Justice
We now come to the debate on motion S1M-1807, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on justice, and two amendments to that motion.
This morning, with the First Minister and the chief constable of Strathclyde police, I met at Hampden Park 200 recently recruited Strathclyde police officers. We saw the tangible evidence of the growing number of police officers in Scotland and we heard chief constable Sir John Orr report that the size of Strathclyde police was at an all-time high. I therefore welcome the debate and the opportunity that it gives me to set out the progress that we are making towards a Scotland in which people are safer and feel safer.
The policies of the Liberal Democrat and Labour party partnership link criminal justice with social justice. They seek to deal with the causes of crime and to ensure effective enforcement. They are about early intervention; they are about replacing outdated laws; they are about providing better support for victims; and they are about building confidence in our justice system.
Our second programme for government set out the tangible progress that we have already made, for example in combating crime in communities, in supporting victims of crime, in protecting the most vulnerable people in society and in promoting a fair, accessible and modern legal system. The programme also gave commitments for the future, including the development of more effective penalties for offenders, improvements in the management of common police services, and improvement of rehabilitation services and of the quality of the prison environment.
I gave a written parliamentary answer today, which set out the targets for the Scottish Prison Service for next year and the provisional outturn figures for this year. The targets include an increase—to 250,000 hours a year—of 11 per cent in the number of prisoner learning hours. Following a 50 per cent reduction in the number of serious assaults on prisoners during the past three years, we seek a further fall next year.
During several prison visits, I have seen for myself the professionalism and commitment of Prison Service staff. However, I acknowledge that there are issues about morale, not least because of the impending estates review. I have already given a commitment that we will have a proper public debate about how we will modernise our prison estate. Reassurance has been given that that will be done without any compulsory redundancies. Provided that the Prison Service continues to make sustained progress towards quality, correctional excellence and competitiveness, there will be no market testing of any existing establishments.
Both the amendments to my motion refer to crime figures, so I will put those amendments into context. Recorded crime is down 20 per cent compared to its level 10 years ago, when the Conservative party was in office. Fear of crime is also much lower. Much of the credit for the drop in crime goes to the police, who do a difficult job in sometimes dangerous circumstances. That is why we are increasing spending on the police service overall to close to £900 million. In cash terms, net grant-aided revenue expenditure to our police is now almost £300 million, which is 30 per cent more than it was in 1991-92, under the Conservatives.
At the time of the spending review, one chief constable stated:
"We gave a promise to Jim Wallace that if he gave us the money we would translate it into feet on the street."
We found the money. Overall, police authorities will receive a 6.6 per cent increase in funds this year. As a result, the number of police officers should reach a record level.
The minister has said that Strathclyde police resources are at an all-time high. The then Scottish Office home department police division figures for April 1997 show that the number of officers was 7,302. However, in his press release the minister referred to his aspiration to get the number up to 7,200. Will he explain that difference?
When I spoke to Sir John Orr today, he indicated that there are 400 more feet on the beat in Strathclyde—to use his expression. That fact was being celebrated at Hampden Park this morning.
In that case, can the minister explain simply the Scottish Office police division figures?
Without seeking to offend the chief constable of Strathclyde police, I was reporting what I heard from the horse's mouth not seven hours ago. It was a remarkable event this morning, and it was illustrative of our clear commitment to the police and to an increase in their number.
As a result of that commitment, police numbers will reach record levels throughout Scotland next year. In addition, we have committed an extra £1.7 million for DNA testing and we have increased capital spending by 24 per cent, which will ensure that the police have access to the most advanced technology. New projects include a £2 million communications centre in Motherwell, and an £8.4 million high-tech centre for Lothian and Borders police, which will replace seven control rooms and free up the equivalent of 89 officers for front-line duties. Last month, we earmarked a further £8 million for information technology developments, including a new Scottish intelligence database that will enable police officers throughout Scotland to have fast access to information, wherever those officers are based. Those initiatives reflect our determination to improve the quality and effectiveness of police operations. The substantial support for intelligence-led policing, combined with the extra resources to increase police numbers, should significantly increase the ability of the police to prevent crime and to deter and detect criminals.
In addition, we are working with the police and police authorities to agree joint targets in key areas such as road safety, drugs, house-breaking, racist incidents, community safety and violent crime. Those targets will build on the good progress that has been made. Recorded crime is down on the levels of a decade ago, and the 2000 Scottish crime survey shows that since 1992 the proportion of respondents who identify crime as an extremely serious problem fell from 50 per cent to 28 per cent, and the proportion who feel unsafe walking alone in their area after dark fell from 39 per cent to 28 per cent. It also showed that, between 1996 and 2000, the public's level of concern about crime fell across all the survey measures.
The survey suggests that the rise in the one category that showed an increase—crimes of violence—might largely be due to repeat victimisation. It points out that the number of people in Scotland who were victims of violent crime has changed very little from the 1995 level of 3 per cent. Nevertheless, the increase in the recorded crime figures on homicides between 1998 and 1999 was cause for great concern. Many victims were young men under the age of 30 and many of the murders involved a knife or other sharp instrument.
That is why we backed a series of national action days by the police, which were aimed at tackling specific violent crimes, and why we funded a national anti-violence advertising campaign to ram home the message that violent crime is unacceptable. In just one eight-week period under the safer Scotland campaign, 590 knives and 603 other weapons were seized.
Through the crimestoppers hotline, more information has come from the public on violent criminals, which has led to new intelligence and more arrests. I am pleased that the latest figures show a significant fall in the number of violent crimes in the last three months of 2000, compared to the same period in 1999. National figures for murder and attempted murder were also down by 43.8 per cent and 13.4 per cent respectively. I accept that those figures are for a three-month period and that therefore they come with the usual health warning. However, members will recognise that the scale of the reduction is encouraging.
The action that we are taking to tackle drug misuse has been well documented and it was debated in the chamber last Wednesday. Our policies represent a balance of treatment, education and enforcement. Enforcement is being led by the new Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which has already made its presence felt in Scotland and beyond. As part of the biggest-ever programme of anti-drugs initiatives in Scotland, recently we announced the creation of the first pilot Scottish drugs court in Glasgow and we have introduced draft legislation to strengthen and extend the provisions to confiscate and recover the proceeds of crime.
An essential part of combating crime is the maintenance of public confidence in the police throughout all sections of society. That brings me to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and the working group that was set up after the publication of the Macpherson report. I chair that steering group, which oversees the implementation of that report in Scotland. The group involves the police, the Crown Office, local authorities, the Commission for Racial Equality and independent members.
Last year, the group oversaw the publication of a racial diversity strategy and a guidance manual for the police. In January, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary published a key report on police and race in Scotland. The next steps for the group, in line with its action plan, include the development of a national code of practice for recording racist incidents, a policy on recruitment and retention for the police, and research on stop and search. I have also confirmed that we will produce a consultation document on introducing an independent element into police complaints.
