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 27 March 2012; c 1225.]

He went on to say that the chief constable would be accountable to the Scottish Police Authority, not to the Scottish ministers, and that the bill provided the Scottish Parliament, for the first time, with the opportunity to scrutinise policing. There we have it—the reforms in the bill do not mean the cabinet secretary dictating to the chief constable. If that were the case, the public outcry would be overwhelming.

As has been said, armed police officers have been a long-standing feature of policing in Scotland; they are not new. As we know, Strathclyde Police had a standing firearms authority since February 2008. The decision on the deployment of firearms officers must be for the chief constable to make. We also know that standing firearms authorities are reviewed quarterly. Was the presence of armed police on the streets controversial? Yes. Was Police Scotland right to review it? Yes. Instead of that being welcomed, we have had continuing sniping. In addition, the fact has been ignored that the SPA has yet to conclude its scrutiny inquiry and that HMICS has not completed its independent review of the use of standing firearms authorities. That work can be described as, at the least, a work in progress.

On stop and search—which, again, is clearly an operational matter—let us not forget the role of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which took evidence on stop and search on 20 March, when Graeme Pearson was present. Assistant Chief Constable Wayne Mawson of Police Scotland said:

“Some sections of the media have reported it as a new thing; in fact, it is not a new thing at all. The reality is that stop and search volumes are down in the first year of Police Scotland. More searches were done under legacy force arrangements in total. They are down by about 4.6 per cent this year”.—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 20 March 2014; c 403.]

Since then, the SPA has done its job. In May, it reviewed stop and search and made sensible recommendations on the need for further training to ensure greater consistency, on proportionate use and on ensuring that people who are searched are made aware of their rights. I say with the greatest respect to Mr Pearson that that is surely a meaningful contribution.

The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which I have attended on more than one occasion, does a job of scrutiny, too, as we know. It is my recollection that, during consideration of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, the cabinet secretary was very flexible on the nature of parliamentary scrutiny and thought that that was a matter for Parliament to discuss and agree. Mr MacAskill is not a cabinet secretary who does not recognise the need for accountability.

Mr Pearson’s motion does not say it explicitly, but it is clear that as well as being unhappy with some of Police Scotland’s work, he does not think that the SPA is doing its job, either. Indeed, he has been reported in such terms in the newspapers. As we know, however, the SPA is required to place its annual report before Parliament. Its first report for the period to 31 March 2013 was published in November last year, but to my knowledge Vic Emery has not appeared before the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing since then. As a new report is, I presume, imminent, I encourage Mr Pearson to encourage the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing or the Justice Committee itself to take evidence on that, instead of indulging in his political antics today.

This is a dismal motion from a dismal Opposition. After the referendum, we were told by unionist politicians that it could not be business as usual, but today’s debate gives the lie to that. Let us recognise the cabinet secretary’s contribution to achieving record low crime rates, to building a modern police service and to preserving police numbers at a time of real pressure on public spending—and let us reject the motion.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We come to closing speeches. I call Annabel Goldie. Miss Goldie—you have a maximum of four minutes.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

This short but useful debate has highlighted two issues that are in themselves separate but which are from time to time interwoven: first, the creation of a single police force and secondly, the position of the Scottish Government in general and the cabinet secretary in particular.

The creation of a single police force was never going to be without controversy, and anyone who thought otherwise was naive. Some people disagreed with the proposal and found it to be it fundamentally flawed. Others, including my party, accepted the concept, but recognised that substantive measures would be required to allay legitimate worries.

The concentration of so much power, control and authority in one organisation that happened to be the law enforcement body of Scotland was always going to raise significant issues. In the absence of those issues being addressed, my party declined to support the creation of a single force, but it is quite wrong to equate that position with saying that Police Scotland is intrinsically flawed and is not doing a good job.

The difficulty for Police Scotland, the chief constable and his officers is that having a single police force without external accountability to, say, elected commissioners makes it political, as night follows day. If Police Scotland’s accountability is to a quango—the Scottish Police Authority—which is in turn accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, how can Police Scotland be anything other than political?

The public, constituents and community organisations will raise their concerns with MSPs, and the only place to which we can bring those concerns is here to Parliament. We cannot say, “Oh no, we mustn’t do that, because the cabinet secretary and the chief constable won’t like it. That’s making Police Scotland a political football and interfering with police operations.” What complete and utter nonsense. That confrontational stand-off could have been avoided, bypassed and buffered by the introduction of elected commissioners. There is an accountability deficit, and the cabinet secretary has been in denial about it, through obstinately ignoring concerns and arrogantly dismissing critics.

Why does that matter, and what are the concerns? Let us start with stop and search. It has emerged this year that there seems to be an informal target culture in the single police force, which over a one-year period to the end of March conducted nearly 640,700 stop and searches. That figure is three times higher than the number of searches that were carried out by the Metropolitan Police in London, where the population is over 8 million. How can that Scottish response be proportionate? The issue was raised in Parliament, and action was instigated. Moreover, only after it was raised in this Parliament was the routine carrying of sidearms by some officers revoked.

