Seòmar agus comataidhean

I, too, congratulate Audrey Nicoll on securing the debate and, most important, I congratulate the FSB on its 50th anniversary. As members can imagine, the vast majority of businesses in my constituency of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale are small and medium-sized enterprises, which reflects the situation throughout Scotland. Such businesses are, indeed, the backbone of our economy. They are embedded in the communities and employ people locally, their employees often spend in the local economy, and their commitment is local.

I celebrate small businesses, from the local Galashiels painter and decorator who painted my office and the glazier who installed the windows to the many other businesses and shops in the area. I suppose that I am also a small business in Gala, where I have been since 1999.

Austerity made the situation hard for all those businesses before Covid. Covid was dreadful but, thankfully, with help from the UK and Scottish Governments, many managed to stagger on. The Central Bar in the Northgate in Peebles—a free house—received no support, as the premises are too small to accommodate the hot food provision that was required to qualify for the support scheme. However, Roddy MacKay, the owner of that wee, friendly gem, buckled down, redecorated and smartened up the pub frontage—indeed, he recently won an award for the floral display. That demonstrates the resilience of a small business that is embedded in the community.

However, we still have austerity and the fallout from Covid, and many people’s shopping habits have changed. Further, businesses’ work patterns have changed—home working was an exception, but now it can be the norm. That impacts on how businesses operate, while they still have the same outlays in rental, heating and so on. Indeed, we know how retail has changed, with shopping online no longer an occasional or marginal activity—Covid changed that for good.

I will raise the impact of the small business bonus scheme, which Murdo Fraser and others referred to. I was here in 2007 when it was brought in, in agreement with the Conservatives, who supported the SNP’s budget. It was a good idea at the time, and I support it today. Figures from 2023 show that, in Midlothian, 1,060 businesses benefited from 100 per cent relief—they paid nothing—and another 870 had a measure of relief. In the Borders, 5,170 paid no rates under the scheme in that year, and 5,280 had a measure of relief.

The FSB provides support in the form of financial expertise and by speaking up for small businesses to the Governments here and at UK level. It also speaks up on their behalf to the local MSP, if required—my door is always open.

Local people can also do their bit. I note that Pam Gosal referred to Scotland Loves Local week, which began on 26 August. I shop locally anyway, so that was no challenge for me.

Among the local shops in my constituency, there is AilaBells, in the Penicuik precinct, which has a wonderful array of upmarket Scottish goods. The precinct has footfall, but I laid down the gauntlet to Shelley, the owner, about going online, where I am sure that she could increase sales. I told her that I would be checking on her progress. I also directed her to Business Gateway for assistance in setting up her website. That is the problem for sole owners—they are so busy that they sometimes cannot do the stuff that they need to do to expand. She needs help with that, because it would make a world of difference.

Then there is—wait for this name—Fifi La Bonk! at School Brae in Peebles. What a name, and it is apposite; exotic and idiosyncratic—that is just the owner—are the clothes that she makes and designs individually. Websites help with such esoteric and—if I may say so—even for me, offbeat designs; they are staggeringly interesting.

In both those shops, I made lovely purchases; I might wear them in here at some point. By the way, I pay for the items myself—just to put that on the record. I encourage communities to be mindful, even in these tough times, of supporting local businesses and shops as best they can. As others have said, the serious point is that they are the lifeblood of our communities. They are embedded in and feel indebted and responsible to their communities. We should keep our high streets and town centres, which are under such pressure today, alive and kicking.

Again, I congratulate the FSB on its special anniversary, my colleague on securing the debate and, if I may say so, all the small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency.

In the spirit of the debate, I say to Mr Kerr that I am in agreement with almost everything that he says.

Well, if gongs were being handed out for brass necks, everyone on the Opposition benches would be wearing them—and proudly, no doubt.

Before the recent general election, the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that there was an £18 billion hole in the UK Government’s finances. True to form, when Labour opened the books, it feigned shock that, in fact, the hole was £22 billion—but what is a billion or so between Governments?

Before the election, Anas “Read my lips” Sarwar proclaimed no austerity under Labour. Now, the Starmer mantra is, “Things will get worse.” Pensioners already know what that means.

Against that economic climate, the Tories—in this debate and in the previous one on free school meals—are demanding more money for services. On what planet do they live? Ditto for Labour. The ruin of the UK economy is simple. In 2008, under Gordon Brown, the banks crashed, although he at least admitted that he had made a “big mistake”. Boris pursued Brexit slap bang in the middle of a global pandemic—so much for Brexit being “oven ready” and for the side-of-a-bus promise of £350 million a week for the NHS.

As if things were not bad enough, along came 49-day Truss, who, with a stroke of her quill, crashed the economy, pushing inflation up to 11 per cent. We would have been better off with a lettuce—at least that is good for your health. Yet the Scottish Government, although it depends for the majority of its funding on Westminster, somehow has a very large sofa, with coins just waiting to be liberated, to provide £40 million a year to subsidise on-peak fares. Even with all that, I repeat that this was a pilot scheme to move people back on to trains, especially after Covid, when trains were all pretty well cut back out of necessity and the need for compliance in public transport. There was to be a specific return in passenger numbers for that money. That return was not reached—end of pilot.

I will make a further comment—work practices have radically changed since Covid. We moved to Teams, WhatsApp and Zoom, and we still use those either fully or in a hybrid way. Commuting to work for five days a week is, for many, in the past. The new balance of home working and office working is here to stay. There are offices across Scotland—Borders Council headquarters is one such—where, on weekdays, it feels like the Mary Celeste. This place is another such example: some MSPs are delivering speeches from their homes, and Mr Eagle has actually delivered a speech from his lambing shed.