Youth crime is another area of concern that we are addressing. Our policies are designed to make young people face up to offending behaviour, and to promote reparation to, or mediation with, victims—where that is appropriate. Our policies are also designed generally to help young people to move on to more responsible, productive and rewarding young adult lifestyles.
We are taking action following the report that we received last year from an advisory group into youth crime, which included representatives from across the statutory, professional and voluntary spectrums. We accepted that group's recommendations in full, including the recommendation to expand effective, quality-assessed and community-based interventions and programmes for persistent young offenders as part of a national strategy for youth crime. We have earmarked more than £23 million in the period to 2003-04 to fund those developments. Following local audits, local authorities will produce local strategic plans to tackle youth crime.
I emphasise that the fight against crime must be shared. That is why, with the police and local authorities, we are supporting community safety partnerships—that involve public, private and voluntary bodies—to tackle crime and community safety issues at local level. Presently, we shall establish a Scottish community safety forum to provide a more cohesive framework for pulling all the strands together.
We are also moving victims into the heart of the criminal justice system. In January, I launched the first Scottish strategy for victims. Yesterday, the Lord Advocate was present at the national launch of the witness service, marking the completion of a major phase of the service's roll-out to sheriff courts throughout Scotland.
Our policies are working to ensure that courts have effective disposals, to rehabilitate offenders through training, education and work, to emphasise that there must be alternatives to custody and to ensure that the police have the necessary resources to do their job. We are charting a way forward to build a Scotland in which people are safer and feel safer.
I commend the motion to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the record levels of funding provided by the Scottish Executive to enable police numbers to reach an all-time high and all the other steps being taken in line with the Programme for Government to deliver further reductions in reported crime and a Scotland in which people are safer and feel safer.
Now that the minister has given us information about the Hampden Park event this morning, at least we have an explanation for what seems like a singularly fatuous and self-serving Executive motion. The motion had me wondering whether the Executive could not think of anything more substantial to debate. Now we know where we are—the debate is an extended press release.
There is a great deal to be proud of in the Scottish justice system. In every area—the courts, the prisons and the police—there are extremely committed people who work very hard to try to make things work. They have plenty of work to do, because crime and the fear of crime are major concerns for Scots. But for goodness' sake, let us not get carried away with self-congratulation.
I notice that the minister wants us to talk about the situation 10 years ago, but new Labour came to power in Westminster in 1997, on the promise of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Since then, levels of crime have risen. However one looks at it, that means that crime has increased, not decreased. Serious assault is up by 16 per cent; other violent crime has risen by 37 per cent; crimes that involve the use of offensive weapons have risen by 30 per cent; and robbery, car theft, shoplifting and fraud have all increased.
Roseanna Cunningham mentioned 1997 and is seeking to hold the Executive to account, which is fair enough. Why does not she take 1999 as her example, given that that was the point at which the Executive ministers came to power and were charged with being accountable to the Parliament?
I can well understand why a Liberal Democrat might not want to be tainted with the record of the Labour Government, but the Liberal Democrats went into partnership with Labour in Scotland and I am afraid that they will have to bear that.
Throughout Scotland, people are imprisoned in their homes by fear of crime. They are afraid to walk the streets alone, to go out or even to answer their doors at night. Other members know from their constituents the distress that is often caused by seemingly unchecked criminal behaviour that consists of seemingly minor offences, such as breaches of the peace, but that nevertheless intimidate a great many people, such as the elderly, those who are alone and the very young.
The minister wanted us to have a debate that was based on private conversations that he may or may not have had this morning, but one issue is raised time and again by the people whom I am talking about: they never see a policeman on the streets. That could almost be a direct quotation from any number of people who come into members' surgeries. We know that that is probably a bit of exaggeration, but the truth is that the sight of more police officers on the streets reassures people. Police officers detecting and deterring crime—creating safer streets—will help to fight both crime and the fear of crime.
That is why the SNP wants 1,000 more police on the streets, over and above the numbers that the Minister for Justice talked about today. For years now, police numbers have been low relative to 1997, which has undoubtedly contributed to the rise in crime and to the perception in many communities that things are out of control. The stark reality is that those years have cost us dearly. Even with the recent announcement that numbers will increase again, it is a fact that there are still fewer police than there were in 1997. Despite the song, things just have not got better.
It is difficult to see how low police numbers can be squared with a commitment to being tough on crime. Tackling crime is a job for the police, as the professionals, as much as it is for society at large, but just as we have the right to live our lives free from the fear of crime, so we have a responsibility to respect that right for others.
I have already talked about the views of ordinary people. Let me refer to other frequently raised concerns. There are the concerns of people who have been the victims of crime, but who feel strongly that no one has taken responsibility for the crime, because the offender was under-age. The SNP believes that it is time that we took a long, hard look at what happens in other countries and grasped the nettle of parental responsibility. Instead of patting itself on the back, the Executive would serve the people of Scotland better if it applied itself to finding solutions to that particular problem. At the same time, that would address a situation in which victims are put in fear and the offenders are stuck in a cycle of reoffending from a depressingly early age.
That cycle of offending leads to the bigger problem of reoffending in adult life. The most recent figures suggest that nearly half the offenders who are discharged from custody or given a non-custodial sentence in Scotland are reconvicted within two years. Those figures underline the need to ensure that prison regimes and post-custodial supervision are designed to reduce reoffending. It is absolutely clear that using prisons solely as a means of punishment and deterrent simply does not work. Rehabilitation is not a soft option; if there is no rehabilitation, a convicted criminal, once released, might soon revert to offending.
For prisons to be successful at rehabilitation, the atmosphere and conditions in our jails must be conducive to that outcome. However, there has been a series of incidents in prisons throughout Scotland recently. It is high time that the Executive realised that there is a serious problem in our prison establishments. I have absolutely no doubt that cutbacks and rock-bottom staff morale are affecting the balance of power in our prisons.
I cannot emphasise more strongly how low that staff morale is. It was bad enough under the Tories, but what kept staff going then was the expectation that an incoming Labour Government would be bound to make a difference. It certainly has—for the worse. If prison staff were sadly disillusioned in 1997, they have become even more so since 1999. The pressures under which prison officers must work are massive and the strains on the Prison Service are not conducive to a penal system that works at rehabilitating offenders to ensure that, when they walk through the prison gates, they do not reoffend.
As if it were not bad enough that morale in the Prison Service has collapsed almost totally under the new Labour-Liberal Democrat dispensation, the fiscal service is now in uproar, with threats of strike. It says a great deal for the management of our justice system that two key components of it—prison staff and prosecutors—have reached the point where the only option they feel they have left is to threaten strike action. If either or both took such action, there would be chaos, but the Administration cannot say that it has not been warned.
There is not enough time for me to deal with other concerns. I conclude by saying that instead of bringing such pointless and self-congratulatory motions to the chamber, the Executive would have done a greater service to our justice system, and to everybody who works in it, if it had used some of its time to debate the very real problems that continue to exist within the system.