Police Scotland has had many successes. However, the increase of 1,000 additional officers from 2007 levels was not down to the cabinet secretary, who wanted only 500 more. It was down to the Scottish Conservatives. I am in no doubt that the extra officers have played a major role in reducing crime levels.

That success neither eliminates nor mitigates on-going concerns about accountability, which have to be laid at the feet of their genesis: the cabinet secretary. Add to that what I view as the shambolic proposal to abolish corroboration, and regrettably—it is regrettable—I find the cabinet secretary’s stewardship of his portfolio unimpressive. I, too—and again with regret—urge him to consider his position.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

As I said in my opening address, we have debated policing many times in the chamber in the past 18 months. As I have acknowledged, I appreciate members’ interest in ensuring that the new arrangements are working well. The time is right to stop scoring political points at the expense of the excellent job that the men and women of our police service are doing day in and day out. I regret that that has continued during this debate.

Margaret Mitchell criticised the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, Brian Docherty. He is elected by rank and file officers to represent their interests, so it is right that he should speak out for those brave men and women.

Elaine Murray traduced the Police Service of Scotland by defining its work as Strathclydisation while sitting next to a member—Graeme Pearson—who had many years’ continuous service in Strathclyde Police.

Alison McInnes also criticised. We remember that although she champions the Liberal Democrats’ community policing, the Liberal Democrats do not appear willing to pay for it when it applies to their own party conference.

Scotland is a safer place, and despite Westminster cuts, reform has ensured that crime remains at a 39-year low. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Police numbers are 1,000 higher than they were in 2007, and public confidence in our police is high and rising.

In recent weeks, Scotland has been on the international stage like never before. The world has watched as the Commonwealth games, the Ryder cup and the referendum have been run free from threat, issue or incident. That is directly attributable to a police service that delivers excellence and in which we can have confidence and pride. That is what people in Scotland care about. To say that there is no policing by consent is wrong.

The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 established clear routes for scrutiny, engagement and oversight in Parliament in the chamber and, for the first time, through the dedicated Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. It established such routes at national level through the Scottish Police Authority, HMICS and, indeed, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. It did so at local level through local scrutiny boards with more elected members involved than ever before, as we heard from Kevin Stewart, and it did so at partnership level through emphasis on close engagement in community planning and the principles of joint working.

The appropriate checks and balances are in place and are working. We have seen the police and agencies respond through changes that the chief constable has made or through reviews that are to be carried out, and that are being carried out as we speak, by the SPA and HMICS.

There is always room for improvement, but that has been acknowledged by all parties, and work is under way to build further on the good relationships that have moved forward positively over the past 18 months. We are progressing that work against the backdrop of a system that we have built from the legislation that the Parliament overwhelmingly backed and which is working well. Let us collectively take pride in that and stop using our national police service as a political football.

International observers from around the globe are taking an interest in our effective approach to police reform. There have been recent visits by colleagues from countries including Sweden, Serbia, the Yemen and the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, only this month, the Irish Parliament praised our reform and said that it was “impressed” by the SPA and that it will look at it in greater detail.

We are a long way from the problems that are faced by our colleagues south of the border, where policing is being attacked, the morale of officers and staff is at rock bottom, and the profile of police and crime commissioners—whom Annabel Goldie has championed for many a year—is raised more through their indiscretions than through their positive impact on communities. They come at the expense of officers on the beat. I am sure that people in England and Wales would rather have a bobby than a commissioner.

Under my watch, there should not be and there will not be political interference in policing, as is rightly enshrined in the legislation that Parliament passed.

The SPA stands not simply for holding the police service to account, but for strengthening the very principle and practice of policing with the consent of the people of Scotland. I believe that that is something that we can all stand for. In doing so, collectively we must give the SPA the space to fulfil the role that it is moving into, and ensure that it is supported by the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which acts to give the national police service the oversight that it deserves and which came from discussions between Graeme Pearson and me.

Once again, I ask Parliament to join the people of Scotland in celebrating Scottish policing. Graeme Pearson has managed to unite the SPF, ASPS and the chief constable—but more in sorrow than in anger, from their point of view. In the strongest terms, I reject Mr Pearson’s motion.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I open my closing remarks by saying that nowhere in the motion is there an attack on Police Scotland. The responses that have been made today from the Government seats have addressed a question that was never asked. I did not invite from the cabinet secretary any interference in policing nor any direction of the chief constable—in fact, I invited the very opposite. His having created the mechanism for accountability—the Scottish Police Authority—I expected the cabinet secretary to ensure that that authority fulfilled its responsibilities, and ensure that the chief officer and his executive were answerable to that authority, on behalf of the people of Scotland.

The cabinet secretary is quite correct that after some discussions in Parliament and outwith the chamber he agreed that we could create a scrutiny sub-committee. Without that sub-committee, many of the issues that we are now discussing would not have come to a head in the chamber.

