21/01/2013 Newsnight Scotland

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,