I move amendment S1M-1807.1, to leave out from "the record" to end and insert:
", in considering the reduction in the overall numbers of police officers in Scotland since Labour came to power in the UK, (a) the overall increase in both the levels of crime and the fear of crime in that same period, (b) the serious public concerns about the levels of youth offending and (c) the low morale in both the Scottish Prison Service and in the Procurator Fiscals' Service; further notes that the commitment to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime has been a singular failure, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to bring forward a coherent programme which will both tackle the major problems currently being experienced across the Scottish criminal justice system and deliver a safer Scotland."
I start by echoing Roseanna Cunningham's criticism of the tone of the motion being self-congratulatory and complacent. Quite honestly, when I heard Jim Wallace's words, they enhanced my sense of that. I do not draw back from that conclusion. The motion is built on promises and aspirations. However, it was lodged against a background of failure and broken promises that stretch back to 1997.
Robert Brown intervened during Roseanna Cunningham's speech to query her reference to 1997. He asked why the date was not 1999. Members will recollect that, in Strathclyde in 1997, the number of police was 7,123. Thereafter, the number fell away, up until recently when there has been a marginal improvement.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time to give way, as I have the ridiculously short time of five minutes in which to say what I want to say.
Let us look at the broken promises. We were promised more police; we got fewer police. We were promised better prisons, but we have overcrowded prisons where prison officers' morale is extremely low. The time scale for the end of slopping out has been extended. We were told that we would have more effective sentencing and we have had nothing but early release.
Recently, we were told that victims were to be better informed, but, only last week, I heard of a case in my constituency where someone who was charged with serious sexual abuse and who was found guilty in court on 1 June 2000 was back on the streets in March 2001. That man had been given a three-and-a-half-year sentence, yet he was out in nine months. The victims were not told that he had gone to appeal or what the conclusion of the appeal was. That is an absolute disgrace.
If members look back to 1997, they will remember that Henry McLeish—whose words are perhaps the thread that form the link from 1997 to the present day—commented on life-sentence offenders who were deported back to Scotland. He said that he intended to come down on them when they came back into the country. However, no action was taken. We heard talk about introducing a "two strikes and you're out" policy following the Julian murder. Again, no action was taken. They were the right words at that time, but they were forgotten thereafter. That is a major reason why I will oppose the Executive motion today.
The SNP amendment is quite reasonable, but my concerns arise from the words that I have heard all the way through from SNP members in parliamentary committees and in the chamber. The SNP's coherent programme will not perhaps achieve the aims that I would like, because it is based on the SNP's enthusiastic embrace of the European convention on human rights.
We heard the Lord Advocate's response to Bill Aitken's question on the damaging effect on our justice system when murder suspects are considered for bail. Quite honestly, the Lord Advocate's answer today gave grounds to all the fears that I have highlighted in the past.
I have already referred to the police figures and pointed out that in the period that Labour has been in government and that this Executive has been in office, police numbers, in Strathclyde particularly, have fallen away. Once again, I ask the minister to check why the Executive's police division figures for Strathclyde police are so much at variance with those of Sir John Orr.
I give Mr Gallie an undertaking that I will check that. Will he give me an undertaking that if, as I believe is likely, police levels in Scotland reach record levels by 2002, he will congratulate the Executive on that?
Of course I would welcome that figure being achieved. Indeed, if that happens, the minister will get credit. However, we must recognise the problems with morale in the police service, and that the police face a lot of stress.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Perhaps the minister could look at the record levels of retirement on grounds of ill health. He should recognise that that must be addressed by additional funding to meet the pension requirements, which are unfunded and need to be paid for out of revenue. I welcome the minister's nod of approval on that.
I have to miss out on a whole range of things, but I must say that I will today give my whole-hearted approval to the Armed Forces Bill. Putting the Ministry of Defence police to good use will be of some advantage to our civil police. The issue that comes to mind is how so many police were drafted into Faslane recently. If disruptions continue at Faslane, perhaps the MOD police could, by working with the civil police, deal better with any future involvement.
It is terrible that that is my five minutes up.
I move amendment 1807.2, to leave out from "the record" to end and insert:
"that the Executive has presided over a period of police under-manning, a loss of morale within the prison service, chaos in our courts, a rise in crime, particularly in crimes of violence, and the recycling of criminals through prisoner early release."
I find this debate depressing. The Executive says that there are more police, that crime is decreasing and that everyone is happy. Roseanna Cunningham says the opposite—that police numbers are down, crime is up, people are less safe and the whole system is in meltdown. Phil Gallie is just as cheery as ever with his picture of doom and gloom—no cops on the street, criminals everywhere and general chaos.
We need a little bit of reality rather than soundbite politics. First, no one, and no party, is soft on crime. Everyone in this chamber wants a proper system of law and order. Everyone is motivated to have a society in which people feel safe. Decent people are all on the one side and, at times, we need to recognise that.
Secondly, law and order—and crime and the fear of it—is a major issue for people; in Govan, it is perhaps the major issue. If we hold a public meeting in any part of the constituency on the subject of law and order, hundreds of people will turn up.
Thirdly, I believe that we are making progress. John Orr, the chief constable of Strathclyde police, has said this year that, in his force, morale is
"currently high with crime at its lowest level for many years and detection rates at an all-time high."
Those are his words, Mr Gallie, not mine.
However, I accept that we must not be complacent. I have only my experience in Govan to go on, where law and order is a very big issue, but there are real signs that things are getting better. I have been hugely impressed by the level of police commitment and involvement in the local community.
Most weeks, I go to a community-based meeting—involving tenants, the community council, or something similar—and almost every time the police will be represented. Often that will mean the community constable; often it will mean a very senior officer. That is not cosmetic; it is important. It sends out the message that the police are there not only to work in the community, but to work with the community and to respond to it. We need to extend that.
I agree with Roseanna Cunningham that we need to have increased police presence on the streets in the areas where it is most needed. I think that we are doing that. That is why the increased spending commitments of the Executive are to be welcomed. Noses should not be turned up at them. It is also important to welcome the fact that we are making progress in the areas of intelligence and technology. That will allow manpower to be better deployed.
An aspect of that is closed-circuit television. In Govan, we have spent the past year trying to get a CCTV scheme. As Iain Gray knows, with the help of the Executive we are about to turn that into a reality. I cannot overestimate how important that is for the community. It makes the community feel safer and feel that its interests are being thought about and protected. The practical result of that technology is of great value. Because we can focus on particular areas and see problems before or as they arise, the use of manpower is inevitably better. Such improvements are real and I think that all of us want them.
There is beginning to be a greater understanding of, and willingness to tackle, the problem of what is euphemistically called anti-social behaviour. Tackling such behaviour has been neglected. Bad neighbours? They are just a fact of life. Just get on with it. However, the truth is different. Many people's lives are made a misery by the failure to tackle the problem. Any members who have—and many of them do—regular surgeries in urban areas know that that is true. I detect a shift. We are beginning to see a willingness in local authorities and law enforcement agencies to deal with the problem. Again, the resources provided are to be welcomed.