It is right that when one lives in a family with imperfections, one should not ignore them but deal with them in an adult and mature fashion. That has been missing in the past 18 months to two years.

I am disappointed in Ms Grahame, who is well known for her sophistry.

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

Oh!

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

Instead of dealing with the issues that we have mentioned over the past 18 months, she has maligned the person who stands here to heal some of the wounds that need to be dealt with. [Interruption.]

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Order!

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

Ms Grahame decided to attack me personally. I am sorry that she thinks that I am a one-trick pony. I have obviously been wasting my time for the past few years in the Justice Committee—

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

You’re not on it!

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

—and on the sub-committee. I thought that I had played my part in all the work that we did in those committees. I think that, on occasion, Christine Grahame appreciated my contributions, but our memories are short in that regard.

Kevin Stewart mentioned his 13 years on a police committee, which dealt with police board matters. It is right that many board members did their best in the circumstances, but there is no doubt that collectively we agreed that that kind of governance did not meet the needs of the 21st century.

I agreed that the creation of a new board, with strength and the ability to follow an investigative process, was the way forward. That was not delivered. The board has looked like a reviewing company—a company that receives reports and ticks boxes. When I attended a board meeting, after five hours I gave up the will to stay, and left to deal with other matters.

Operational independence is a concept. It is a concept that has been alluded to and which was played out in 1960. According to that review, operational independence was a concept that ensured that the police could investigate and report, and, in the context of England and Wales, prosecute suspects without fear or favour. It was never meant to be a principle that allowed a chief officer to conduct business according to his or her wishes without endorsement by some oversight body. The problem for working officers is that controversy will occur without public debate in a forum or a commonly accepted knowledge of what a police force exists to deliver.

There has been controversy about target setting. I attended a meeting at one of the police divisions with another committee member and spoke to the management. I was very impressed with what they had to say about their arrangements. As committee members, we were given direct and clear evidence that officers on the street felt under pressure to deliver on targets, to engage in stop and search and to conduct certain parts of the policing outcome. That situation needs to be known about and either endorsed by the authorities as the right way forward, or the chief constable must be persuaded that there is a different way to go about delivering business. That is what the board, not the justice secretary, exists to do. I have always accepted that.

However, equally, in this context, where the cabinet secretary indicates that he will not interfere, I am still left in a quandary: why does the chief constable report to him about carrying of firearms, but not to his own board? Christian Allard mentioned that the arrangement is already in place. I know from speaking to people from the northern joint police board that they had no knowledge that they had authorised the carrying of firearms on routine duties, and neither did those on the Strathclyde board.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Graeme Pearson give way?

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I am sorry, but I will not.

Reform has always been a matter of controversy and it was always going to be difficult; there is no doubt about that. Much has been achieved by Police Scotland in the past 18 months of which we can all be proud. However, there is no saving grace in misrepresenting what we are trying to do in the chamber by holding the Government to account and asking it to deliver on the cabinet secretary’s promises to ensure that the Scottish Police Authority could hold the chief constable to account for policing. That is what we have tried to deliver over the past two years. It is frustrating that we have not managed to do that. [Interruption.] I hear Mr Swinney say that on the front bench. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

We have not managed that and because we have not done so we have lodged a motion, which is the only option left to us when we are not being listened to, our suggestions are being ignored and our approaches are being maligned and misconstrued. I hope that, after the debate, SNP members will return to their rooms and reconsider how they represent the matters that we have raised.

There is a question about falling crime. Crime is falling: I am pleased to live in a community that is crime free, and that crime across Scotland is falling quickly. However, members must bear it in mind that in America it is claimed that crime has fallen by 64 per cent. Huge falls in crime are also claimed across Europe. Therefore, we need to understand what we expect of our police service. I look forward to a police service that polices Scotland with the consent and the full confidence of everyone in the chamber, and that is delivered by the police authority on behalf of our communities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move,

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

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We have discussed policing many times in the chamber over the past 18 months. The Parliament and three committees debated the legislation at length before it was overwhelmingly approved by the Parliament, including all Labour members. I have taken part in many debates and have answered hundreds of questions, and the First Minister has been asked about policing on numerous occasions. The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing has met on 22 occasions. At the local level, there are now 360 councillors who have a say in policing—an increase of around 150 per cent.

Policing is subject to more effective scrutiny now than ever before, and the debate must be seen against that backdrop. I appreciate that members want to ensure that the new arrangements are working well, and they are.

We had to establish a single service to protect policing from Westminster budget cuts. Reform ensures that our policing continues to perform excellently. Scotland is a safer place; officer numbers are high; confidence in the police is high and rising; and crime is at a 39-year low. In Scotland, we have the best possible police service.

Members should compare the situation here with that south of the border, where policing has been devastated by successive Governments. More than 14,000 officers have been axed since 2007, and numbers are now at their lowest since September 2001.

In a minute.

Let me be clear: operational independence is different from accountability. The chief constable is solely responsible for decisions to enforce the law, but he is accountable—in our case, to the SPA—for those decisions.

