Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, May 17, 2012

Official Report 1184KB pdf

---

Civilian Police Staff

The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02906, in name of Lewis Macdonald, on justice. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now. I will wait until Mr Macdonald puts his card in the slot.

09:15

It is a week since we debated the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill and it completed stage 1 of its passage through Parliament. We in the Labour Party supported the general principles of the bill, but the debate was disappointing in some respects. Labour members and others expressed concerns about the on-going process of reducing police staff numbers that would result from the bill, and it was disappointing that those concerns were not shared by members of the Government back benches. Humza Yousaf claimed that:

“the myth that ... police officers will be taken away from patrolling the streets to fill out paperwork all day in a back office was firmly knocked on its head.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2012; c 8799.]

Roderick Campbell noted that Strathclyde Police has a lower proportion of civilian staff and appeared to imply that the problem is that other forces have too many civilian staff in the first place.

Even more concerning, however, was the ministers’ approach, which is reflected in their amendment to my motion. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice applauded a decision by Lothian and Borders Police to get rid of civilian custody support officers by putting police constables back into stations to look after custody suites, on the basis that a junior police officer costs less and offers flexibility. In responding to the debate, the minister did not address the concerns that had been raised about the impact of reducing civilian posts in the police service. It might be that Ms Cunningham meant to respond to that, but ran out of time do so; I acknowledge that it is not always possible to respond to every point that is made during a debate.

However, we in the Labour Party made it very clear that our concern about civilian posts and about police officers being diverted to do civilian jobs was critical to our view of the bill as a whole. Labour entered the last election with a manifesto commitment to support a single force, but we also had a manifesto commitment to oppose diversion of police officers to civilian jobs. It is not, for us, just one more non-bill issue that was raised while debating the bill; it is fundamental to how we get the most effective police service, just as much with a single service in the future as with the existing forces and agencies of the recent past.

I want to say why I think that it is wrong to suggest that the problem is that there are too many civilian staff in some forces. The process of civilianisation of police roles was carried out over a period of years with broad political support. The ratio of staff to officers varies from force to force, as was pointed out during last week’s debate, but for most of its first term in office, the Scottish National Party seemed to share the general view that there being more, rather than fewer, civilian posts tends to provide a better service to communities and better value for money for the taxpayer. Civilianisation was seen as being better for policing, better for communities and better for the police service itself. For example, the policy was lauded for increasing diversity by improving recruitment and retention from among groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in the police service, including women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds.

The process was piloted by forces in England and Wales, and in Scotland, with reports of savings in money and in police time for forces ranging from the Metropolitan Police in London to Dyfed-Powys Police in rural Wales. As recently as April 2008, Kenny MacAskill was providing Central Scotland Police with extra funding to deploy civilian staff to help with routine enquiries in Falkirk in the expectation that doing so would free up 10 per cent of front-line police officers to go and do things that only a police officer could do.

Of course, not every initiative to civilianise police posts was an unqualified success. Besides tasks that require the power of arrest, other police tasks are so closely related to the work of an officer that it makes most sense for them to be done by police officers. However, until relatively recently, the direction of travel was to see what more and what else could be done by civilian staff; it was not to find plausible explanations for taking police officers away from policing duties to get them to look after suspects who are already in custody.

Last week, the cabinet secretary conceded that, ultimately, his support for a single police force is down to financial pressures and the need to mitigate the impact of budget cuts, so that must be what lies behind his U-turn on civilian staff in the police service, who were once a desirable commodity but are now an expendable luxury.

The savings that have undoubtedly been made from extending the roles of civilian staff have been trumped by the £100 million of costs that ministers have promised will be cut as a result of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. The desirable objective of modernised mixed teams of officers and staff has disappeared in the face of the political imperative of delivering very large savings in a very short time without cutting police officer numbers, and without any effective steps being taken to avoid handing over an additional £22 million in the form of unrecoverable VAT.

We know that job cuts are already under way. Full-time equivalent police staff numbers passed the 7,000 mark on the way up in 2005, peaked at 7,862 in 2010 and passed the 7,000 mark again on the way down in the final quarter of last year. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland currently estimates that a total of 1,000 posts have been lost since the change in direction of Government policy, which agrees with the results of Unison’s survey of its members who are employed by Scottish police forces in February of this year.

The risk is that things will only get worse under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. ACPOS reckons that the only way to meet the savings in the outline business case for a single Scottish police force is to shed civilian jobs. At least 2,054 will have to go by the time of the next Scottish Parliament election, and most of the rest of the civilian staff will have reduced terms and conditions. If they were to resist reductions in terms and conditions, ACPOS believes that some 2,400 posts would be lost and, if ministers make no progress on the VAT issue, it estimates that some 3,200 jobs would have to go.

Those are not small numbers and they will not be accounted for by the reduction in the number of posts that directly support the eight chief constables, as Mr MacAskill appeared to imply would be the case last week. This is not simply about ending unnecessary duplication or trimming at the edges; it represents a fundamental recasting of how the police service is delivered. As Unison has said, it takes us back to the policing model that existed before civilianisation began. Other staff unions are also concerned.

Is Lewis Macdonald implying that this should not be an operational matter for the chief constable, who is accountable to the board? Is he really suggesting that the Government should direct how many police officers and how many civilian staff there should be in any force?

It is not a question of whether or not I think ministers should direct chief constables; the cabinet secretary has said that he will direct the chief constable of the new force on how many police officers he should have. He cannot do that without, by implication, directing the chief constable on how much of his budget should be spent on civilian staff. In other words, the cabinet secretary has made a political decision to tell the police force, when it becomes a single service, what the balance between police officers and police staff should be. For him to suggest that we are departing from the principle that the police should have operational independence simply beggars belief and is not credible, given the decisions that he has made.

In my part of Scotland, Unite the Union represents traffic wardens in Moray, in Aberdeenshire and at Aberdeen airport who are employed by Grampian Police and who work with other service providers. They have raised their concerns with me directly because they, too, fear that they are about to lose their jobs.

It is not only trade unions that have concerns. In its submission to the Justice Committee, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland said:

“The scale and phasing of police staff voluntary redundancies, if it can be achieved, carries a risk that police officers will be drawn into non police roles.”

The Scottish Police Services Authority said that the service has achieved

“a healthy and efficient balance of police officer and staff roles”

over recent years, but that there is

“a significant danger that this balance and inherent efficiency will be degraded under current constraints.”