I have only 20 seconds left, but I have one other important point to make. I do not believe that we should have debates on justice in a vacuum. It is true that crime and anti-social behaviour will always be there no matter what we do. We will always need the police to deal with that. However, we should never divorce crime, and the prevalence of crime, from the wider social issues. Poverty, bad housing, lack of education and, most important, not having a job are not the causes of crime, but they are the breeding grounds for it.
Until as a nation and a Parliament we tackle those issues, we will not improve. In fairness, we are tackling those issues, in particular housing and jobs, but it is the combination of that action with all that we are doing for law enforcement that will make our communities safer. I know that this is political knockabout and we have to oppose one another, but we are going in the right direction, and we should continue in the way in which we are heading.
We move now to the open debate. A large number of members wish to speak in what is a relatively short debate, so I ask them to conclude their remarks on or before the four-minute mark.
Jim Wallace made a statement to the Parliament on 27 September last year, in which he described justice expenditure as
"the best ever spending package for Scottish justice."—[Official Report, 27 September 2000; Vol 8, c 641.]
However, senior police officers in Scotland do not agree. Sir John Orr, who has been quoted at length this afternoon, commented on Strathclyde police's lower-than-average award for equipment:
"This allocation could have a potentially serious impact on this force's intention to further improve our policing capability in operational terms. It is wrong to assume that less than appropriate capital funding has no impact on our operational policing. This decision to fail to accommodate funding for the new police station at Irvine could mean we will be less able to put more officers on the streets."
In response to a parliamentary question, last week I received an answer which stated that the capital allocation to Strathclyde police fell from £9.732 million to £9.076 million during the current financial year. William Rae, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, said:
"The root of this problem is that there is insufficient capital consent to meet the needs of Scotland's police forces. No matter what formula is used, it will always leave forces with insufficient moneys to meet requirements."
Will Kenny Gibson accept two caveats to the quotes that he has given? First, Sir John Orr was commenting on a particular decision about a particular project in a particular police force, in the context of a 25 per cent increase, year on year, in capital expenditure for Scotland's police forces. Secondly, the funding formula was derived from and agreed by ACPOS, of which William Rae is a member.
I am an MSP in Strathclyde. In his summing-up perhaps the minister can explain how Strathclyde police's operational ability will be enhanced by having £700,000 less in capital funding this year than it had last year.
As many members will be aware, I ask a number of written questions, and in asking them, I sometimes get to the nub of some of the flim-flam and spin that often is put forward by the Executive. I will take members back to a couple of questions that Mr Jim Wallace answered last year.
I discovered, for example, that from 1 April 2000 the Executive intended to charge the police non-domestic rates for the first time. I asked what the breakdown would be. I found out that the total cost to the police would be £9.332 million. How would that break down by force? Central Scotland police would have to pay £388,000, Dumfries and Galloway constabulary £247,000, Lothian and Borders police £1.58 million and Strathclyde police £3.94 million.
A month or so after receiving that question, there was a major press release, followed by the usual television and radio presentations by the Minister for Justice and his deputy at the time, Angus MacKay. What was it about? The £8.9 million that they were putting into the police force to provide 315 officers. Once again, I asked what the breakdown would be. I found out, incredibly enough, that Central Scotland police, which was paying £388,000 in rates for the first time, was going to receive £369,000 for extra officers; Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, which was paying £247,000 in rates, was to receive £233,000; Lothian and Borders police, which was paying £1.58 million, was to receive £1.442 million; and Strathclyde police, which was to pay £3.94 million, was to receive £3.710 million.
Those are remarkably coincidental figures, which show that an Executive that made a big stushie and a furore about putting money into the police force to create another 315 officers had in fact taken the money and £400,000 more out of the police force only a couple of months earlier. That is the kind of spin that we have to tolerate in this Parliament. The reality is that there are fewer officers in Strathclyde than there were when the Labour party came to power. The Executive has not redressed the balance, which is why crime has reached its current level.
I welcome the debate on police numbers and the wider issues, including the Procurator Fiscal Service. Like Gordon Jackson, I would like us to have a more focused debate that got into the nitty-gritty of justice issues.
Kenny Gibson talked about spin, which he thinks is just down to the Labour party. He must take note of the fact that Roy Cameron, the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police, has said that more police officers than ever are patrolling the streets. I was there when Kenny Gibson heard Sir John Orr say that we have the lowest crime levels for some time. Strathclyde police are particularly proud of that. If the police say that, the Parliament must accept that the crime figures overall are down. We should all be concerned that the level of violent crime is up, and perhaps we should focus on that in future.
I will talk about two issues in the limited time that is available. The first is close to my heart—it concerns the justice system buzz words of "joined-up inter-agency approach". At the moment, those are just words. I want members to do some joint working themselves towards making them a reality.
From my involvement in the justice system as a member of the Scottish Parliament, I do not believe that the police have any refined ways of liaising properly with the Procurator Fiscal Service. The service seems to be under-resourced. Perhaps we could establish whether that is the case. There does not seem to be much joined-up working between the police, the fiscal service and the Crown Office. As members have said too often, the Crown Office remains too secretive about its decisions. Questions are mounting from constituents and members about the Crown Office's reasons for taking decisions.
I am convener of the Justice 2 Committee, whose priority for the next few months is examining the Procurator Fiscal Service. We will try to get to the bottom of some of the accusations that are made. I think that that will be an important piece of work.
I will give an example of how the joined-up approach is not working. The police have been successful with the spotlight initiative, for instance. More than 1,000 people have been charged for possessing a knife. However, if that work is not matched by the fiscal service's taking those charges further, that may explain why police morale is failing. In my area, police have charged some young offenders for breaches of the peace, and the fiscal service has decided not to proceed with those charges for policy reasons. At this stage, I do not question the fiscal service's reasons for doing that. I simply point out the impact on the police service if the two services do not engage in discussion. We have a duty to get to the bottom of that situation.
I will move on to discussing policing and police funding. Other MSPs will feel strongly that the way in which police funding is divvied up among cities should be examined. I represent Glasgow city centre. Glasgow has more public order requirements on the police, as it has more public processions and marches than anywhere else does. It has the equivalent of two football matches every Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday night, when more than 460 licences operate. In the UK, apart from London, that is the biggest number of licences within a half-mile radius. We deal with that in Glasgow city centre, yet we receive no recognition that we need additional resources. I hope that the Minister for Justice does not mind that I got a bit about my constituency into the debate.
We must recognise that the police's role covers more than law enforcement. The police play a crucial role in everyday life and often deal with homelessness, domestic violence and neighbourhood disputes, which my colleague Gordon Jackson discussed. They have much to say about those issues and have been one of the agencies that has been thoroughly behind the social justice ministers' work on homelessness.
The Executive has started the process and done much good work. It has started the process of dealing with slopping out. It aims to have more police officers on the beat. The Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency would not have been established if the Executive had not initiated it. Let us recognise the good work that the Executive has done on justice and move on to pick up some more ideas.