I am disappointed by Mr Pearson’s motion and I fundamentally disagree with it.

Policing should not be used as a political football, and Mr Pearson should stop traducing the police and the SPA, undermining the morale of officers and staff, and attempting to score cheap political points at the expense of thousands of hardworking officers and staff who cannot answer back.

We have—

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is important to stress at the outset that since Police Scotland was formed more than 18 months ago, front-line police officers have worked tremendously hard to keep us safe from crime.

At the same time, those same officers have had to adapt to seismic organisational and cultural change against a backdrop of Chief Constable Sir Stephen House taking a number of controversial policy decisions with far-reaching implications. That has resulted in the new single police force attracting the attention of politicians and the public for the wrong reasons.

The chief constable’s policy on stop and search and the deployment of armed police officers to routine incidents, coupled with the closure or reduction in hours of dozens of police station front counters earlier this year, have been the subject of extensive criticism and deep concern.

It is significant that only after the decision on police station front counters was taken was there a belated consultation. Despite opposition, the proposals were still approved. The chief constable’s unilateral approach undermined the process of meaningful consultation and accountability that is central to our democracy.

There is an important point here that the cabinet secretary does not seem to understand. Politicians’ comments about and criticism of the lack of transparency and accountability are not political point scoring, as Brian Docherty, the chairman of the SPF, ill-advisedly suggested recently. Rather, such criticism is fundamental to the role of elected members of the Scottish Parliament.

Furthermore, although the rank-and-file officers did a splendid job policing the Commonwealth games, many MSPs have received complaints about the unfavourable conditions that those same policemen and women were subjected to and about how those grievances were handled.

More worryingly still, a survey by the ASPS of senior front-line police staff found that 11 per cent of those questioned felt that they had been bullied or intimidated. The survey also indicated a prevailing culture of targets, which certainly has implications in relation to stop and search and road traffic offences.

Consequently, the Scottish Conservatives firmly believe that, following the merger to form Police Scotland, it is essential that police staff and officers have a mechanism that offers them the means to raise legitimate concerns without fearing for their job security, where those concerns can be voiced anonymously, heard and treated seriously.

For that reason, my amendment calls for the creation of a whistleblowers hotline similar to the one that is currently in use for the national health service, which is also a critical front-line service.

The motion refers to the lack of any “meaningful contribution” from the SPA on the arming of police officers. It is totally unacceptable that the SPA, as the principal body that holds Police Scotland to account, was not consulted more widely on the standing firearms authority before the policy was introduced. It is little wonder that the SPA chairman Vic Emery has expressed concern that the body’s

“scrutiny role is very much after the fact.”—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 21 August 2014; c 481.]

The situation self-evidently cannot be allowed to continue. It is unacceptable and a dereliction of duty for the cabinet secretary to seek to absolve himself of any responsibility to address such a deeply worrying state of affairs.

The deployment of armed police to routine incidents has been a particular source of concern for the public. Indeed, the lack of transparency in decision making in Police Scotland erodes trust in the single force at a time when the police need to retain and increase that trust in local communities and throughout the country. That is the policing by consent to which the motion refers.

The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party has sought to be constructive in our scrutiny of Police Scotland. That includes making positive suggestions for improvement, such as introducing a whistleblowers hotline or employing retired police officers in schools to free up other officers to return to the front line.

The call in my amendment for the cabinet secretary to “consider his position” is not made lightly. However, when the general public’s trust in Scotland’s law and order enforcers is in danger of breaking down, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Graeme Pearson, in his opening speech, asked, “Who watches the watchers?”, and his motion mentions responsibility, accountability, scrutiny and challenge.

I would like to remind members of what existed before the current structures. I served on Grampian police board for 13 years before coming to the Parliament, and I was told by a Labour councillor when I first joined the board that his party put on boards and regulatory committees the folks who were “the dross and the awkward squad that we canna control in other committees”.

Police boards were the sole bodies scrutinising the forces at that time, and according to that Labour councillor they contained “dross and the awkward squad.” I disagree with that, because there were many good people on police boards. However, many boards failed dismally in watching the watchers and ensuring that the chief constable was held to account. That was evident in some of the final audits that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland and Audit Scotland carried out jointly on police forces and boards, which were extremely critical of the scrutiny situation that existed.

The only board and force that came out fairly well—I can only say “fairly”—was Grampian. The reports on the rest made for very grim reading indeed.

What do we have now? As the cabinet secretary said, we have 360 councillors on local policing boards. We have the Scottish Police Authority and the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, which the Parliament wanted to establish. There is more scrutiny of the police force now than there has ever been.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Like other members, I welcomed last week’s announcement by the chief constable that he had jettisoned his policy of deploying armed police officers on routine duties. However, like many people, including many of my constituents, I wonder how the situation arose in the first place, why the checks and balances were not in place to ensure that such a controversial decision could be made without consultation or discussion, why the Scottish Police Authority did not intervene, and why the Cabinet Secretary for Justice stood aside and passed the buck.