For the sake of balance, I point out that, in evidence, Chief Constable Kevin Smith said:

“There is a notion that for every member of support staff that goes out, we put a cop in, but we have not done that. In the past two or three years, we have reduced our support staff by about 1,000 people, and that has not been followed by cops simply migrating in.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 983.]

I will give you a few more minutes, Mr Macdonald.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

That is certainly ACPOS’s intention in its approach to the process, but it would not have told the Justice Committee that there is a risk of failure to achieve that unless it believed that the risk exists. We have heard the same from the SPSA and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which represents the local authority employers. They warn that cops will have to take up the slack. That is the risk.

Such a prospect does not seem sensible at all; indeed, it is not sensible, but it is not too late for the Government to think again, which is why we have brought the motion before Parliament to ask ministers to examine properly what is happening in individual forces and to report back to members.

Unison has collected, through its members, plenty of evidence not only of the loss of posts, but of police officers doing civilian jobs. Members will hear from my colleagues on that this morning. If all sides are to understand and recognise the seriousness of the threat, Government should take on the responsibility for auditing and assessing the impact at the front line. A proper audit of cuts that have already been made or that are planned would sit well with the Justice Committee’s call for local councils to be given details of current police expenditure in their areas so that they can track changes in resources and funding after the creation of the single police force.

Ministers are asking that a good deal of power over the police service be concentrated in their hands. If they want to keep public trust in the creation of a single police service, they must deliver transparency in return. That is what we are asking them to do today. If ministers want to retain trust and confidence in the process, they should accept our proposal and allow Parliament to know the full facts about the process that is under way.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the key role played by civilian staff in Scotland’s police forces in helping to protect communities; believes that the role they play is essential to ensuring that police officers can perform their main role of keeping Scotland’s communities safe; shares the growing concern that cuts to civilian posts are taking police officers off the front line to perform tasks better suited to civilian staff; notes that the number of civilian staff is now at its lowest level across Scotland since 2005 and believes that such cuts are detrimental to the ability of the police service to protect the public, and in the interests of the future of policing in Scotland, calls on the Scottish Government to undertake an independent audit of cuts implemented or planned to civilian posts and report the outcome to the Parliament.

09:26

I welcome the debate and the opportunity that it offers to consider an important issue. I say at the outset that the Government recognises and values the enormous contribution that support staff make every day in the police service. We are building a safer and stronger Scotland, with crime figures at a 35-year low. I welcome the opportunity to acknowledge the important contribution that police support staff have made, and will continue to make, to reducing crime across Scotland and helping to protect communities.

Would the cabinet secretary be good enough to acknowledge that crime rates have fallen across Europe and that, in America, they are approaching a 50-year low? Does he agree that, therefore, to claim that the situation in Scotland is entirely down to the additional 1,000 officers is less than candid?

The situation is down to splendid work by the wider police family. I have commented that other factors are involved, but I believe that there is, particularly in Scotland, a clear correlation between the figures and the visible police presence, along with the outstanding work of constables—from the newest constable to the most senior chief constable—and support staff in a variety of tasks. That is fundamental and it contrasts with matters south of the border. Scotland would not have the world-class police service that it has without the dedication and commitment from everyone in the police family, whether they are support staff or police officers. I am sure that I speak for all members when I say how proud I am of everyone who works in the police service.

I agree with Lewis Macdonald on the key role of civilian staff, but I reject other elements of his motion. I make no apologies for delivering more than 1,000 extra officers since 2007, and I am happy to reaffirm that we will continue to honour that pledge. Compare that to the situation in England and Wales, where the latest figures show a decrease of 4.2 per cent—more than 6,000 officers—in just a year. A report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary predicts that officer numbers in England and Wales will have decreased by 16,200 by the end of the United Kingdom Government’s comprehensive spending review period.

Will the cabinet secretary nonetheless acknowledge that his current approach to civilian staff taking on roles that were formerly done by police officers is different from the approach that he took when he first took office?

That takes me back to the point that that is an operational matter for the chief constable. It is not appropriate for me to intervene in Lothian and Borders or in any other area. Those are matters of balance on which the chief constable decides and, ultimately, is held to account by the police board.

That, of course, contrasts with Scottish Labour’s position and, certainly, with the Labour position south of the border. Earlier this week, Yvette Cooper reiterated in her address to the Police Federation of England and Wales annual conference that the Labour Party would have implemented 12 per cent cuts to police budgets in England and Wales—cuts that could have resulted in a reduction by as many as 10,000 officers. That is some gross hypocrisy, when Labour comes to the chamber to complain about redundancies in civilian staff but goes to the Police Federation in England and Wales and says that it would make 10,000 officer posts redundant. This Government will not let that happen in Scotland.

Police reform and the work that we are undertaking to deliver a single service will ensure that Scotland continues to enjoy world-class policing. Reform is needed to protect against Westminster budget cuts the local policing that communities value and depend on. As I said last week, we are making a virtue out of necessity. Yes—the reform is driven by finance, but at the same time it is about ensuring that we get the best possible police service. That is what we are doing.

What percentage cut will be made to the police budget as a result of the plans?

We are protecting police budgets and police numbers. That contrasts with Yvette Cooper’s position, which is why I got a standing ovation at the Scottish Police Federation, while Ms Cooper was met with stony silence and cheers of derision because her position is simply opportunistic and oppositionist.

Reform is not about doing what we do now—which is to do things eight times over—but about doing things differently. Reform will ensure that policing responds to 21st century challenges, and will create equal access to specialist and national services such as murder investigation and firearms teams, while strengthening the connections between the service and the communities that are served. All Scotland needs to have access to, and to be protected by, those specialist services.

I appreciate that the transition from the current eight-force structure to a single police service of Scotland brings uncertainty for police officers and civilian support staff alike. I fully understand that, but I assure Parliament that we are working closely with the service to ensure the smoothest possible transition, including the early appointment of the chief constable and the chair of the police authority, so that key decisions about the new service can be taken.

We will continue to work closely with trade unions, staff associations, local authorities and the service on the workforce issues. Ministers will create the broad framework and provide the finance in which the new service will operate, but it will be for the chief constable to decide what the balance of officers and staff should be.

We currently have eight chief constables: the new single service will need only one. We will no longer need the administrative support staff that are required for eight chiefs. Just as we will no longer need eight chiefs, we will no longer need eight heads of human resources or eight heads of finance. The people of Scotland expect us to employ no more people than are required to deliver effective policing.

