21/01/2013 Newsnight Scotland


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/01/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



more than you have already referred Tonight on Newsnight Scotland:


Police Scotland takes over from local forces in a matter of weeks,


but have the two men at the top really settled who's running the


show? And: Here's what you could have won...


We'll speak to the architect whose design for Glasgow's George Square


was picked by the panel but rejected by the council, in favour


4th good evening. The new Police Service of Scotland was meant to


offer a slimmed-down a unified single force but a long-running


argument about who controls finance and HR has resulted in a deal which


has been called a jumble. The Justice Secretary was forced to


step in on Friday to meet the police force and police authority


and make them share the functions. They now have just nine weeks to


make it work. To criminals, the slogan is a


warning. To the public, and appealed for help. This campaign


was also designed to send another message, originally run by Lothian


and Borders Police, the aim is to seize the assets of those making


money through crime. Significant this morning was the announcement


it is being rolled out throughout central Scotland and Fife, an area


seen to be designated East Command in the new police service. Public


confidence in the police in Scotland is high. We do not take


that for granted because it is founded on years and years of


public service. This is an excellent example of identifying a


very good practice, working closely with communities and making sure


that the whole of the Police Service of Scotland benefits from


this practice. This initiative is exactly the kind of thing the


architects of the single police force would like to focus on on the


run-up to April 1st, the date of the new service comes into


operation. But in recent months, the PR message has been somewhat


lost amidst all the talk about infighting at the very top. The


most public sign of trouble emerged in November, when the two


protagonists, Chief Constable Stephen House and Dick Emery, the


chairman of the police authority, appeared here. What followed was


characterise in some quarters as a turf war. The First Minister


described it as creative tension. As the weeks swept by with no


resolution, concerns bubbled to the surface, most recently during First


Minister's Questions. Last time, the First Minister Laugher this off


as creative tension. Since then the chief constable has called for


fresh legislation and both sides have spent time fighting each other.


I think it would be better given that the meeting is tomorrow to


wait and see what actually happens. The outcome was a compromise. A


structure that sees both men taking control of their own finance and


human resources teams. For UNISON it is an example of duplication in


a service created with efficiency in mind. They predict trouble ahead.


Or we know is the high level deal is putting a sticking plaster over


the problem. We will note -- and we know there are senior people in


those functions working two parts of what is supposed to be the same


organisation. That could cause tension and conflict. Legislation,


however, is not a charge that the Justice Secretary accepts. We have


got an agreement in principle. The devil is in the detail. But between


hard work, faith and the outstanding leadership we have in


Vic Emery and Steve House, we will get there. We will keep Scotland


safe and keep the police numbers up and protect and preserve the terms


and conditions of those who serve. The worry for the Police Federation


is that a row about corporate governance, in their view end


manufactured one, has obscured important issues. We have concerns


about the voluntary redundancy scheme we are trying to operate.


About being transferred up and down the country. These things seem to


have been put on the back burner because we are having to sort out


who is going to be responsible for what. So now we have clear lines in


the sand in the so-called agreement, everybody can do their job. Smiling


for the cameras, it seems the phoney war is over. But not


everyone is convinced those around this table no the acid test is fast


approaching. I am joined from Edinburgh by the


SNP's Christine Grahame, convener of the Justice Committee, and from


Aberdeen by Labour's justice spokesperson, Lewis MacDonald.


Christine Grahame, we have this compromise deal. It is not exactly


a good start for what is meant to be a slimmed-down service, is it?


think it is very pragmatic but it is now clear the chief constable,


as we all thought through Parliament and the committee, is in


charge of all staffing that he requires, not just the frontline


policing but backroom staff required for operational matters.


That was really the centre of it. And the concern the committee had


was that the staff were not having security knowing who they would be


answerable to. We now know it is the chief constable. As for


adjudication, of course Dick Emery as chairman of the board is


entitled to have staff for the board. -- Vic Emery. It is not


duplication, it is separate requirements. Are you assuring us


that this will work? One thing the Justice Committee is intending to


do and we were going to have a meeting this Wednesday if the two


gentleman in question had not come to an agreement, we were putting


pressure on as well to get to some common sense arrangement. But what


we will do on Wednesday is we are going to have a meeting to discuss


how we hold the SPLA and the chief constable to account -- the SPA arm.