Several weeks ago, a retired police officer informed me that he had observed armed police officers attending a contretemps between some street drinkers on Whitesands in Dumfries. On 2 August, Peter Lenthall, a retired Army officer from Penpont, observed an armed police officer in Dumfries supermarket, not attending an incident but buying his supper. Mr Lenthall, who has extensive experience of firearms, instantly recognised the weapon as a Glock 17. He approached the officer, expressed his concern and inquired how many rounds of ammunition it contained. The following Monday, Major Lenthall received a visit to his home by a sergeant, who told him that the change of policy had been approved by the cabinet secretary. Major Lenthall was then asked to sign a piece of paper, which he refused to do. Since then, another constituent has observed another armed police officer shopping in a different local supermarket. How was that ever considered to be acceptable?

It is not just the decision to change policing policy that has caused outrage; it is the way that it was done. I am sure that Dumfries and Galloway is not the only part of the country that is concerned about what is felt to be the imposition of the former Strathclyde Police’s policies and targets on the rest of Scotland. The relationship between the public and our police in Dumfries and Galloway has always been good.

Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary was well respected, and there was much concern about and opposition to the creation of Police Scotland. I supported a single force, but I was told—and I told other people—that local accountability would continue under it. However, local accountability in Dumfries and Galloway is simply not the same as it was. Many of us feel let down, and we almost feel as though we have let other people down. Unless the issue is addressed, there is a real danger of loss of confidence in the police, which would be extremely sad, as our local police at all levels do an extremely good job—they are absolutely exemplary.

The Labour motion asks the cabinet secretary to resign. I certainly do not do that lightly, because I am always happier playing the ball than the man. I know that those on the Government benches did not like the reference to the cabinet secretary’s decision on the release of al-Megrahi, but that was highly controversial, as everybody will remember, and it was hurtful to many of the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.

Then there is the cabinet secretary’s role, or lack of it, in the closure of police counters and control rooms, the latter again without local consultation. When Mr MacAskill came to Dumfries, he refused to meet the 30 staff who were losing their jobs at the police control room in the town.

In one of his most disgraceful speeches in this Parliament, he dismissed, insulted and trivialised the genuine concerns of Opposition politicians who were wrestling with a problem surrounding the proposal to abolish the requirement for corroboration in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and then he capitulated and did what we had been asking him to do and remitted the issues for further consideration.

The cabinet secretary has stood aside when communities and politicians have expressed concern over court closures, stop and search and the routine deployment of armed police, always excusing his inaction on the basis that those issues were operational matters for the police. I am sorry to say that the cabinet secretary does not seem to understand the difference between interfering and taking responsibility and showing leadership. If he is not able to do that, perhaps he should be considering a change of job.

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

I say to Graeme Pearson, who would not take an intervention, that the cabinet secretary took full responsibility for the decision on the compassionate release of Megrahi. I was here; Mr Pearson was not.

On the Tory amendment, I say to Margaret Mitchell that I agree with only one part of it, which is the part about a whistleblowers hotline. If she will forgive me for taking the credit, I think that I was the first to suggest that, in the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing.

On the Labour motion, I say to Graeme Pearson that some of his earlier scrutiny since the inception of Police Scotland had merit, but he has gone far too far and is now beyond the pale.

I have quotes from Brian Docherty, chair of the Scottish Police Federation, representing rank-and-file officers. He said:

“The chief constable is the right person to make decisions about policing in Scotland”,

not some

“point scoring politician.”

I wonder who that could be. No wonder Graeme Pearson is looking red.

Brian Docherty also claimed that MSPs had manipulated the issue of armed police to attack their political opponents.

Police Scotland has received 24 letters of concern on the issue of armed police. I have had four emails, two expressing concern about the headlines and two criticising me for claiming that I wanted to prevent the police being armed in life-threatening situations. Incidentally, those were from relatives of officers who had been badly injured on duty.

Today’s headline in The Herald is “Police chief anger over crime figure accusations”. Through his comments, we could no doubt feel his fury at Labour in particular—although not named. The chief constable said that Police Scotland analysts looked at performance figures “like hawks”. He also said:

“Why would I compromise 34 years in the police for my own self-worth never mind anyone else’s?”

The leader in The Herald is headed “Criticisms must be based on facts”. That reminds me of that excellent Mark Twain quote:

“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

Of course, Labour did not even bother to get the facts. Armed police account for 2 per cent—referring to the national standing firearms authority—which is less than Graeme Pearson requested, as he has admitted at times, during his stint as director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency.

If the cabinet secretary had interfered across the remit of the SPA and Police Scotland, he would have rightly have been accused of politicising police operations. As for effectiveness in his post, despite my open and public disagreements with some of the cabinet secretary’s decisions, I have high regard for his skills during his time in post as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and before that, when he had Graeme Pearson’s job as a shadow minister.