Just as some jobs will change, many jobs will stay the same: support staff will continue to play a vital role in the new service; we will still need forensics staff at scenes of crime; we will still need experienced staff in communications centres to ensure that vital 999 calls are answered and dealt with; and we will still need specialist information and communications technology staff to keep systems up and running. All of them are fundamental. Support staff will remain central to the success of the new service, but yes—fewer support staff than we have at present will be needed at the end of the reform journey, just as fewer chief constables will be required.

This Government will act responsibly to protect front-line services. Lewis Macdonald’s motion advocates an irresponsible policy of protecting duplicated functions and services that will not be required in the new single service. Reform offers a unique opportunity to do things better and to reshape policing to reflect the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Ultimately, it will be more effective and efficient, and better for all communities.

I reiterate my recognition of the vital role that civilian support staff play and I commit to involving them and the trade unions fully as we move forward.

I move amendment S4M-02906.2, to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert:

“recognises and values the dedication and hard work of police staff and police officers in Scotland, which have resulted in a 35-year low in recorded crime; agrees that reform is essential to protect policing from UK Government budget cuts and that police reform will protect local services, create more equal access to specialist support and national services and strengthen the connection between services and communities while removing costly duplication; notes the strong progress being made to deliver a single police service of Scotland; recognises that civilian support staff will continue to play an important role in the new police service of Scotland, and supports the Scottish Government’s commitment to continue to work closely with staff associations and unions to ensure a smooth transition to the new police service of Scotland.”

09:34

In the context of the current events—the largest reform of Scotland’s policing for more than a generation—this morning’s debate is important and I thank the Labour Party for bringing it to the chamber.

The role that civilian staff play in supporting our police forces is vital but frequently overlooked. It is all too easy to think of civilian staff as sitting in a back office doing paperwork when the fact is that they carry out a myriad of vital roles as intelligence analysts, custody officers and community wardens, to name but a few. The Government frequently mentions the success of its pledge on 1,000 extra police officers. The Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome there being more police officers working to keep Scotland’s communities safe, but the fact is that without civilian staff supporting them, any benefit from those extra officers is negated as they are inevitably forced to spend more and more time away from their primary roles.

How many civilian staff have lost their jobs through compulsory redundancy as a result of the Liberal Democrat-Conservative Government at Westminster?

Mr FitzPatrick would do well to focus on what we are here to focus on, which is the running of the service in this country, for which responsibility sits with the Scottish Government.

The motive behind the Government’s plans for a single national police force appears to be the cost savings that it believes can be made. However, as has been pointed out in the chamber and by expert witnesses in committee, the push for efficiency savings in our police forces has already begun. I am concerned that the majority of the additional savings seem to be destined to be made by further cutting the number of civilian staff who are employed by the police. I say “further cutting” because—as we heard from Lewis Macdonald—the number of civilian staff has already fallen dramatically in recent years. It is not for me or for any of us to quantify how many civilian staff our police need to employ, but the fact is that shedding more than 1,000 staff in just a couple of years cannot fail to have an impact on how our forces operate.

ACPOS has estimated that, in order to meet the Government’s pie-in-the-sky savings targets for the new single force, a further 2,000 civilian staff will have to be cut. Some of that number might be accounted for through rationalisation of certain functions, but with potential redundancies on such a massive scale it is inevitable that in order to fill the gaps police officers will have to be taken off front-line duties to fill other roles. I have many concerns about the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill that are, by now, fairly well documented, but it is this headlong rush—the need to hurry through the changes with little regard for the consequences—that I find really objectionable.

Chief Constable Kevin Smith—the man at ACPOS who is responsible for overseeing implementation of the new force—explained to the Finance Committee the situation in which he finds himself. I will quote him at length, because it is important to put this on the record.

“The Government’s outline business case does not quantify job cuts. However ... If we are to make the savings that have been set out in our budget for the next three years—and into the next spending review, in fact—the main focus will be on police staff.”

He continued:

“Although there will not be an automatic assumption that we will have to put ... a police officer”

into support roles,

“if we are to get to the numbers on which the savings are based, it is a distinct possibility that that will happen. That will not be a good thing professionally or politically, and I do not think that the public will think it a good thing, either. It is a real risk.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 22 February 2012; c 670-671.]

He also said:

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

Although Chief Constable Smith was talking about the hypothetical situation when the new force comes in, his comments are equally relevant in considering the situation that already exists. Staff are being lost to make savings, but the jobs that they performed still need to be done. In the year to July 2011, Grampian Police reduced its civilian staff by 14 per cent. They lost, among others, a camera enforcement officer, two community wardens, an early intervention worker, an intelligence manager, a welfare officer, a wildlife crime education officer and three road safety advisors. Those jobs still need to be done; the only difference is that they will now have to be done by officers who might otherwise be out on the beat. The more civilian staff who are lost, the more officers will be taken off front-line duties to cover their responsibilities.

There can only be one result, as another chief constable told me last year:

“De-civilianisation, which will occur if whole scale civilian job losses take place, will result in the current community focus model of policing reverting to a crime fighting/call response model of policing where officers run around answering calls for crimes that have occurred because they are no longer able to prevent them.”

That is the danger of losing civilian staff, and it is the danger of the Government’s ill-advised police reform bill.

I move amendment S4M-02906.1, after “public” to insert:

“; is concerned that the Scottish Government’s rushed timetable for the implementation of a national police force, along with unrealistic savings targets, will serve to exacerbate the problem and lead to significant further redundancies among civilian staff”.

09:39

I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of civilian staff in Scotland’s police forces, which touches on topics that we discussed last week during the stage 1 debate on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. During the Justice Committee’s consideration of that bill, it was made clear that there is concern about the projected losses of civilian staff.

I start with a comment on the terminology that has been used in this debate. We must be careful not to take as black and white the distinction between front-line and back-office staff. A bobby on the beat can easily be seen as front line, whereas a member of the human resources staff is clearly back office, but in between, the distinction is much less clear cut. Much valuable investigative work can be done while sitting at a desk. I am sure that most of us would not consider people with roles such as forensic scientist, information technology expert or money laundering specialist to be back-office staff. The conclusion that we must draw is that it is dangerous to label all non police officers as carrying out administrative functions and to treat them all in the same way.

Let us not forget that the reason why we are having this debate is that the Scottish Government is looking at how the public sector can be reformed to enable it to deliver better value for money. When public finances are under such extreme pressure, it is appropriate that we look to cut duplication and unnecessary costs across Scotland’s police forces. Nevertheless, the Government has set a target of £88 million of savings as part of its plans for a single police force and it plans to save £50.3 million in staff costs. Those cuts are certainly challenging, and it remains to be seen whether they can be delivered without adversely affecting front-line services.

