08/09/2011 Newsnight Scotland

this world emerges. Thank you very On tonight's programme: the

government adds some flesh to its plans for a single police force and

single fire service for Scotland, launching a consultation to decide

the finer points. So, what do we know so far about it, how it will

work, how much it will save, and, critically, when? Also tonight, the

latest attempt to heal one of the deepest faultlines in cross-border

politics: the West Lothian Question. The UK government has been spurred,

or bounced into announcing a commission.

Good evening. Policing has been one of the key aspects of milk policy

since devolution in 1999 with force numbers, crime levels, knife-

carrying and booze culture, all emerging as points of controversy.

Today, the justice secretary laid out his plans for the latest

initiative, a unified police force and a single fire service for

Scotland. Although It still requires some

detective work to uncover all the details.

In a moment, we'll ask Kenny MacAskill why we need this reform,

but first here's Derek Bateman. Glasgow lace claim to be the oldest

police service, older even than the metropolitan force which said it

was the original. But on a visit to the Glasgow police museum, it

quickly becomes clear that reform has been a constant throughout the

long history of policing. Every old borough had its own force

with different rules and pay scales. Even the smallest towns and islands

had their own. They followed local council boundaries up to

regionalisation in the 1970s where they've stayed, and it's there in

local authorities where they most want to retain control. Yet the

move to a national force after the creation of the national parliament,

continues a pattern. The reforms I'm setting out today give us the

best possible chance of protecting what we value the most in keeping

Scotland safe and strong. Yes, this reform is taken against the

backdrop of those Westminster cuts, but it's also the right thing to do.

Kenny MacAskill proposes a single police and fire service. It will

save �1.9 billion over 15 years through back office redundancies.

There will be new supervisory bodies. Local commanders will have

decision-making powers, and there will be an eight-week consultation.

There are as many questions about a single police force as there are in

the average murder inquiry, including will the management

structure make any difference at all to those being policed?

When people phone up the police, they want you to turn up and do the

right thing, and they want to feel they're safe. Who the Chief

Constable is or what the other bits and pieces is about strategic

direction and governance and stuff, I think really at the end of the

day, it is not a big difference. I think locally people want to know

who their local community cop is. As for accountability, there

appears to be a logical train of command. If you had 32 policing

divisions to go with the 32 local authorities, then you would have a

local area team that involved a chief executive, a leader of the

council, a director of education, a divisional commander for policing,

and so that group collectively could work out what it was they

needed to do. This is a a format followed elsewhere. Most countries

have national police forces of some kind, particularly the ones we

would tend to align with in the Scandinavian countries, and we have

Sweden and Denmark, for instance, have a national police force since

the 1950s. We seem to dhir them for their, the

way they run their countries, and it doesn't seem to have been a

problem there. Stolen Ford Escort. But if this

reform is to save money, will it? Inevitably, when you reorganise,

you incur costs. You have to do everything from changing the logos

on vehicles, to changing headed paper, to changing a variety of

systems. All of the figures available show there will be costs

incurred, but the savings within two or three years should come

through. Then there's the issue of

leadership. A single single powerful chief brings to mind the

Metropolitan Police commissioner, an appointment which is always in

part political. All chief officer appointments of

police chiefs everywhere are political in the sense that they

tend to go through a complex process that involves the police

board or the police joint board, and then whoever is the relevant

government minister. I think that's taking us closer to the position

that we have with the Met which is not exactly the best of police

forces to compare with at the moment. It's lost two chief

constables in quite rapid succession, so, whether that is a

foretaste of things to come, let's hope not.

There's another doubt: with only one force, who will investigate

wrong doing in the national police? A team from England? There are some

foot-slogging and door-to-door inquiries to be made before this

case is resolved. Earlier, I spoke to the justice

secretary Kenny MacAskill and asked him what was so wrong with what

we've got. This is about making a virtue out of a necessity. We face

huge financial challenges. The cuts coming from Westminster are severe.

If we don't change, we face the consequence that is are going to

play out south of the border: a huge loss in front line officer

numbers and an attack on the terms and conditions of those officers

who serve. As a government, we're not prepared to sacrifice a visible

police presence in our communities, nor are we prepared to undermine

the terms and conditions of those who serve.

That's why we've got to change. But the change is also about making

the best possible structures. Nobody suggest that the current

structure of eight forces with one force being half of the population

of Scotland is the best and most appropriate, and this actually

makes a virtue of it. It works out, what I believe, will be the police

and fire structures for generations to come; it's the right way to go,

even if it is driven initially by the financial necessity of the cuts.