I have considered the skills of the alleged cabinet secretary in waiting. It seems to me that Graeme Pearson is a one-trick pony, unable to focus on anything but his former colleagues. He did not lead for Labour in yesterday’s debate or even close on the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill because, I suspect, he knows nothing about it. He left it to his very capable deputy, Dr Elaine Murray. I suspect that, if Graeme Pearson were on “Mastermind”, he would not be able to select current Scottish justice issues as his specialist subject.

Ironically, by opening up this matter for debate and challenging the expertise and appropriateness of the justice secretary, Graeme Pearson has exposed his own inadequacies. I will leave it at that, although some say that, with his relentless undermining of Police Scotland, which he purports to support, he might just be settling some old scores.

Scotland’s Future

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-11116, in the name of Johann Lamont, on Scotland’s future. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

Johann Lamont, you have 10 minutes or thereby. Members will have to forgive me, but we are extraordinarily tight for time, so we will not be able to call the final speaker.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Johann Lamont clarify what she thinks that Gordon Brown meant when he talked about powers as near to federalism as possible in the context of the United Kingdom?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

First, clearly he did not support independence and secondly, he believed in a strong Scotland inside the United Kingdom, sustaining the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom.

I was surprised that the two amendments to my motion were simply about powers, rather than being seen as an opportunity to talk about the other side of the agenda that I have identified. I understand that some people were committed to a yes vote with all their hearts and I say to them that there is a corrosiveness and cynicism in establishing a sense of bad faith in the mind of the public. All those new people who have come into politics deserve to hear better than that one whole side of the argument was entirely motivated by bad faith.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I agree with the sentiment that Johann Lamont expresses about people’s engagement and our need to respect that and take it seriously. Does she agree with the general thrust of my amendment—whether she is technically able to support it or not—that we need people not just to be involved but to have a chance to shape the process and that we must avoid it becoming a stitch-up between political parties?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must close now, please.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Let us let go of our own political projects, so that we can have real debate where we differ and real creativity where we instinctively agree. Let us resist the counsel of despair that means that this place will simply be about rerunning a debate that was decided on 18 September. Let us have optimism and, over the next period, harness the energy that we saw in the referendum debate, to deliver equality and real progress for people throughout the country.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that the settled will of the people of Scotland is to make devolution work with a strengthened Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom following the referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future on 18 September 2014, and acknowledges that people on both sides voted for change and that it is now incumbent on this parliament to work together to deliver a fairer, more equal Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Alex Neil to speak to amendment S4M-11116.1, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon. You have up to seven minutes.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Much has rightly been made of the remarkable shift that took place during the referendum campaign. The people of Scotland led an energised and engaging debate. The future of our nation was discussed with passion, vibrancy and wit across the country, and the balance of power shifted from politicians and political institutions to the people of Scotland. Ninety-seven per cent of those who were eligible to vote made sure that they were registered to vote and 85 per cent turned out to make their choice—a record for any election or referendum in these isles. That unprecedented engagement has fundamentally changed the political landscape in Scotland.

I accept—the Scottish Government accepts—that independence was not the choice, at that moment, of a majority of the Scottish people in the referendum. However, a no vote was not a vote for no change. Between the 45 per cent of the Scottish people who voted yes and those who were persuaded to vote no on the basis of the “vow” to deliver significant new powers for the Scottish Parliament, there is a powerful majority for substantial further constitutional change in Scotland. The Smith commission provides an opportunity to deliver that change, and the Scottish Government will work in good faith with Lord Smith and the other parties involved to secure the best possible deal for Scotland.

In the past few days, we have seen compelling evidence of what the people of Scotland see as real change. For example, in a Panelbase poll that was conducted last week, 66 per cent of respondents backed extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament; 71 per cent backed “Control of all taxation”; 68 per cent backed

“Control of oil and gas tax revenues generated in Scottish waters”;

and 75 per cent backed

“Control of the welfare and benefits system”.

Our engagement with the Smith commission will therefore start from a position of arguing for change that lives up to the expectations of the Scottish people—change that will transform the ability of the Scottish Parliament to improve the economy and create jobs by giving us real levers to match economic policy to the specific circumstances of Scotland. We will demand change that will give the Scottish Parliament the tools to make Scotland a fairer and more equal society and protect us from unfair policies that are imposed from Westminster. We will also demand change that will enhance Scotland’s voice on the world stage and allow us to put forward Scotland’s interests where key decisions are being made.

A minute ago, I referred to the so-called “vow” that was made by the unionist parties in the last week of the referendum campaign. That vow sets a test of good faith for the unionist parties’ participation in the Smith process. The parties that opposed independence must enter the Smith commission process ready to move significantly beyond the limited powers that they offered early in the campaign and later in the campaign. They must demonstrate that they can live up to the language of “home rule”, “near federalism” and “devo max”. They must show that they are serious about giving this Parliament the tools to improve Scotland’s economy, support jobs, enhance our voice in the world and make Scotland a fairer, more equal society. In our view, the proposals that are currently on the table from Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats fall well short on all counts.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The cabinet secretary is four minutes into his speech. At what point is he going to talk about using the powers that he has to create a fairer, more equal Scotland instead of rehashing an argument that we have had for the past two years?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Johann Lamont clearly has not been listening to my speech. I certainly hope that we get the powers that mean that we do not need to implement the welfare policies that were outlined at the Labour and Tory conferences, which will be extremely damaging to the people of Scotland.