The priority of the Scottish Conservatives is to provide an effective, visible and local police service and to do so by sustaining in service the extra 1,000 police officers whom we have secured over the past five years. As I have mentioned before, civilian staff can and do play a key role in Scotland’s forces and, in many instances, civilian staff find themselves with a direct role in policing. There is a need for a balanced workforce, and both police officers and police staff have a role to play in that. The

“right people with the right skills must be doing the right jobs.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 972.]

It would be madness if we were to get into a situation in which police officers did not do their jobs but instead fulfilled back-office functions.

During the Justice Committee’s consideration of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, Calum Steele, who is secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, asserted that there has historically been a considerable rise in civilian posts in Scotland. He said:

“That is undoubtedly a consequence in some ways of how the police service has evolved, but it would be beyond the pale to suggest that those levels of growth were a consequence of essential civilianisation where it took place. I am sure that many roles were undertaken and created not because they were essential, but because they were desirable or nice to have.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 1009.]

The historical statistics show that, since 1997, police staff levels have risen by 51 per cent compared with a rise in the number of police officers that amounts to 14 per cent. Civilianisation peaked in 2007, when 32 per cent of those who were employed by the police were civilian staff. That has now fallen to 28 per cent, which is the 2004 level. Arguably, therefore, recent reductions in civilian staff represent a sensible decrease in staff levels, which had become bloated since 2007. Mr Steele cited a number of existing civilian positions, including change manager, business manager and performance manager, and said that he was unclear whether they are essential to the delivery of policing.

If we have to choose between such postholders and front-line police officers, I know which I would prefer, but let us not forget that there is an irreducible minimum below which we must not fall. That is the issue that is before us today. That is why we accept the basic proposition in the amendment that the Government has lodged, but we believe that we must keep the overall staff reduction picture under review.

We will now move to the open debate. Members have a strict four minutes. I regret that, if you take interventions, I will be not be able to give you additional time to compensate.

09:44

Obviously, we have to say that these are not times of plenty. Let us begin at the beginning. I repeat the cabinet secretary’s words:

“we are making a virtue out of necessity.”

Repeating certain facts can be wearisome, but they have to be drummed into not only members, but the public at large. Some £1,300 million was cut from the Scottish budget last year. It is, of course, a fixed budget, because we have no borrowing powers. Under the plans that the United Kingdom Government has announced, by 2014-15, the Scottish Government’s budget will have been cut by 9.2 per cent and capital will have been cut by 36.7 per cent. On 25 April this year, the UK went back into recession—into a double-dip recession. The UK economy contracted by 0.2 per cent, and goodness knows what will happen to it with the current activities in Greece, Italy and, indeed, France on the euro. We are in very difficult times.

Most significant of all is that the construction industry is in very difficult times. If we could advance construction projects, we would help the UK and Scottish economies at least to stand still, if not to go forward. They would not go backwards. I think that members of other parties—although not the Conservatives and Liberals—share our views on that. Why is that relevant? First, I return to making a virtue out of necessity. Policing and its structure in Scotland needed to be reviewed. I think that it is generally accepted that that is long overdue. It has simply been put to the top of the agenda.

Secondly, the Government has pledged that, where budgets are within its control, there will be no compulsory redundancies. That is important to give security to those who are in work and might not even be under consideration for redundancy, but are concerned that they might be. Unison has accepted that position. Of course, some jobs will be redundant; replacing eight constabularies with one means that some jobs will not exist any more. The cabinet secretary referred to support staff jobs—clerical, human resources, equal opportunities and procurement jobs across eight constabularies—that will not exist. That is partly a good idea for its own sake and partly a necessity because of where we are now financially.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes, and I have things that I want to say.

Thirdly, it is of course appropriate for two reasons that Opposition parties and back benchers highlight concerns that civilian jobs will, or may be, undertaken by police officers. Obviously, those officers would not then be available for front-line duty, and civilian jobs involve a different skills set. David McLetchie referred to that and made the considered point that whether something is front line or back room is not black and white or obvious.

I note that the chief constable together with the divisional commanders will determine the new staffing requirements. The chief constable will not just be accountable to the Scottish police authority, and the divisional commander will not just be accountable to local boards. Ultimately, there will be accountability for the quality of policing across civilian provision and the front line to the Parliament, whether under the scrutiny of the Justice Committee or—if Graeme Pearson has his way and convinces us—a commission that will watch the delivery of policing and the activities of the chief constable.

The member has 30 seconds.

I say to Alison McInnes that crime figures and the fear of crime are falling notwithstanding civilian jobs going.

In England, Theresa May was told by the Police Federation of England and Wales that she is

“on the precipice of destroying”

the police service. Paul McKeever said of the Scottish Government:

“they have no Winsor, they have no professional body and no loss in police officers—”

I am sorry to cut you off, Ms Grahame, but I need to call Graeme Pearson.

09:49

The effective delivery of policing requires, among other things, the Government to provide confidence to police and police staff about their future in respect of employment and support, and it needs the Government to acknowledge that the principles of public service, integrity, team ethos and vocation are vital ingredients in ensuring that staff act in the spirit of public service. It also needs the recognition that value for money means paying the going rate for the jobs that are undertaken, and it needs efficiencies to ensure that the person with the required skills is engaged on the appropriate duties. Underlying those concepts is the additional responsibility on Government to respond to staff by showing exemplary fairness and loyalty to those who are currently employed across the police service, to leave all staff in no doubt that decisions about their future will be made on the basis of what is best for the future of policing across Scotland and not on the basis of a one-sided political commitment to maintaining police numbers while eliminating less visible support jobs.

Had the Government candidly admitted that 1,000 additional constables would result in at least 1,000 back-office jobs going—according to the unions, the figure is up to 3,000—I think that MSPs would have been less gushing in their support. No one would argue that the maintenance of police numbers is not a good result, but the fairytale that lies behind that fact is the loss of many more jobs behind the scene.

The sleight of hand involved would play well as merely a confidence trick if it were not for the fact that so many valuable staff are being let go and others demotivated by the very processes that should be enthusing staff as they move towards a single police force. Members should be in no doubt that these are staff cuts—and cuts they are, no matter what variation of the English language people try to use. They are directly linked to the savings targeted by this Government; they are not demanded by the creation of a single police force.

We have heard members quote eminent witnesses who provided the Justice Committee with evidence.