Lewis MacDonald, you backed the SNP when it came to these changes. You


obviously very concerned about what is happening now. Do you regret


seeing what happened? Very concerned indeed because what the


Government promised in Parliament was operational independence for


the chief constable. What we have instead is chaos and confusion of


the worst kind. Adjudications certainly with two heads of human


resources, two heads of finance, two legal and communication


departments. It is bizarre. When you read the board papers on which


this agreement is based, it talks about a customer provider


relationship. I think that would be news to most MSPs by they voted for


it or not when the bill was discussed only six months ago.


Legislation, as the chief constable has so... You voted for it but have


you crush scrutinised this effectively, should you perhaps not


have been going for Kenny MacAskill to get involved earlier? Perhaps


you should have, and recalled that debate in parliament in December.


Kenny MacAskill stood up in that debate and said this will all be


sorted this week. That was now a month ago. We were then told it


would all be sorted last Friday. It does not seem to have been sorted


at all. We have a ludicrous position where we have two people


with two different post doing the same function for different parts


of the service. If it is a customer provider relationship between the


police board and the police service, what confidence can that give the


public about the way in which the police service will be delivered in


Scotland in the future? Very little indeed. We are looking for proper


policing a proper accountability of the police service. Christine


Grahame, the chief constable wrote your committee in December and


called for a change in legislation. Do you think that perhaps he was


right and perhaps now that is still needed? Chaos and confusion? It is


not chaos and confusion. Lewis is just making his own opposition


points and being sensational. I did not interrupt you. The operational


independence of the chief constable is secured. The legislation was


clear. We now have, of course they require a separate HR4 their own


particular roles. These are almost picture threat -- separate from the


Chief Constable -- the SPA must be separate from the chief constable


because it is holding him to account. The parliament will hold


the SPA and the chief constable to account. They could not have the


same HR at the age of they have is for separate purposes. The real


issue is who is going to be in charge of what we have called


backroom staff, very unfairly, who are essential to policing. It is


absolutely clear these are under control of the chief constable as


they should be. If Kenny MacAskill had intervened earlier, he would


have been accused of political interference. We will pick up on


that point about the new legislation. Stephen House said it


was needed. Our new laws still needed despite this resolution?


chief constable and labour and other parties were indeed


gobsmacked in November when we realised what holes there were in


the legislation where the Justice Secretary had promised this would


provide operational independence. You supported it. In actual fact,


what we all discovered won the thing came forward was that it was


open to the police board if it so wished to interpret this as a


charter to have operational control of the police. There is a contrast


between what is happening with the police with the Borders insisting


on having its own HR and finance functions, different to the fire


service where the legislation is virtually identical but the board


of the fire authority has delegated Let's pick up on that point about


the fire service? There were slight differences in the legislation


because as IT and forensics would be under control of the S PA from


the start, so there were differences. I'm glad that we have


practically to where we want to be added many times, all of the


practical things have been taking place, the commanders are in place,


the local plan sarin place, we have a specific crime unit, that is what


we need. We need to draw this to a close, we have run out of time.


Many parts of Glasgow are being revamped ahead of next year's


Commonwealth Games. The city's George Square was meant to be next.


Architects had submitted plans for the re-development, but today the


council pulled the plug. The embattled council leader said there


would only be minor changes due to the level of public opposition. In


a moment, I'll speak to a former leader of the council and the


architect who's plans were picked by the panel, but rejected by the


politicians. But first, here's our local government correspondent


Jamie McIvor. As U-turns go, this was a big one.