Given the transitional costs will be about �161 million, you estimate,

and given we have this massive financial crisis looming over the

next four to five years, at what point do we see the savings come

in? First of all, some of the transitional costs have to come

anyway. Some of those transitional costs relate to linking up the IT

system. At the present moment, we don't have the ability to link and

have similar PDAs operated in Strathclyde, or Lothian, or indeed

link up elsewhere. So some of the costs are going to be faced anyway

whether you change to a single service or not. Admittedly, I do

accept there are some transitional costs, but once you get get to a

situation within approximately three years of �130 million per

annum, that's money we can't sniff at and it's money we can't afford

not to grasp. Given that saving is three years away, you think, but

you have this initial outlay of �160-odd million, why does that

make economic sense in this particular window? The outlet is

less than that. Some of those costs have to be incurred anyway. The

costs for transition I believe are res than that when you look at what

has to be spent to get there. The status quo is not an auction. If we

do nothing, then the consequence would be a severe reduction in

front line policing, significant hammering into the fire and rescue

service - that's what we are seeing played out south of the border. We

didn't do anything. We've got to get ourselves in position for the

severe financial winds that are blowing. That's why we've got to

shell out a little bit up front to get the significant savings, and at

the same time get the best structures, because let's be clear,

a single service is what is the norm in most Western European

European democracies. Let me me ask you about how you secure

accountability, and the distinctiveness in relation to to

the specific needs of communities in terms of their policing? I think

Scotland is a diverse country - we recognise that. Let's be clear,

that's a matter that's recognised not simply by different services in

Scotland and different forces because clearly some policing in

some areas in the north is different from Strathclyde, but I

can assure you from my travels, I went to Arran, I've been to

inverary Metropolitan Police Officers there, how you police

Glasgow on a Friday or Saturday night is vastly different from how

a police officer operates on the island of Arran or indeed in Argyll

and Bute. That's already recognised within Strathclyde, our largest

service, and clearly how you're policing the islands or the rural

communities in Scotland is vastly different how you police urban

areas. That will be recognised by this. The accountability will be to

the Police Authority. They won't interfere operationally, but

they're the ones that will make sure that we allow the flexibility

for a country that's not uniform or or standard, but equally, what I

have to be clear about is that some of the challenges we face don't

simply occur in the urban areas. practically a - say practically a

divisional commander of an area say, "I need this for my arrest because

it needs our specific needs here," and the Chief Constable wherever

they are placed says says no, who mediates that? There will be a

policing authority, and a policing plan locally about how people wish

to see their community. That will be worked out between the local

committee and the divisional commander commander. At national

level, there'll be priorities set. The Chief Constable, whoever he or

she is will be held to account by the Police Authority that said it

could be set up in a variety of ways but which will be entirely

separate and independent from government, and they will, as I say,

hold the Chief Constable to account account if there are tejss between,

for example, the local area and the national area, then the Police

Authority will have the opportunity to intercede. Do you accept though

finally that this whole reorganisation actually sends out a

pretty strong signal that you are not in favour of decentralisation?

On the contrary. I think this provides for decentralisation. This

is a way that we're going to preserve officers in places such as

Arran, because as I say, there's a whole suggestion of predicated by

those who oppose change is there will be a different into the centre.

Thank you very much indeed. The West Lothian Question suddenly

sprang to life today with the government to announce a commission

to try geten to come one a palatable answer. A runaway Private

Members' Bill how Scottish MPs could be barred on English issues

seemed to supply a galvanising joke to the coalition;, jolt to the

coalition. It is arguably one of the deepest

and longest running faultlines in cross-border politics, the voting

rights of Scottish MPs who, on the face of it, have more say over

England than English MPs have over Scotland.

It was Tam Dalyell who posed the so-called West Lothian Question

back in the 1970s when he challenged the then Labour's

government thinking on devolution. We will go down a motorway to a

separate state. A journey on which many of us don't want to embark.

was absurd, that he would be able to vote on matters affecting

Blackburn in Lancashire but not Blackburn West Lothian in his own

constituency. Three decades on, many MPs, particularly English

Tories now, want the question answered. There'll be a debate here

tomorrow when a Private Members' Bill returns to the Commons, much

to the frustration of the UK government. I don't want an English

parliament myself. I think that would be far too far and an

unnecessary expense, but I think we can resolve procedurally how

English legislation is handled at Westminster. These protests in the

1980s over Margaret thatchers An unwelcome tax foisted on

Scotland by a Tory government. When Scottish Labour MPs helped

vote through foundation hospitals, which didn't affect their own

constituents during Tony Blair's Premiership, tempers frayed on the

other side of the border. Some of those Scottish MPs were even back

yesterday trying this time to skupper the coalition's health

reforms in England. The noes to the left, 251. I've got constituents

who come to me who have had to use the English health service and many,

many young people from Scotland go to higher education in England.

This is very important to my constituents. Why should I be

denied the right to speak out for them, for Scottish people in

matters relevant to them in England? UK ministers today

confirmed a commission promised in the coalition agreement 15 months

ago will now examine the problem. But what about the timing of the

announcement? Ministers hope it will persuade Miss Baldwin to

withdraw her bill tomorrow. We made a coalition commitment to examine

all the - on issues that deal with England predominantly, but other UK

issues too. We want to look at the facts, the arguments, and then

consider the consequences. going to listen to what the

minister says, and I hope to get some further answers to my

questions before making that decision.

Ministers say the commission will be made up of independent experts.