The most accurate staff numbers that I can uncover are for the period up to December 2011—unfortunately, the most recent figures will not be released until next month. The figures reveal that we have lost 905 posts. In Central Scotland, the area policed by Kevin Smith, a third of staff have been lost. The complement has fallen to 299 people.

Surely we cannot continue with the delusion that the work done by 905 people can be done by the remaining back-office staff. Surely the claims of efficiency made by this Government in relation to the management of staff over the years mean something—surely they mean that, across policing, current staff were and are fully utilised in their own work and are not available to soak up new duties.

The evidence gained from staff across the forces indicates that they are losing staff involved in warrants, intelligence analysis, football monitoring duties, custody, HR support, media services duties and firearms certification. We need to show support and to have a balanced police service. The service needs effective staff to support police officers, who should be out on the street fighting crime, not fighting paperwork and answering phones.

09:52

There is a strong sense of déjà vu about the debate. Last week, during the stage 1 debate on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, I reminded the chamber of Calum Steele’s comments to the Justice Committee. He said:

“We must look at the jobs that we do and ask ourselves not who does them, but whether they need doing in the first place.”

That must be the first port of call in any review of staffing. We must then, of course, look at issues of duplication. If we have a national service, do we need quite as many staff in IT, HR or finance—or as many chief constables, for that matter?

Calum Steele also said that

“we should never get into a situation in which we talk about the value of a police officer versus the value of a support member of staff.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 1009 and 1008.]

This is about balance—balance in the context of a commitment to an additional 1,000 police officers, which was given in 2007; in the context of a substantial growth in the number of support staff between 1997 and 2000; and in the light of the budget that is now available. Of course, the figures for support staff have been reduced, but if we take as an example not 2005 but quarter 3 in 2003, there were more support staff back then than at quarter 4 in 2011. Therefore, we can be selective about the dates or periods that we choose.

The Labour motion refers to concerns that

“cuts to civilian posts are taking police officers off the front line to perform tasks better suited to civilian staff”.

However, we know that police support staff numbers vary enormously between Strathclyde and Lothian as a proportion of total staff, and that, in Fife, there is a tradition of a significant number of police officers being office based for at least 75 per cent of the working week. We know that resolving a crime might involve officers in front-line tasks and in what others might think of as backroom staff tasks—and certainly in tasks that take officers off the streets for a while.

Traditions and cultures vary, and the new service must take all such issues into account operationally, within the budgetary constraints under which we operate. Why would an independent audit help? Can a uniform standard be established for a support staff role? I doubt it. Do we want to become embroiled in what Andrea Quinn of the Scottish Police Services Authority described as the “disingenuous” distinction between front-line and back-office tasks?

Would we prefer police numbers to drop, as in England and Wales—the number of police will drop by 700 in Devon and Cornwall alone—and to have a Government that loses its police force’s confidence? Unison argues that large numbers of police officers in one force do what are essentially civilian roles in other forces but, contrary to what some politicians suggest, there is no agreed optimum balance between civilian staff and police officers.

Chief Constable Smith made it clear in relation to the approximately 1,000 staff who have gone to date that, as a matter of policy, police officers have never been put in support staff roles. I say in the interests of balance that he conceded that some police officers are still in roles that it would be more appropriate for support staff to do.

In some parts of Scotland, it will be difficult to reduce the number of support staff through people leaving naturally and through voluntary severance. However, we should remember that ACPOS’s figures for redundancies are cumulative over the period until 2015-16.

Will the member take an intervention?

The member has no time to take an intervention.

As the cabinet secretary acknowledged, support staff have made and will continue to make an important contribution to reducing crime and making Scotland safer. We need to ensure a proper framework for the operation of the new police force.

Labour’s motion says that cuts to support staff

“are detrimental to the ability of the police service to protect the public”,

but we have not heard much about that—perhaps the closing Labour speaker will refer to it. Is it not the case that cutting police numbers instead would be far more damaging to the police service’s ability to protect the public?

09:56

I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to Mr Macdonald for not being present for his opening speech.

The motion refers to recognising

“the key role played by civilian staff in Scotland’s police forces in helping to protect communities”.

I have first-hand knowledge of that through my police service and I have a great number of friends who are support staff. No one takes issue with the statement in the motion, but the debate should not be about police officers versus support staff. There is not some bizarre numeric equation that can be worked out; the debate is about what constitutes an effective and efficient police force that will build on and enhance the 35-year low in crime.

If we are talking about an effective and efficient police force, does John Finnie agree that it is not effective or efficient in this time of financial savings to replace civilian staff in Tayside Police control room with police officers, who are paid at a much higher grade?

I will come on to that point.

Improvements will not come about through unnecessary duplication, which we must stop and prevent from recurring in the new structure. Chief Superintendent David O’Connor advised the Justice Committee that staff costs form 84 per cent of the police budget and, as was quoted by Mr McLetchie, Chief Superintendent O’Connor said:

“the right people with the right skills must be doing the right jobs.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 972.]

The motion talks about an independent audit. I argue that such an audit is already done by Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, who is obliged to certify whether each constabulary and all other component parts of the police service are effective and efficient, which we know is the case.

Graeme Pearson talked about a “political commitment”. The commitment to 17,234 officers is non-negotiable and is welcomed by the public. It has made a noticeable difference, not least in the visible police presence.

I am obliged to the member for giving way, as I know that time is tight for him. Would he be more comfortable with his position if he had confidence and knew that the Government and ACPOS were focusing on saving the kind of money that has been spent on projects such as the performance management platform, on which The Scotsman reported this week almost £7 million has been spent but which has not been delivered?

Indeed. The member is well aware that I have concerns about a greater sum of money that relates to an IT project. All resources should be directed to the front line.

The public will not be reassured by the presence of several procurement departments. It could be argued that, if those departments were effective, they would procure a single procurement department.

The debate is about not personalities or geography but what is effective and efficient, so there is no suggestion of taking “vital roles” out of the equation, as Alison McInnes said.

I mentioned the Christie commission’s work in last week’s debate. There are functions that are undertaken centrally, which might—in small measure, I acknowledge—go some way towards explaining the reduced figures. For example, there is centralisation of recruitment and the ever-present training.

The issue must be seen against the background of the Westminster cuts.

Unison said in its e-mail that

“Taking trained operational police officers off the streets to perform administrative or specialist tasks, at greater cost, makes no … sense.”

What are those tasks? Who are those trained police officers who can go in at a higher rate of pay? It makes no sense at all—who would disagree with that? In any case, Kevin Smith told us that it does not happen.

You have 30 seconds.

Calum Steele, the secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, told us that the point of some roles is not immediately obvious to him.