I must declare an interest. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland and was formerly a practitioner in the civil courts—although more often in the criminal courts—of Scotland.
I am very proud to be a member of the legal profession. We are a profession that undertakes to pay costs and damages for our dishonest brothers, if there are any. There are always a few every 10 years or so. We have to dig deep in our pockets—for thousands of pounds, sometimes—to pay such costs and damages. As far as I know, we are the only profession that does that.
One wonderful thing about the Parliament is that we have time to debate our law. At Westminster, where I spent eight pretty miserable years in two different chunks, we rarely had time to bring the law up to date. Now that there is a Scottish Parliament, we can expect to keep our law up to date. We have managed to talk about a number of matters in recent times such as victims and rape assaults. We should cherish that.
I will give a simple example of fear stalking the streets. When I fought the Hamilton by-election in 1967, we were told that we could canvass until 9 pm during winter. Everybody opened their doors, although they were not always delighted to see us. In the Anniesland by-election, an Aberdeen activist, whom I met in Aberdeen last week, canvassed 250 houses in a tall flat. Only seven people opened their doors.
Clearly, the elderly are afraid to go out at night. It is not just their fear that is important; their quality of life and social activities are damaged. I believe passionately that justice should be equally available to all. Representing, as I do, the Highlands and Islands as a list MSP, I am aware that access to legal aid is not always available. It simply does not always exist.
I spoke to the Law Society of Scotland today prior to the debate. The society is concerned about some lack of access to justice—for instance, working mothers not being able to get to a lawyer to get the legal aid that they need. Legal aid should be extended to tribunals and defamation actions, which are currently excluded. The current situation means that the only people who can protect their reputation against defamation are those who can pay privately for representation.
I had to do that myself, so I know what I am talking about. The Sunday Mail settled on the day that the case came to court, having trailed along for two years.
If we want justice for all, we must ensure that everyone has access to legal aid. The £500 limit for trials, which has led to the procurator fiscal dropping two serious cases recently, is ridiculous. The justification that the Law Society of Scotland gives for the limit is that it is swings and roundabouts. That would apply only to a big law firm that does a lot of criminal work, such as the one—I will not mention the name. [Interruption.] Ross Harper was once my opponent; I know him well.
Swings and roundabouts affect a big firm. I was a sole practitioner, and I like to think that I gave a high standard of service. Every citizen should be able to choose a lawyer without saying, "Oh, we need someone in a big firm because otherwise the swings and roundabouts won't apply." The situation is ludicrous. It is like asking how much a holiday costs. The answer depends on many factors, such as where one wants to go and what standard one wants. I deplore the situation.
In my time as a lawyer, the defence definitely suffered. The scales were weighted against us. The poor old fiscal service is now so overburdened that the scales of justice are rather more even. No wonder the service is angry about the burden of some of its cases.
I welcome the creation of drugs courts. I want more police on the beat—as we all do—because that is what reassures most people. I welcome the view of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland that private prisons are quite illegal under international law.
When I heard Jim Wallace's opening remarks, I felt bound to comment to myself that not much good news comes out of Hampden these days. The debate is certainly no different. Frankly, it is just a continuation of Executive spin—the trawling of stories and trying to put out good news when we all know that the reality is somewhat different.
Jim Wallace stated that one of the main objectives was to build confidence in the justice system. For a number of reasons, much of that confidence has disappeared in the past few years. First—and leaving aside the arguments about how many police officers are on the beat or elsewhere—there will be no confidence in the justice system until the prosecution is geared up to carry out its duties effectively. What do we have? We have fiscals who are desperately inadequately staffed and resourced. There are too many stories of uncited witnesses, lost files and missing productions for those stories to be apocryphal. Dr Ewing was correct when she stated that nowadays the procurator fiscal—who does after all act in the public interest—is at a disadvantage. It is the ladies and gentlemen versus the players, as experienced deputes are frequently left in the sheriff court to conduct solemn trials. That is not satisfactory.
Sadly, the Crown Office itself appears to be inadequately resourced. When I heard the Lord Advocate's answer earlier, I despaired of the present situation. It is appalling that murder cases should remain untried for up to 12 months. The recognition that the 110-day rule does not apply is being exploited. At a murder trial, there are inevitably civilian witnesses, whose recollection of events will disappear down the tubes as time goes on. There is no argument: a murder trial should start within four months of someone's appearance on petition.
What else is happening in the justice system as a result of under-resourcing? Diversions from prosecutions on what are sometimes serious matters are now common. There is the conditional offer—the fiscal fine. Those who are subject to such conditional offers know the situation—that if they pay the first £5, no one will ever get in touch with them again—and just laugh at it. As long as that payment is on file, there is no way that their case can be proceeded through a means inquiry court.
The juvenile justice system has been referred to—that is another major problem. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 set up the children's hearing system. I have said before and freely admit that that is an ideal system for dealing with children at risk, but it is not geared up to deal with children who are persistent and consistent offenders and who sometimes commit fairly serious offences.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time.
It is ludicrous that the Executive's message is that consideration is being given—a ministerial answer was given to that effect a couple of months ago—to increasing to 18 the age at which people can go to the children's panel. Scotland would be the only country in the world where a 17-year-old could go to the children's panel for assaulting his wife. People can marry at 16 but would not go to a criminal court until they were 18.
On that point—
I cannot give way as I am on my last minute.
Attitudes must change. The Executive says one thing and the reality is totally different.
I speak in support of the Government's motion, although I do not think that it will figure in any anthology of decisive documents of Scottish political history. I am in favour of what Jim Wallace, Gordon Jackson and Pauline McNeill said. Jim Wallace said many things with which I agree. The Government is moving in the direction of doing many good things.
I have a few specific issues to raise. Sooner or later someone must address the issue of police pensions. The unfunded police pension scheme has the capacity seriously to shipwreck a police board budget. We must have a more rational system.
It is clear from my visits to Polmont young offenders institution and various prisons that short prison sentences are a complete waste of time. There is no time to put any effective training and rehabilitation service into effect. We would do much better to put the resources into effective alternatives to custody, rather than having those short prison sentences.
Jim Wallace dealt with community involvement and young people. In many parts of Scotland, there are good schemes involving the police and young people. I happen to know of one just round the corner from here, the Edinburgh City Youth Café, which is involved with police in street work with difficult groups of young people. That work is very effective, but there has to be funding for it. Our current system of finance is unsatisfactory. There has to be funding for council-run community education and for the voluntary organisations that provide the youth work side of the joint initiatives involving police and youth workers.
We have to address more seriously than before the effect of the misuse of alcohol on crime and the fear of crime. We still do not pay enough attention to that. It would be a quick step in the right direction if the funds that have been made available for dealing with drugs could be jointly made available for alcohol work as well as drugs work. Many people are affected by both, and it is silly to say to a person with a double problem, "We will help you with your drug problem, but we don't have the money to help you with your alcohol problem." We must address the causes and results of alcohol misuse much better than we do at the moment. The fact that most of us drink socially could inhibit that, but we must address the problem with the seriousness with which we currently attack drugs.