We must have the levers that are most fundamental to strengthening our economy and creating jobs. The current proposals leave most of the decisions on welfare and social protection in the hands of a Westminster Parliament that imposed the bedroom tax on Scotland and mean that the Scottish Parliament would be responsible for only between 20 and 30 per cent of the taxes raised in Scotland. That is not good enough for us or for Scotland.

I started my remarks by highlighting the energy that the public and civic society brought to the referendum debate and campaigns. That conversation with the people of Scotland did not end with the referendum. As Patrick Harvie rightly says, their voice must be heard in the work to deliver additional powers for the Scottish Parliament. We will support his amendment to our amendment because we fundamentally believe in what it says.

I am also delighted that Lord Smith has made engagement with wider civic society and the people of Scotland a priority in the work of his commission. I encourage everyone to make their voice heard as part of that process, because the people of Scotland are the guarantors of real change.

The Smith commission process sets a challenge for all the parties in the Scottish Parliament—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

That challenge, set by the Scottish people, is to deliver real change that will improve their lives, to bring decisions closer to the people that they affect and to work together across political boundaries.

Only by individually and collectively rising to those challenges can we secure the best deal for Scotland. Parties that fail that challenge, that lack ambition for Scotland or that fail to listen to the voices of people and grass-roots organisations in Scotland will pay a heavy price if they ignore the demands and wishes of the Scottish people, including people who voted no as well as people who voted yes.

I move amendment S4M-11116.1, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:

“recognises the result of the independence referendum; agrees on the need for a strengthened Scottish Parliament; acknowledges that people on both sides voted for change; notes the response to a recent Panelbase poll in which two thirds of respondents backed extensive new powers for the Parliament; agrees that the language, ‘devo-max’, ‘home rule’ and ‘near federalism’, used during the referendum campaign has raised expectations of significant change; agrees that the process commenced by The Smith Commission offers a real opportunity to deliver substantial further powers and responsibilities for the Parliament, and agrees that it is now incumbent on all parties to deliver on the clear promises made to the people of Scotland to ensure that Scotland has the powers needed to improve its economy, support jobs, enhance its voice in the world and make Scotland a fairer, greener, more equal society.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Patrick Harvie to speak to and move amendment S4M-11116.1.1. Mr Harvie, you have up to five minutes. Less would be more, please.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I guess that, if we want to find the atmosphere that will allow us to explore the common ground, we all have a little way to go.

In a couple of days’ time, I will address my party’s annual conference. I am looking forward to having the opportunity to thank my party colleagues new and old, whether they have been involved in politics and activism for a long time or have just recently become engaged, for the spirit in which they conducted themselves during the debate.

Just as, over the years, I have found common ground on a range of different issues with the Labour Party, the Liberals, the SNP and even—once in a while—the Conservatives, my party had to find it in itself to campaign for the clear majority view in the party supporting a yes vote without ever disrespecting, or undermining the friendship that we have with, those in the party who voted no. There are people who voted no and have just joined the party as well, and I am really glad that our presence on the political landscape is still able to bridge that divide.

It was possible to take a clear, passionate and articulate point of view in the debate without disrespecting people who voted a different way. In my experience, the bulk of the debate was conducted in that way.

That wider public engagement—that re-engagement, that connection with politics—came about because there was a great big idea that transcended traditional party lines. It transcended the identity of any political party or political figure, large or small. The danger that we are in at the moment is that we could pull up the drawbridge again and say, “That’s that over and done with, the decision’s been made and politics is for politicians and the political parties again.” That is a profound danger and, whether someone voted yes or no, whether they are a campaigner, an activist, a journalist, a voter, or a writer about Scotland’s history or its future, it is a danger that we absolutely must avoid.

I am very happy that my party was invited to send a representative to the Smith commission, and that it has agreed that I am to be that representative. I am happy to have the chance to take part in that discussion, but let us be realistic. The breakneck timetable that has been decided on and which now has to be lived up to—it cannot be broken without betraying the trust of the people who listened to that promise—will allow next to no opportunity for people outside the political bubble to shape the process and the outcome, to have their say, be heard and make a difference. People turned out to vote in record numbers because they knew that the decision would make a difference in a way that all too often, many people feel, elections no longer do. If we want people still to feel that there is a reason to get involved—that their action and their voice can make a difference—we must avoid the view that the process is about political parties reaching a deal, being satisfied with the deal that they have made and simply implementing it.

There is still time. The time that is available to us for meaningful public participation is not the time in the run-up to 30 November, when Lord Smith will publish his report. The time that is available will come afterwards. A few weeks for people to fire in their views by the end of October, with a report being written by the end of November, is not enough time. However, it will be months before legislation passes through, presumably, both Parliaments to implement whatever comes out of the process. We should use those months creatively in ensuring that this is not just about meeting the needs of the people inside the political bubble; it is about taking away a little bit of power from ourselves—away from the political parties, big or little—and giving that power back to the public.