Another weak point in Labour’s argument is the reference to England, where the loss of police officers compared with support staff obviously tilts the equation—if we want to make bizarre numeric equations.

The cabinet secretary has given an assurance that there will be no compulsory redundancy and that there will be transfer to the new service on the same terms and conditions—

You must finish now.

10:01

I am sure that the cabinet secretary would prefer it if we all had short memories, but I clearly recall that in 2007 one of the first promises—among many—that the Government tried to ditch was its commitment to deliver 1,000 extra police officers, and that only pressure from the Tories, who were using the issue as a bargaining chip in relation to their support for the Government’s budget, forced the justice secretary to find money, which he knew was not there, to pay for the 1,000 officers that he had promised.

The Government subsequently had to force local authorities to commit to deliver on the policy, under threat of financial penalties if they did not agree to do so. As with most of this Government’s political choices, a snappy headline is the prize for which some other area of public spending has had to pay the price. As ever, what the headline giveth, the small print taketh away. We have 1,000 more police officers, but as Unison told us and as ACPOS recently confirmed in evidence to the Finance Committee, we have lost 1,000 full-time-equivalent civilian staff. Police staff are being sacrificed on the altar of SNP populism.

It is unfortunate that the carnage is due to continue unabated, because the Government stubbornly refuses to listen to the legitimate concerns of people who have identified flaws in the financial provisions in the outline business case for the new single police force. Given the significant financial implications of potential VAT liability for the new police and fire services, the police and public would be better served if Mr MacAskill spent more time pursuing the issue instead of praising himself for delivering 1,000 new police officers during the past five years.

ACPOS predicts that more than 2,000 police staff posts will be lost in the next three to four years, on a best-case scenario, and that more than 3,000 jobs might be lost if pay and conditions are not further reduced and the exemption from VAT is not attained. That is not a good policy to pursue.

Unison is right to point out that the Government’s

“aim should be to ensure the maximum number of police officers ‘on the street’,”—

in operational roles—

“not substituting for police staff roles.”

However, that truth cannot be fitted into a smart headline, which is what always matters most to the populist Scottish Government. The Government can deny all it wants that decivilianisation is taking place, but the people who have been affected and—this is important—the trade union that represents them know where the truth lies.

I say to Mr Finnie and other members who made the same point that the fact that someone does not ask for the evidence does not mean that the evidence does not exist. Mr Finnie made clear that he had read the e-mail from Unison. He must therefore know about the survey that the union conducted and he must have seen the examples that it gave of jobs that have been transferred and are now being done by higher-paid police officers, who are no longer on the front line delivering policing services. That cannot be the way forward.

Will the member give way?

The member is in his final minute.

Does the member accept that the Unison representative who gave evidence acknowledged that rehabilitative and protective duties all explain the filling of some of those roles?

I accept that there is an explanation for the filling of some of those roles. However, the fact is that jobs are being lost and are being filled by police officers who are no longer doing policing.

When budgets are tight—as I concede they are—we cannot pay police officers, at a higher cost to the public, to do jobs that they were not recruited to do. The police service does not need headline-grabbing policies; it needs a properly funded, realistically assessed and balanced workforce.

10:05

I welcome today’s debate. I understand that police support staff play an important role in ensuring an effective police force. The cabinet secretary clearly set out his admiration for their work.

The debate is set against the backdrop of a direction of travel in policing in Scotland that is clearly different from that south of the border. The Scottish Government is ensuring that the front line is protected. As of the end of last year, there are 17,343 full-time-equivalent officers in Scotland—an increase of 1,109 from the position that we inherited in March 2007.

It has been interesting to hear, as members have just heard, Michael McMahon suggest that that is populism, and Graeme Pearson question whether it is a good thing. The question that Labour members have to answer is whether they want to cut police numbers. The inference to be taken from their suggestions is that they do. I look forward to hearing Mr Macdonald or Ms Marra respond to that later.

Lewis Macdonald rose—

Mr Macdonald can respond now.

Of course we are not, by any means, calling for any change in police numbers. We simply ask that when the Government is presiding over a reduction in police staff, it tells us which posts are going and which roles are no longer being done by civilian staff.

So it is populism when the SNP increases police numbers, but it is sound policy when the Labour Party wants to protect those numbers. That is an interesting perspective.

Let us face it: the 1,000 additional police officers have directly contributed to a 35-year low in recorded crime. I accept that Graeme Pearson has long experience in policing matters, but it was a little mean-spirited of him to suggest, just because there has been a recorded drop in levels of crime in other countries, that the police here have somehow not contributed to the reduced rate of crime in this country. I wonder how his former colleagues would respond to that.

There is no mean spirit intended. I ask Jamie Hepburn to deal with the reality outside the chamber and not to make a soundbite out of it. To connect those two statistics is just wrong. We need to deal with reality as it is.

That was a restatement of the position: a mean-spirited approach that suggests there is no recognition that the police have played a role—as indeed those who support them have played a role—in the reduction in the level of crime.

I do not have the time to compare front-line police numbers in England and Wales with the situation in Scotland, but there is clearly a different direction of travel south of the border.

It is important to place in context the specific matter of the number of police support staff employed in Scotland. In the first instance, the numbers are reducing mainly because people are retiring and there have been voluntary severance schemes. That is clearly different from what is happening in England. Alison McInnes was reticent about wanting to discuss what her party is doing in government with compulsory redundancies. Of course, such issues are operational matters for the chief constables of the various police forces. If the Government sought to intervene directly we would probably be having a debate about the political direction of police forces—

Jenny Marra rose—

I doubt that I have time, Ms Marra. I apologise.

I wonder if that is the debate that we would be having—although perhaps that is mean-spirited of me.

It is clear that the number of police support staff has gone down a little. There are, as at the end of 2011, 6,957 police support staff. However, that figure is higher than it was in nine of the 16 quarters from 2003 to 2007, so if it is a problem now, it must have been a problem then. I do not remember Lewis Macdonald saying so at the time, though.

10:09

Rather unsurprisingly—this is increasingly the case—the debate has been a case of fingers in the ears from members on the Government benches. Lewis Macdonald’s motion is entirely reasonable and certainly worthy of serious debate. The fact that civilian staff play a vital role in allowing our police forces to operate at their most effective is not in question; neither is the fact that over the past few years there has been a dramatic and alarming reduction in the number of support staff.

This is a major reform, heavy with risk. Currently, we have an efficient, effective and trusted police force across Scotland. The Government is determined to proceed with a single police force, so its responsibility is clear. It must ensure that reform does not irretrievably damage our police service.