They won't, though, be able to consider funding or number of MPs.

So, can you deal with a voting rights of Scottish, Welsh, and

Northern Irish members without delving much further into the

devolution settlement? If we want to say Scots MPs should not vote on

the English matters, it will affect the amount of money the Scottish

Parliament receives. That I think lies at the heart of the problem

today. We've got to look at boast the West Lothian Question as a

question of parliamentary arithmetic in tandem with looking

at the financing of devolution. Any effort to address one set of

questions - The West Lothian Question is perhaps a step closer

to being answered for those worried about it here, but we won't find

out the remit of the commission or who sits on it until much later in

the year. There's no guarantee the government

will follow the commission's recommendations, and even if it

does, it will take years. The West Lothian Question is likely to

remain unanswered for some years years yet.

With me in the studio now is Eddie Barnes, the political editor for

Scotland on Sunday. What do you think all of this tells us about

the mood of the backbench Tory MPs? Clearly, this is an issue - it's

been an issue that's been running through the Conservative Party in

England for many years. David Cameron actually I think proposed

some reform to look at the West Lothian Question as far back as

2007 when he was still in opposition. That has simply

extended now. It's a clear issue amongst southern English Tory MPs

who see some sense of - have a sense of grievance, whether it is

justified or otherwise - that's for others to judge. There is pressure

on these MPs, both from sections of of the media in England, from other

parties from UKIP, which there has been speculation over the last

couple of weeks that they may end up backing an English parliament

and kind of taking that issue so, so, I think they feel that they

need to do something however symbolic, however irrelevant in

some ways this particular issue may end end up being. It is is

astonishing the momentum the private member's bill had, really.

Absolutely. I don't think anybody in the government was expecting it

to actually go this far which is why they were forced, their hand

was forced to actually announce this commission today. It was as

Michael Moore was saying a coalition commitment. But clearly

they felt the need to introduce this in order to see it off. There

was a bit after pounce there, you think. Do you think Do you think

any of this is a proxy for unhappiness from the Tory

backbenchers, some of them, about David Cameron and the fact they

don't consider he's really a Tory and that he's conceding far too

much to the Lib Dems? Again, yes. That is the subtext to a lot of

within the Conservative Party. Europe again is an issue that's

raised its head over the last couple of weeks. I think generally

the Conservative backbench MPs just feel that there is a need to study

this greater detail, bearing in mind the kind of pressures they're

under from their own constituents. Eddie, this idea, too, that somehow

as came forward in this private member's bill, that somehow you

could say there are English-only issues, and the speaker will have

to decide what these are, there are concerns about that, because that

will be a very hard definition to make, because, you know, something

which may appear an English-only issue could have a knock-on effect

for Scotland, but the speaker, they are put in an impossible position.

None of this is new, and why I say there is a certain amount of

scepticism about this commission. It looks as though there's going to

be fiddling. There's been suggestions before about trying to

get Scottish MPs not to look at bills in committee stage or maybe

not take part in first, second, third readings, then it becomes

difficult to specify what is English only. The classic example

at the moment is tuition fees. You know, this, you could argue, is an

English-only issue, but as we've seen over the last few months, it

has huge ramifications for Scotland and Scottish MPs will simply say we

have a right to vote on this because it's going to make - it has

a big jabgtd on our own constituents. We have to see the

composition of this, but when you're looking at who will be on it,

the composition, if it is a percentage of Tory MPs, Lib Dem MPs,

that's going to be very important about the tone of what potentially

comes out of this at the end of the day? Yes, it's an interesting one.

As I said, it's a coalition commitment but in many ways, the

two parties have completely differing pivs and differing aims

in this. From the Conservative point of view, as I said earlier,

there is in need to reach out to the sense of grievance amongst

their own support. From the liberal point of view, there is this issue

of the desire to move to a federal United Kingdom which perhaps they

will be looking to use this commission to advance that

particular idea. They would see federalism as the only answer to

this presumably? That is their policy, and I think in many ways

there are two answers to this. One is independence, and one is that

you create this, a federal United Kingdom with regional assemblies

and governments around the the country. Is there an appetite for

federalism in England? No, the last time it was put to the test in the

north-east, it was roundly rejected. Let's look finally to the point

about the finances being tied into this, the parliament parliamentary

finances in Scotland be tied into whatever happens here, it's not

just about voting patterns, it's a bigger issue here. The point in the

package was correct. The much bigger issue is finance. That's why

I as I say, there is a scepticism about a commission that simply

looks at the legislative side of things which is in many ways a bit

of a red herring. The question is what to do about the Barnett

Formula, and as we know, this commission isn't going to look at

that at all. We've asked this question a hundred times - any

answer? Poor old West Lothian is going to be stuck with the question

for a big longer, I suspect. Now a look at tomorrow's front pages very

quickly. The Times: ten years on on, Blair says the Iran is the enemy.

The Scottish Daily Mail is saying that nurses who can't speak English

put patients in danger. They're particularly citing nurses from

eastern Europe. The Guardian is looking at the Baha Mousa report