Is there room for common ground? Of course there is, but only if people on both sides of that yes-no divide are willing to move towards the common ground. We will not find the common ground if people dig in their heels and say, “This is what we’ve published already,” or, “This is what we need to live up to the vow.” If either side digs in their heels and says, “This is what has to happen,” we will not reach the common ground and we will have missed that opportunity.

If we begin with a discussion—not just between the five political parties and Lord Smith, or between the two Governments—on the purpose, as Johann Lamont rightly said, of sharing the wealth of the country more fairly, strengthening local communities and local economies to make decisions for themselves and speeding the transition to a sustainable Scotland, I believe that we will end up with a compelling set of powers that may not be independence and may well be beyond what some other people have already published but which will meet the needs of the people of Scotland.

I move amendment S4M-11116.1.1, to leave out from “a real opportunity” to “Parliament” and insert:

“an opportunity to deliver substantial further powers and responsibilities to the Parliament but that the commission must be followed by a period of meaningful public participation, given the severely limited time available for the public to engage with the commission itself”.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

I offer the sympathies of the Conservative Party to the family and friends of Angus Macleod, who died yesterday. He was, for 35 years, an unchanging presence in Scottish politics at The Times in Scotland. I mention him now because on the issue of the constitution, he was an inquisitive, passionate, informed and rigorous journalist and I think that he will be missed by all members on all sides of the chamber. [Applause.]

We will support the Labour motion and we will not support either of the amendments. I congratulate the cabinet secretary on reading out the speech that appeared to have been prepared for him so adroitly, if without his usual passion. However, I wish to talk directly to the Government amendment. First, it says that we recognise

“the result of the independence referendum”.

Does the Scottish Government recognise that result? The Cabinet Secretary for Justice was out in Portobello on Saturday at a yes Scotland campaigning stall, campaigning for independence. I am not quite sure how one recognises the result and then campaigns away for independence as if the referendum were still to take place. Recognising the result means respecting it and moving on to the subsequent agenda.

The amendment then asks us to note

“the response to a recent Panelbase poll”

in the same sentence as the previous phrase. For goodness’ sake! We have just had a vote of 2.6 million people—85 per cent of a 97 per cent registered electorate—and we are asked to give almost equal weight to a Panelbase poll. There is no need to do that when we have had the most decisive political result in living memory, and certainly in my lifetime. There was an 11 per cent difference between yes and no in that poll, which is greater than anything I can recall, and on a huge turnout.

Thirdly, the SNP’s amendment says that we are

“to deliver on the clear promises made to the people of Scotland”.

Well, really. I have here a yes Scotland campaign leaflet, which says:

“Win an iPad”

and

“your chance to win one of 10 iPads.”

I looked up the rules, which said:

“The winners will be selected at random at 10:00 on Thursday 18 September 2014.

The winners will be informed via email within two weeks ... and the names of winners will be available on the Yes Scotland website.”

Three weeks later, the names are not there. The campaign cannot make small promises and not keep them and expect us to look to the Scottish Government and have it honour bigger promises.

We will debate the findings of the Smith commission when we return from recess. I have lodged a written question asking what assurances the Scottish Government will give that civil servants will not be used to support Scottish National Party political representatives in the work of the commission. The SNP is there not as primus inter pares, but on an equal footing with other political parties to contribute to the work of Lord Smith’s commission in the period ahead.

I will deal with two things in my final couple of minutes. First, I will develop something that I said in an earlier debate, which is that we must focus not just on the transfer of powers to this Parliament but on how we discharge those responsibilities and powers when we get them. Although representatives from the various political parties are working with Lord Smith, it is incumbent on this Parliament as a whole, across all parties and members, to prepare for the work of looking at exactly how we will ensure that the Parliament will undertake effective scrutiny and discharge those additional responsibilities effectively.

The worst thing of all would be for those powers to arrive here without us having properly and objectively, and without a party-political focus, considered how we will exercise that responsibility. We need to ensure that the people of Scotland not only see us with those responsibilities, but see us using the powers effectively and well for their benefit.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in his final minute.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

Finally, I will pick up on the sentiment that underpins Johann Lamont’s contribution to the debate. What her amendment says about acknowledging

“that people on both sides voted for change and that it is now incumbent on this parliament to work together”

is not about powers coming to the Scottish Parliament, but about the Parliament’s mindset.

Johann Lamont spoke about health in particular. A year ago, as the Scottish Conservative health spokesman, I said that we would set aside supporting the changes that we have seen down south coming from both the Blair and coalition Governments in favour of a publicly owned, funded health service here in Scotland. I would like to work with the Labour Party on developing those ideas. I am slightly concerned about simply divesting to a panel of experts the responsibility for the development of health policy, because ultimately we will be accountable for it and will have to deliver it.