Glasgow City Council was keen on a radical revamp of the square, its


leader, enthusiastic and ebullient in its support. It has been


littered with over the years and it has lost coherence. We are left


with stuff like the red Tarmac which is oddly. By June it think


anyone likes it like it is right now. An international design


contest attracted submissions from us are away as Australia and


America. The shortest winter and design to the public including


statues and water features. It is going to look very different. But


today, we have learnt it will stay much same. What is clear to me is


that there was no consensus in this city for a radical redesign. People


are essentially what the square that they know and love, but they


wanted to be a lot better than it looks at the moment, which is what


we will deliver. The statues will stay, the red Tarmac will go, but


what about Gordon Matheson's red face? Less than one year ago, he


was feted as the man who held Glasgow for Labour against a


ferocious onslaught from the SNP at the council elections. But it has


been an embarrassing few days for him. By Friday he had to apologise


after allegations of indecency. Opponents will say that at the


revamped YouTube were damaging politically if they have not


already done so. I'm joined now by the former leader


of Glasgow Council, Michael Kelly, and from London by the architect


John McAslan who's design won the comptition but won't now be built.


John, what is your reaction to what happens today? The first thing is,


are scheme was not radical. It is not radical. It is quite


traditional. It keeps the sculpture more or less in the same position


and it retains and reworks the landscape and it gets rid of the


tarmac. So I am just bemused by the whole thing, because it is really


quite a traditional and understated scheme. I am perplexed by a cancer


map as an's decision to pull the plug on the competition. - a crime


perplexed by the counsellor's decision. Every good to him


receiving end I said I would later, it speak to him about it. -- I have


written to him perceived link. We developed it in the consultation


with Glasgow people at would like to build it. Might you tried to


seeks to compensation because you submitted these plans and spend


time doing it, are you are looking for that, do you think? No, we're


not seeking compensation, we want to build the scheme had that is


what we intend to do. We will not give up because there has been a


political decision which is obviously what it is. Add it is a


politically-motivated decision. We will engage and build this the


scheme, I am determined of it. Michael, did Gordon Matheson's


private problems putting in a weaker position where he had to bow


to public position? I do not think that his private life as anything


to do with this decision. He did feel the build-up of public opinion


against this and media opinion against this which built up despite


the early consultation and. He has had two very big decisions, he has


got to have pulled the Commonwealth Games and he has got to fight the


referendum. He regarded this square issue as a bit of a skirmish that


he wished he had got Gatlin to hand he's cutting his losses on this so


that he can't work on other things. As his one-time giant as people


want to come back and discuss it, it would be as I get that will


dominate the Glasgow Media. It says that a political decision, do you


think it was the right decision was back I think they made the wrong


decision in not going for a plan with George Square. It needs to be


revamped radically. I can see why this scheme will won it because it


is a compromise at the best read the mind of the councillors, but


they do not think it is radical enough. He is preserving the old


and talks about traffic flows and talons to run the rain from the


east to west. I would go back to square one and say what do we want


this to do? Will it be an open space a republic space for daily


use? Charm, you design, it may be was but radical enough, even


depressing? Are there are degrees of appropriate this. I am from


Glasgow and Dido the city well. My family is steeped in Glasgow


tradition and my great grandfather wrote the history of Glasgow and I


know the city probably as well as anyone. I have been in the square


since a lad and I know it inside out. I think our scheme responded


but just to my own views, but to what was appropriate. I think it


was radical enough and it did not, it moved away from the brief. The


brief which the counsellor was party to Bath for the removal of


all of the sculpture, but we rejected it and we came up with a


scheme that is absolutely right for Glasgow. It would be a joy to use


it as a windy, Wednesday are in the middle of summer. We will pursue it


and be well us give up. Michael, do you think Glasgow suffers from a


lack of vision? Pulled Isabeau architectural heritage, is there a


lack of vision? - but her bulldozing into a natural heritage.


If you are to be an international city you need iconic buildings and


sculptures. This is a chance to do something quite radical as just


preserving yet, I do not think that is the answer. They should


reconsider and go at to tender again and come up with a scheme


that will draw international attention. This will not. Briefly,


what would you're refer but would have? - but for you refurbishment


have? So have the best architecture in the world has put his abated,


Download Subtitles