Opposition speakers this morning have rightly pointed out the dangers that are inherent in one strand of the reform. Sadly, we have not heard the same from SNP back benchers. Instead, we have had the usual cheerleading for the Government rather than any sticking up for communities.

In my opening speech, I mentioned the thought that was floated by a senior officer that the Government’s reforms risk losing the community focus that is the cornerstone of our current police service—a point that I think is well worth repeating. Continuing with large-scale reductions in the number of civilian staff will mean that the way that our police service works will change, and not for the better. It will inevitably return to being less about preventing crime and more about reacting to crime. Sadly, the Government seems determined to ignore that concern.

The Government may trot out its rhetoric on protecting services and creating better ties with communities, but the clear fact is that the reforms are simply not concerned with developing the best model for policing in Scotland. Rather, they are all about justifying unsubstantiated savings claims in an unachievable timeframe.

Throughout the Justice Committee’s consideration of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, we heard numerous concerns about the questionable practice of using the outline business case as a blueprint for the actual savings that are demanded of the new force. What is worse, the Government is now demanding that those dubious savings targets be reached in double-quick time.

John Finnie said that the matter is not an equation. Indeed it is not. However, in that case, the cabinet secretary should not define one half of the equation, which is the number of police officers that we have.

Our civilian police staff are an absolutely vital part of Scotland’s community policing. They are the people who have helped us to reach the current 35-year low in recorded crime. The Government is quick to laud that figure but is all too slow to recognise the role that police support staff have played in achieving it.

As I said earlier, our intelligence analysts, custody officers and community wardens let our officers spend the maximum time possible out on the beat in the community, keeping our towns safe. With their numbers already on the decline, we can ill afford to lose the 2,000 or more staff who, it seems, are about to be among the first casualties of the Government’s damaging reforms.

10:12

This morning’s debate has highlighted the challenges that face us in light of the current pressures on the public finances.

Making the necessary savings will involve difficult decisions and, with 86 per cent of the policing budget going on staffing costs, posts will have to be lost. However, we must ensure that the police service that emerges is effective, is focused on tackling crime and is made up of the correct skill set.

The Scottish Government asserts that a single police force could achieve savings of £130 million within a year, with a total saving over 15 years of £1.7 billion. However, alongside that assertion is the Government's commitment to maintain the 1,000 extra police officers that were secured during the previous session of Parliament, and the protection of those police officer numbers means ring fencing a large proportion of total police spending and preventing its use to make savings.

The Scottish Government has already set savings targets of £88 million by 2014-15, of which more than £50 million must be saved through police staff reductions. That has been calculated to represent more than 2,000 full-time posts. It will clearly be a challenge to achieve that reduction in staff numbers through voluntary redundancy alone. The ACPOS president, Chief Constable Smith, has questioned whether those savings can be achieved in that manner. He said that, in his personal and professional view, he was clear that

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

One also has to question whether 2,000 posts can be lost without a detrimental loss of skills. Chief Superintendent O’Connor from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents warned the Justice Committee that the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill risked throwing the baby out with the bath water. He explained:

“We have a lot of very loyal, competent and experienced police staff with a lot of corporate knowledge, skills and expertise. I fear that at some point down the line it may dawn on us that we still need those skills and, indeed, that we may have to buy them back.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 977.]

Clearly, therefore, a balance must be struck between protecting posts that contribute to policing in Scotland and addressing any duplication and inefficiencies in our police service.

One thing is clear: the Scottish Government must present Parliament with the necessary information surrounding its proposal for a single police force. The current savings that a single force might bring are based on an outline business case produced in July 2011—a document that Chief Constable Smith said was

“never intended by the police officers who were party to it, or by the consultants, to be a document that contained sufficient detail on which to base significant decisions about investment and savings.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 February 2012; c 971-2.]

Does the member therefore agree that in order to achieve that clarity and certainty about the impact of the changes, it would make a major contribution if ministers were to do an audit and report on it to Parliament, as Labour has called for today?

It would certainly make a contribution, but I would prefer the full business case to be submitted.

No one in the chamber is clear about how much money will be saved by a move to a single police force. Accordingly, and because police officer numbers are to be protected, we can only guess how many civilian posts will have to be shed in the years to come. The Scottish Government’s position is that a full business case will not be produced until a single police service is established. That is too little, too late. This morning’s debate further highlights the need for those figures.

10:16

Yet again, I put on record how proud we are as a Government that crime is at a 35-year low, and I reiterate our praise for those who have contributed to that. Whether they are civilian staff or police constables of whatever rank, we pay tribute to them for their service, given the dangers that they often face. Those who denigrate that do a disservice to those whom they should be praising, and they should think again.

I have listened with some amusement to Mr Macdonald. As in most debates, Labour has come to the chamber making claims, but offering no increase in budget or suggestions about where money should come from. The Labour position seems to be that there should be a single service—that has always been its position. However, there is to be no loss in support staff or police numbers. I look forward to Mr Macdonald going along to the ACPOS conference that is coming up shortly and saying, “There’ll be no loss in chief constables. Hang on to your pips and braid—Labour’s going to look after you.”

I, too, am amused, but by the cabinet secretary’s interpretation of the debate. If he read the motion, he would see that we are not asking for a major increase in budget. We are simply asking the Government to assess which posts have been and are about to be lost and to report on that to Parliament. That will not require much additional resource; it requires only some political will.

I was at a dinner yesterday in the company of a chief constable. That chief constable may apply to become, and may become, the chief constable of the new force. If he does, I will be delighted to congratulate him. If he does not, I will pay tribute to him for his service. I noticed that there was a vehicle and driver waiting to collect him. If the chief constable is unsuccessful, his driver may also be out of a job. Sadly, that is a fact of life. We have no compulsory redundancies—that remains the case. However, we cannot make jobs up. If we go from eight chief constables to one, we cannot have drivers for eight chief constables. That remains the position.

Labour’s position is totally hypocritical and fraudulent. There are to be no cuts in back-office staff, no cuts in police numbers, doubtless no cuts in the senior staff ranks, and no variation in the budget available.

Yvette Cooper has indicated that Labour south of the border would cut police numbers by 12 per cent.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that we are saying that when civilian staff retire early or are made voluntarily redundant, they are being replaced not by civilian staff but by police officers on much higher salaries?

I do not normally agree with Mr McLetchie in these debates—which can be quite rumbustious—but he made a valid point that such things are about balance.