My final point concerns something that, in the whole range of crime, is perhaps a fairly small sector, but it is one that many of us find exceptionally unacceptable: violence arising from sectarianism. I do not understand, and did not understand at the time when the legislation was passed, why the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 specifically said that harassment on sectarian grounds did not count as harassment on racial grounds. It seems to me just as bad to call somebody—I am using unparliamentary language—a papist bastard or a Fenian bastard as it is to call him a black bastard. All those terms are absolutely unacceptable, and we must start to attack the issue of racial harassment, violence and incitement to violence. Many of the sectarian songs that are sung have the effect of making the lunatic fringe become violent, and we should deal with that as well.
In general, Jim Wallace is taking a good step in the right direction, and I am happy to support him.
In the time available I will be able to touch on only a couple of points, so I shall start on a positive note. I welcome the new figures for the increased number of police officers on the beat, and the Scottish Executive's achievement in forming the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which has led to significant benefits in my community. The CCTV system has also been a significant success in Glasgow and particularly in my own community. We should accept the positive aspects of what has been announced today.
On a more negative note, tackling crime is not just about the allocation of additional resources. It is about the way in which those resources are managed, and I am not fully convinced that Strathclyde police make best use of the resources that are available to them. With the greatest respect to the point that Kenny Gibson made, the problems in Strathclyde will be solved not simply by having additional police officers, but by tackling the issues that our constituents raise with us.
Let me touch on the way in which police offices communicate with the public. It is unacceptable that people can wait up to 10 minutes for calls to their local police office to be answered while they are kept in queueing systems. People are lectured to at local public meetings that they must report crime but, when they take the next step of reporting crime by the use of telecommunications systems, they are not able to do so or are discouraged from doing so by the fact that they are kept in telephone queueing systems.
I have raised that issue with Strathclyde police for the past five years. I have not seen them take any significant steps towards improving their telephone system. I ask the minister to take that point on board, to ensure that we bring the telephone systems in police authorities into the 21st century, because I do not believe that that is being done.
Jim Wallace mentioned improving the information technology that is available to the police; that is welcome. The police do not currently have e-mail addresses, which are at the disposal of every major organisation throughout Scotland. We should work to improve the situation that has arisen as e-mail, which is a simple method of communication, is not available to the police.
I reiterate the point that there should be a top-to-bottom review of the policing allocation. It is unacceptable that in areas such as Blackhill in my constituency, there is one community police officer, when the leafy suburbs throughout the Strathclyde area have two local community police officers on the beat. We should be allocating police officers to the areas where crime is committed and where crime is unacceptably high. We must examine the way in which police authorities allocate local police officers.
We must also examine the shift patterns of community police officers. Criminals do not work shift patterns; they do not decide that they are on the back shift or the early shift. We must ensure that community policing is flexible; currently it is not, as a community police officer works specific shift patterns, which do not fit in with the pattern of when crimes are being committed locally.
Pauline McNeill raised a point about liaison with local agencies. There is no evidence that agencies are working together with the police authorities. I have had to lead the way in ensuring that there is a coherent approach to working with other agencies. We must move forward.
I welcome the commitment that has been given that there will be more police officers on the beat. I look forward to a continued positive approach to the matter.
I welcome the opportunity to make a brief speech. Justice must be seen to be done if people are to have faith in the justice system in Scotland.
I will raise a couple of issues. The first is bail breakers, or aggravated bail in the official language. That is when someone goes to court, is accused of a crime, gets bail, goes out and commits another crime, goes back to court, gets bail again, goes out and commits another crime and so on. It is incredibly demoralising for police officers, who feel that they are banging their heads against a brick wall. They go to extreme lengths to catch criminals, only for them to be released by the courts. It is also demoralising for the victims of crime, who know that the police have caught someone who has committed a crime against them but that the courts have released the person back on to the streets, perhaps to commit the same crime and harm someone else.
That has been a massive issue in the north-east of Scotland, which I represent. I should like the minister to take note of it. In recent years, there has been a series of muggings and house-breakings in Aberdeen. As the minister well knows, Aberdeen has the highest per capita crime rate in Scotland. Those crimes are committed by the same people, who get out on bail and commit crime time and again.
I met representatives of Tayside police a few weeks ago and followed up the meeting with several questions to the chief constable. I received his reply in the post today. I will read out the example of one case in Dundee, which the chief constable gave. I received the letter only today, but I want to make the minister aware of it. The chief constable states:
"One individual currently on bail in Dundee is subject to four separate bail orders for various crimes".
Those include crimes of vandalism; breach of bail conditions—not once, but twice; and assaulting a police officer and breach of the peace, both of which were committed while the person was on bail.
"This same individual has a long list of previous convictions and pending cases and is still at liberty with the associated possibility that he will re-offend."
If people are to have faith in the system of justice, they must see that justice is being done. Something is wrong with the system. I have taken the issue up with the minister before. I hope that, when he winds up, he will say that there is a problem that must be investigated by him and the Lord Advocate. Something is wrong when people are released time and again to commit more crimes, despite the fact that the police caught them to try to put them behind bars.
I also want to touch briefly on the fact that Aberdeen has the highest rate of recorded crime in the country. It is no coincidence that it has the second lowest level of per capita police funding. When I previously raised the issue with the Minister for Justice, he said that although the situation was disappointing, he was not convinced that there was a link. There must be a link, and I hope that the minister will address that point when he winds up.
I join Winnie Ewing in declaring membership of the Law Society of Scotland and I declare separately that I have worked for Ross Harper & Murphy. Winnie Ewing is right to say that I was once her opponent. At the time, I was a member of the Procurator Fiscal Service; I was trying to convict and lock people up while she was trying to prevent that from happening.
We should begin by paying tribute to the character of the Scottish legal system and the effectiveness of the institutions that have formed it. However, we must put the issue in the context of the Parliament, which is why I intervened on Roseanna Cunningham when she mentioned 1997. The Parliament and Executive are accountable for what has happened since 1999, when the Parliament was set up, so we should start any discussion of the issue from that date.
Roseanna Cunningham talked about the SNP promise to put 1,000 new police officers on the beat. We must be cautious about such glib manifesto promises. For example, in their 1992 manifesto, the Conservatives promised an extra 1,000 police officers and, at their 1995 conference, they promised an extra 5,000 police officers. However, between 1992 and 1997, the number of police officers fell by 469. At the beginning of the period from 1985 to 1997—which Mr Gallie would have us believe was wonderland—there was one conviction for every eight crimes in the UK; by the end of the period, that figure was one conviction for every 14 crimes.
