THE SNP has dropped its ten-year commitment to an extra 1,000 police officers – to allow the Chief Constable more “flexibility” in staffing the force.
In its manifesto, published yesterday, the party no longer included a commitment to maintaining the extra officers first promised by Alex Salmond in 2007 and again in 2011.
The requirement meant that when Police Scotland formed there could never be less than 17,234 police officers. There has been pressure on the party from within the force and from trade unions to look at scrapping the requirement.
Money spent on additional police officers effectively meant less resources for the force to spend on backroom staff. Unison and police staff bodies have claimed this led to “backfilling,” where officers were taken off the street and put into administrative duties.
At a meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s justice committee last December, convener Christine Grahame asked Deputy Chief
Constable Neil Richardson: “If Father Christmas was to bring you a present, would it be that you don’t have to stick with 17,234 police officers so you could have some flexibility with the civilian balance?”
Richardson said: “I absolutely want as much flexibility as I can.” Former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has also called for the requirement to be scrapped.
In the SNP manifesto, published yesterday, the party said: “We strengthened our police service with 1,000 extra officers, helping to reduce crime to a 41-year low. It is vital that we keep frontline policing strong to keep crime low. However, the nature of crime is changing and the police need to reflect this.”
Asked by The National to clarify, Nicola Sturgeon said her party would “not compromise on front line policing”, but would allow the Chief Constable to go below the 17,234 officers.
She continued: “We do need to ensure that there is some flexibility for our police service, and if the Chief Constable, for example, said I need 950 more police on the front line but I need 50 forensic accountants, or 50 specialists to tackle cyber crime, we need to allow that degree of flexibility.“
Niven Rennie, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, welcomed the move saying the promise of 1,000 additional officers “was of its time”.
He added: “It really showed the government’s commitment to policing back in 2007. But as budgets get tight the service has to be able to spend its money the best way it can to protect our communities. We welcome it.”
A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: “The SNP has reneged on a commitment it made a great show of celebrating over the last few years. But it’s no surprise to see the party drop this standard.
“After all, it was already forcing trained officers to backfill in administrative roles, meaning less resources were available for the front line.”
A spokesman for Scottish Labour said they had been recommending this for some time: “Policing in Scotland should be the envy of the world, but the reputation of decent hardworking officers has been dragged through the mud by a series of scandals in the last year.
“Scottish Labour would restore accountability to Police Scotland and put the needs and concerns of local communities back at the heart of Scottish policing.”
Former PC John Finnie, Scottish Greens MSP candidate for Highlands and Islands, said: “If the intention is to allow the Chief Constable to configure his staff of both police officers and police staff as he sees fit, then so long as the the force runs effectively and the inspectorate of constabulary confirms this, then we welcome this.
“What is important is the devolution of power and resources to local division level, something which the Scottish Greens have called for in our Holyrood 2016 manifesto. ”
Justice Secretary Michael Matheson said it would be up to the force to decide on the “right mix of staff”.
Sturgeon: We will build enough support to win a second referendum
How did the other parties react to the manifesto?
Analysis: Sturgeon, the SNP’s biggest-ever asset, presented a manifesto her party could believe in
The National View: When will the next indyref be? When we know we’ll win
Lesley Riddoch: Peril lies in dominance of Holyrood by one party
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here