Jenny Marra intervened on John Finnie with regard to Tayside. I am not aware of the on-going situation there, as it is a matter for the chief constable. However, I attended—along with Jenny Marra and Lewis Macdonald—the reception that the Scottish Police Federation hosted last week, at which I spoke to Inspector Hamilton from the Police Federation ranks in Tayside, and he raised no issues of concern with me.

Jenny Marra raised the subject of civilianisation and police officers going into control rooms, which seems to be an issue in Tayside. I recall—as might Mr McLetchie—being lobbied by the Police Federation in Lothian and Borders a few years back. The issue was that police officers were being taken out, and civilians were going in, when the force control centre in Bilston opened. Such issues are a matter of balance: Mr McLetchie was right to say that it is ultimately for the police to decide whether a post should be filled by an officer. We will give the police our full support in that regard.

I say to Alison McInnes that I would have some sympathy with her if the coalition Government was adopting the same position. However, I remind her once again of the debates that we have had in the chamber not only in the current session of Parliament but in previous sessions about the situation that is playing out south of the border with regard to civilian staff. The coalition Government is privatising the forensic medicine department south of the border: lock, stock and laboratory. That is not about making redundancies where there is duplication, but about wholesale privatisation, which this Government will never countenance.

I appreciate that my time is almost up. This Government is delighted by our track record, and I can only remind Labour colleagues of the stony reception accorded to the Labour shadow home secretary. This Government is doing the right thing for the police service, which is why it is supported by the Scottish Police Federation. We welcome the contribution that is made by all those who serve in the police family, and the record to which they have contributed should not be denigrated by anyone or by any political party.

10:22

I pay tribute to the men and women of Scotland’s eight police forces, who, through their skill and dedication, work tirelessly to keep Scotland’s streets safe.

When Scottish Labour first outlined its commitment to a single police force, we envisaged a single force that championed the diversity of functions and skills that we know it takes to police effectively and to keep our communities safe.

Will the member take an intervention?

No thank you—not just now.

We recognised that, to do the best that we can for communities throughout Scotland, we had to build a force that was entrenched in the areas that it served, with the right people doing the right jobs at the right time. We did that by committing to a force in which police officers would not be taken off the beat to cover the jobs of police staff.

However, we are here today because the SNP thinks otherwise. Instead of maintaining police officers within our communities, we have the lowest number of civilian police staff in Scotland since 2005. Almost 1,000 posts have gone in the past two years alone, and 3,000 are projected to go in the future.

As we move through a period of transition, it is likely that those figures will only get worse. That is because the SNP has based its business case for a single force on the imperative to save money—as the cabinet secretary admitted last week—and not to create the world-class police force that Scotland deserves.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

Our motion does not demand that every existing post is retained, as the cabinet secretary interpreted it in his opening remarks, but simply asks the Government to undertake an audit of planned cuts.

The debate is not about civilian staff versus police officers, as the SNP back benchers characterise it, but about finding the most cost-efficient and operationally efficient balance. That is why we have called for an audit.

Mr MacAskill tells us that numbers of police officers and police staff are an “operational matter”. If that is an operational matter in which the cabinet secretary does not interfere, why does he demand that the arbitrary number of 17,234 police officers remains in Scotland? Is that not, by his own definition, an operational matter?

John Finnie told us that the cabinet secretary has given a commitment to 1,000 extra officers, a static 17,234 police officers and no compulsory redundancies. However, 20 minutes earlier, the cabinet secretary told us that such numbers are “operational matters”. Can the SNP make up its mind?

Does the member not recognise that political parties have the right—as the Conservatives had—to seek election on a number of platforms, one of which might be to increase police visibility by 1,000 officers, and that, if the electorate supports that, the party in question has the mandate and authority to introduce such measures? However, it is then up to the chief constable to decide how those officers are deployed and the balance between police and civilian staff. Is Ms Marra now going down the Yvette Cooper route?

The cabinet secretary is being slightly disingenuous. If Labour had made a commitment to provide 1,000 extra police officers, we would have ensured that they were on the streets of our communities, not backfilling civilian posts in control rooms across the country.

Tayside Police’s deputy chief constable has been running a roadshow for police staff to explain the reform and allay fears. The following extract has been taken from an official police document:

“We have been successful in previous civilianisation programmes where police staff have been employed in posts previously occupied inappropriately by police officers. Due to the requirement on us to make savings and maintain police officer numbers it is inevitable that we have had to take a temporary step back in this regard and some police officers are having to temporarily cover some aspects of police staff posts in order to maintain service delivery.”

I want to take the cabinet secretary through some examples of how that has been happening in Tayside. With regard to firearms inquiry officers, three civilian staff went under voluntary redundancy and police officers have had to divvy up their 110 working hours at higher cost. In media services, one civilian member of staff went through the early retirement and voluntary redundancy scheme and was replaced by another civilian and an additional constable. I will let the cabinet secretary add up how much more that costs. Moreover, four police constables transferred into Tayside’s force control room to backfill a civilian dispatcher. More civilian dispatchers will go in the next month or so and the force executive has already agreed to transfer more cops into that room for cover.

Let us not pretend that that is not happening or disrespect the civilian workers in the police force by saying, as some SNP members said last week, that backfilling is simply an assumption that Labour is making. It is not an assumption—it is a reality in police forces up and down Scotland.

The SNP Government made a political commitment to put 1,000 extra police officers on our streets—

If this was such an issue for police officers, why was it not raised last week by Inspector Hamilton of the Tayside police federation or, indeed, by Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation in the evidence to the Justice Committee that Mr McLetchie quoted?

The Justice Committee took very strong evidence from Unison on behalf of its members that this was happening.

The SNP Government made a political commitment to put 1,000 extra police officers on our streets. However, over the past two years, 1,000 civilians have left the police through either early retirement or voluntary redundancy, and their jobs are being done by police officers.

The fact is that the SNP has not put 1,000 extra police officers on our streets; instead, at a time when the Government is making cuts and saying that it is trying to save money by creating a new single police force, it has given us 1,000 backroom bobbies who are being paid significantly more money to do the backroom jobs that civilian staff were doing just as efficiently. If the new single police force is a cost-saving exercise, why are police officers being paid more to do jobs that civilians were doing very well at a lower pay grade?

The reality is that the SNP is prepared to pay inflated police salaries for civilian jobs just to save face on its promise to provide 1,000 extra police officers. However, it is being disingenuous, and the Government should face up to the situation and admit that 1,000 extra police officers on the beat is a fallacy. Instead, it has given us 1,000 backroom bobbies.