We and the Government should have a little bit of humility in dealing with crime statistics. Crime is not simply a matter of flinging statistics across the chamber at each other; it is a complex issue that takes in all facets of society. It is not just a question of police numbers, staff numbers, technological support or whether we punish or rehabilitate people; it is about how we educate ourselves, live our lives and organise our society. In that respect, Pauline McNeill made an important point about the need for joined-up thinking across government.
Despite our talk of figures, the statistics in this realm are not as solid as they might appear at first glance. It is important to point out that recorded crime is exactly what it says it is; it is not necessarily the same as committed crime. Furthermore, Roseanna Cunningham's off-the-cuff claim that people are saying that there are never any police about does not reflect my experience in dealing with community groups and other organisations. Compared with the situation when I was a member of Glasgow District Council, there now seem to be far more community policemen and police officers on the beat. There has been a step change in the accountability and relevance of the police.
As I said, crime is not an easy subject. Although we must ensure that we catch criminals and prevent them from committing crimes, we must also do what we can to prevent them from committing crimes in the first place.
A number of interesting points have been raised, particularly Donald Gorrie's suggestion that short-term sentences are a bit of a waste of time and that the causes of crime find their roots in alcohol and drugs. The chamber should take particular note of those percipient comments.
As David McLetchie has said, the key issue is the Government's responsibility to protect people from crime. That is best served by the Executive's joined-up strategy of catching and rehabilitating criminals and of trying to create a society in which crime does not flourish. The chamber must send out that message today, which is why I support the Executive motion.
I was quite thrown by Robert Brown's criticism of members flinging statistics around the chamber, given that he had just done exactly that.
The Conservatives will oppose the motion; indeed, members would be surprised if we supported such a self-congratulatory motion. Roseanna Cunningham summed it up well when she said that it was nothing more than an extended press release; we concur with that opinion. We would also echo many of her other comments. However, we are not in the cosy relationship that we are alleged to be in with the SNP—this debate is the definite proof that we are not in cahoots.
The minister intervened on Phil Gallie's speech to ask whether the Conservatives would congratulate the Executive on meeting its target. We would do so more than happily if it ever happened.
I was charmed to hear that Gordon Jackson—who has left the chamber—also thinks that the motion is self-congratulatory. We all agree that we want a safer society. We have never doubted the commitment of the police, to whom we owe a great deal. We are considering justice and crime in a vacuum, but we must look to the wider issues, such as housing, jobs and unemployment.
Kenny Gibson's comment about the Executive's position being a triumph of spin over substance was exactly right—that has been the subject of today's debate.
I agree with Pauline McNeill about joined-up working and the inter-agency approach. Too often we think that we are tackling the problem and that we have the answer when all that we are doing is passing the problem on to someone else and washing our hands of it. We cannot adopt and maintain that attitude for any great length of time.
Many members have expressed concern about the number of "no proceedings" in the fiscal service. People make their complaint to the police only to find that the procurator fiscal service turns round and no-pros it. Can that be a proper way in which to handle complaints? It makes the police and our constituents feel that the efforts that they make are not appreciated. How can we tackle crime if we do not take account of the people who take the time and trouble to report it?
I confess that, on Sunday in Glasgow, I shall go to one of the marches that was mentioned, as I suspect will many other members. We should consider the funding that is required for Glasgow, especially for the city centre, where many marches are held. I understand that two of the marches might clash, which could be interesting.
I remember the 1967 by-election of which Dr Ewing spoke. I was a small child then but, my goodness, what a contrast with the way in which we canvass and campaign nowadays! It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future, if the Prime Minister does not change his mind.
Bill Aitken's comments demonstrated his experience in this issue. There must be confidence in the justice system; that is the root of why we all take an interest in this matter. Fiscals are under-resourced—as Pauline McNeill said, the Justice 2 Committee will address that issue—and the Crown Office is well behind in its work on murder trials. Fiscal fines were known in my area as fiscal fivers—the offender paid the first fiver and never heard of the matter again.
I was keen to hear Michael Martin's comments. It sounded as though he was criticising the Executive—a most peculiar stance to take. Richard Lochhead mentioned bail breakers. I think that we have all come across that problem.
I note that Paul Martin is constantly being confused with his father.
The Executive could have initiated a debate on some of the fundamental problems in our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, although some members highlighted those problems, much of the debate has been more like an extended press release, as Roseanna Cunningham pointed out.
Lyndsay McIntosh tried to dispel the notion of an alliance between the SNP and the Conservatives. However, the more someone tries to dispel such notions, the more people are inclined to believe them. We should take heart from the fact that there are only two places in Scotland where the Tories have any type of power—in Perth and Kinross, where they share power with the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and in East Dunbartonshire, where they share power with the Liberal Democrats. Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats used to be in power with the Labour party in that area, but they went off in a huff.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time, I am afraid.
Clearly, crime is an issue in Scotland. The figures show that there is an overall increase in crime. We have only to consider the statistics in the most recent report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, which details the constabularies in Scotland that have recorded an increase in crime. It is important to note that the forms of crime that have increased have been the serious ones. Across Scotland, violent crime has increased by 22 per cent. Fife constabulary reported an increase in violent crime of 47 per cent; Grampian police reported a rise of 42 per cent; Northern constabulary reported a rise of almost 30 per cent; and, in Edinburgh, violent crime was reported to have risen by 24 per cent. Alongside the rise in violent crime, there has been a 30 per cent increase in the number of people arrested for carrying weapons or for being involved in incidents in which weapons were used. Serious assaults are up by 16 per cent. Those figures illustrate a clear trend in Scottish society.
The minister said that he met newly recruited police officers in Hampden Park today. We should note that there is a problem with the recruitment of police officers, especially from particular sections of society. In 1997, about 0.3 per cent of our police officers came from an ethnic minority. In the most recent HM chief inspector of constabulary report, that figure had risen to only 0.5 per cent. That is unacceptable and I hope that the minister will detail what action will be taken to address the problem. Currently, only 15 per cent of Scottish police officers are women, whereas about 40 per cent of MSPs are women. We need to ensure that we recruit more female police officers, as police recruitment must reflect the diversity of Scottish society.
Gordon Jackson mentioned his discussion with John Orr. I have spoken to the chief constable in my area recently and—as is always the case when one meets the head of a service—he was keen to tell me the good points about the force. However, I also met officers who told me that morale among some is at rock bottom because of problems with resources, including staff resources. A shortage of staff can cause problems when officers are off sick or are on training courses. Officers are having to do double shifts to take up the slack. We must deal with issues arising from how police forces operate within their areas.
It is all very well for ministers to talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but people on the ground experience a different situation. The perception of those people must be the litmus test of whether we are being effective and successful in tackling crime.
I will deal with the broader issue of the criminal justice system in Scotland. When Labour was in opposition, it was against the privatisation of public services. However, we now have a private prison in Scotland and Central Scotland police are having to consider a private finance initiative project to build a new police station in Falkirk. There is creeping privatisation in our criminal justice system. I hope that the minister can assure us that, when he produces his Scottish prisons estates review, he will address the issue of privatisation within the Scottish Prison Service, as that is an issue that prison officers constantly raise. I hope that he will rule out privatisation and that he will ensure that that commitment is made known to the Prison Service staff in order to improve morale.
The legacy of the Government will be that it has failed the Scottish justice system. Crime is up, police numbers are down, prisons are being privatised and our courts are struggling to cope. The Government might talk about being tough on crime, but the reality is another story.
It is customary to begin winding-up speeches by saying, "This has been a good debate," or, "This has been an interesting debate." I am not sure that I can say either today. However, the debate has at times been astonishing. For example, I was astonished to hear the SNP spokesperson on justice describing this opportunity to debate justice as fatuous. What was fatuous were the speeches of Tory and nationalist members, who, like their amendments, simply ignored the facts where those facts did not suit their case.
The key assertion on both wings of the Opposition alliance is that the number of police officers is falling. That is simply not true. The Executive inherited a police force of 14,872 officers. By last December, the number was 14,948. It is 20 years since I taught maths, and the discipline has moved on since then—I believe that Fermat's last theorem has been solved in the meantime. However, 14,948 is still a bigger number than 14,872. The number of police officers is rising.
Members need not take my word for it. On 19 January, the chief constable of Central Scotland police, Andrew Cameron, said:
"There are more police officers than ever patrolling the streets."
That is the good news, which it would do the Opposition some credit to acknowledge. I noticed that, when Mr Gallie was asked whether he would give credit when record police numbers were reached, he said that he would. I therefore invite him to give credit to the Labour Government at Westminster, which, in December 1997, hit a record number of police officers in Scotland—15,050. That record number was reached under a Labour Administration.
Does the minister accept that that was as a result of the continual build-up by the previous Administration and that it did not take long for Labour to reverse the trend?
I would certainly not accept that. I repeat the point that Jim Wallace made: it will not take us long now to have police constable No 15,051 on the street, for the first time ever.
Here is the better news: more police officers are on the way. In the next financial year and in the following two years, police grant-aided expenditure will rise by 6 per cent, 11 per cent and 14 per cent respectively. I suppose that we could argue over numbers for ever. I am happy enough to do that, although it is probably tedious for those who are watching. However, I point out that some of the criticisms that have been made of the number of police officers and of police resources have been based on the distribution of those resources. We acknowledge that that needs to be examined. With police forces and police officers, we are reviewing how the global sum available to them should be distributed.
I am sometimes asked—Roseanna Cunningham asked it today—why we cannot see the extra officers. The truth is that we can. A month after the chief constable of Central Scotland police said that there were more police officers than ever, I joined him in Stirling to see 28 more recruits, fresh from college. This morning, the First Minister and the Minister for Justice met 200 new policemen, who will be patrolling the streets of Strathclyde. If members keep their eyes open outside this building, they will see police vehicles marked "City Centre Policing Unit".
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, I am short of time.
That unit was formed by Lothian and Borders police from its share of an in-year increase of almost £9 million in police resources. Tulliallan training college is bursting at the seams—recruits are having to double up in their accommodation for everyone to get in.
Will the minister give way?
I will if Richard Lochhead is very quick.
I knew that the minister would give way if I persisted.
Recruiting new police officers is one way of combating a rise in crime. Another way is to use the police officers that we have more effectively. For example, the amount of time that they spend logging citations or that they waste hanging about in courtrooms, not giving evidence, could be reduced. Can the minister tell us what is being done about that?
I am happy to accept that point, but one aspect of it is the resourcing of chief constables in order to deploy their officers more effectively. That is exactly what the Lothian and Borders police city centre policing unit is about. This is not about having to take officers from elsewhere in the city to police the Edinburgh festival in the summer, for example.
Lothian and Borders police has just held two recruiting days, which attracted 1,000 people who want to be police officers. That volume of recruitment gives us an opportunity to address issues such as the recruitment of ethnic minority officers, which Michael Matheson quite properly raised.
Last month, the First Minister and I visited Strathclyde police. We met an undercover squad, which is one of four—that number has risen from one. We met some of the nine community liaison officers, who are drawn from the 47 Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency officers seconded to Strathclyde police. We saw the results—£600,000-worth of seized drugs, which is a fraction of the value of recent seizures. That is £600,000-worth of crime that would have been committed by users to buy those drugs on the streets of Glasgow.
Although police numbers are rising, crime is not; the Scottish crime survey shows that there has been a decline of 13 per cent between 1995 and 1999. We should ask the police. Sir Roy Cameron of Lothian and Borders police said:
"We have seen an excellent reduction in crime and rise in detection".
Sir John Orr of Strathclyde police said:
"Morale is currently high with crime at its lowest level for many years and detection rates at an all time high."
However, we are not complacent about that improving picture. Jim Wallace acknowledged that the incidence of violent crime is much too high. That is why we will continue to support initiatives such as the safer Scotland campaign, which took 1,000 weapons out of circulation and led to a significant reduction in violent crime over the period of the campaign.
The picture that the Tories and nationalists have painted of falling police numbers and rising crime does not bear examination. What of their proposals, however? The SNP promises that it would recruit 1,000 more police. That appears to show a laudable concern for law and order but, unfortunately, it does not. It appears that the funding for those extra policemen would be £25 million, which would be raised by repatriating from the Treasury the fine income of Scottish courts. The SNP promise is not an expression of concern for law and order but a convoluted point about money, and even that does not add up. The fine income of Scottish district courts in the most recent year for which figures are available was £8 million.
Even if £25 million was available, it would pay for the salaries of 1,000 recruits but nothing else. The nationalists cannot get their sums right. I have heard of bare-faced criminals, but those recruits would be the bare naked police officers—they would have no uniforms, equipment, vehicles or police stations. Modern policing is a bit more complicated than the SNP suggests. That is why we are providing our police forces not only with record resources, but with the Scottish intelligence database, the extended DNA testing facility at Strathclyde, the new Lothian and Borders control room, which will release 90 officers, and the Scottish police national network, which will address the point that Paul Martin made about the access of police officers to e-mail.
The Tories, too, have little to offer. We should not forget that they have previous on this. On 15 June 2000, Phil Gallie confessed that
"Crime did rise under the Tories."—[Official Report, 15 June 2000; Vol 7, c 336.]
He is right, and it would happen again under the Tories. Their promised cuts in public expenditure are the one thing that could undermine the certainty of record police numbers. The Tories will never understand that criminal justice and social justice are inextricably linked. They cannot understand that tough talking does not cut crime. The reduction in crime is a result not just of our record investment in police numbers, but of our investment in housing and education and the creation of the highest employment rate in Scotland for 40 years.
Close please, minister.
Gordon Jackson summed up matters well, drawing on the changes that he sees in his Govan constituency. He is right to talk about an increasing sense of security, as the proportion of people who are afraid of crime has dropped from 50 per cent to 28 per cent. There is more to do, but the drop in the fear of crime is the beginning of the emergence of a safer Scotland, which we should all welcome.