Some time ago, I discussed that change in working practices with Alex Hynes, who was ScotRail’s chief executive. He advised that ScotRail’s business model had to adapt and that ScotRail would look to increasing train usage through pleasure journeys, because commuting had completely changed.

As always, I wish to be consensual, so I look forward to the Opposition parties specifying in their closing speeches—because I know that they have done their homework—where the £40 million for the recurring annual cost is to come from. Is it from health or education, or should we just scrap the millions that we give every year to mitigate the effect of UK austerity? That would do it, because I have news for them—there is no coin-laden sofa.

Will the member take an intervention?

At last, I have been called courteous. I think that the member has just walked into a bear trap: the great big promise from Anas Sarwar was that there would be no austerity under Labour. How is that for a broken promise?

Will the member give way?

I, too, congratulate the Criminal Justice Committee on its report. At this stage of the debate, much has been said, so I apologise in advance for revisiting points that have already been made.

Let me preface my speech by stating clearly, as others have done—I think that we all endorse this view—that the overwhelming majority of police officers carry out their vast range of duties professionally and ethically. Those duties range from dealing with theft, attending road traffic accidents, carrying out drug investigations, helping folk with mental health issues, dealing with disputes between neighbours, dealing with domestic abuse and social disorder to investigating murders. The circumstances can vary as much as the incidents that I have identified. Police officers might simply need to be gently helpful, they might need to deal with someone who is confused or they might have to deal with threats to their life by a mob or an individual—they have to be ready for practically anything.

That is in a society in which regard for the police is not as it was in the days—here I will show my age; everyone over 70 will understand this—of the fictional “Dixon of Dock Green” or even the more recent but still distant “Z-Cars”. These days, respect for those in any position of authority has to be earned, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Thankfully, in this democracy, police also police by consent. Therefore, trust in the police must prevail, and that is most tested when policing goes wrong.

In every organisation, there will be bad eggs, and the police force is no exception. Who suffers from bad policing? It is the public and, of course, the individual, but it is also every other police officer.

On the Police Scotland website, there are currently directions on how to complain. For example, there are headings such as “What is a complaint?” and “Investigating your complaint”. There is an explanation of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and the criminal allegations against the police division, which is part of the Crown Office.

What if someone is unhappy about their complaint? What happens to it? The Police Scotland website says:

“If the reasons for your complaint are clear and we see it’s a minor, non-criminal complaint, we will record it. An officer from our Professional Standards Department will contact you to discuss the details of your complaint.

It may be that we can resolve your complaint quickly by providing information or explanation.

If we need to look at your complaint in more detail, our Professional Standards team will record it and contact you to explain the next steps. Your complaint may be allocated to an investigator to carry out further enquiry.

If you make a complaint direct to the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC), they will direct you back to Police Scotland. We will then follow the same process as if you had contacted us directly.”

As Dame Elish Angiolini conceded, the system was reasonably good already, but there was room for improvement. One of the major parts of the bill that will strengthen the system is that an offending officer will not be able to escape discipline and punitive measures simply by retiring and, therefore, avoiding the outcome of a finding of gross misconduct. That practice is too often used as an escape route, and it is totally indefensible. The bill will also create barred and advisory lists to stop people who do not meet the high standards that are expected of police officers from gaining employment in policing anywhere in the UK.

I will conclude this brief contribution by referring to my experience as an MSP in my dealings with the police. In the vast majority of cases, we worked as a team, often in the interests of a vulnerable constituent, but—however rarely—I have experienced slipshod policing, as has been referenced by previous speakers. In those cases, only the use of what pressure I could bring to bear ensured that my constituents’ concerns were appropriately addressed. That should not have been necessary. However, I repeat that my contact over 25 years has been overwhelmingly positive.

I welcome the fact that the bill will weed out those who fail to meet the high standards that are rightly required of our police service, make those who are found guilty of gross misconduct pay the price for that, and strengthen the PIRC to ensure public confidence in the whole complaints procedure—by which I mean either complaints by the public against the police or complaints by police against fellow officers. However, there is one important issue. We must ensure that the balance is struck between fairness to the complainer and fairness to those who are subject to a complaint. That is crucial.

Heavens, I seem to have stirred a bit of interest. I will take an intervention from Patrick Harvie.

I beg your pardon.

Does the member therefore consider it, to put it very—[Interruption.]

I, too, congratulate the Criminal Justice Committee on its report. At this stage of the debate, much has been said, so I apologise in advance for revisiting points that have already been made.

Let me preface my speech by stating clearly, as others have done—I think that we all endorse this view—that the overwhelming majority of police officers carry out their vast range of duties professionally and ethically. Those duties range from dealing with theft, attending road traffic accidents, carrying out drug investigations, helping folk with mental health issues, dealing with disputes between neighbours, dealing with domestic abuse and social disorder to investigating murders. The circumstances can vary as much as the incidents that I have identified. Police officers might simply need to be gently helpful, they might need to deal with someone who is confused or they might have to deal with threats to their life by a mob or an individual—they have to be ready for practically anything.

That is in a society in which regard for the police is not as it was in the days—here I will show my age; everyone over 70 will understand this—of the fictional “Dixon of Dock Green” or even the more recent but still distant “Z-Cars”. These days, respect for those in any position of authority has to be earned, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Thankfully, in this democracy, police also police by consent. Therefore, trust in the police must prevail, and that is most tested when policing goes wrong.

In every organisation, there will be bad eggs, and the police force is no exception. Who suffers from bad policing? It is the public and, of course, the individual, but it is also every other police officer.

On the Police Scotland website, there are currently directions on how to complain. For example, there are headings such as “What is a complaint?” and “Investigating your complaint”. There is an explanation of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and the criminal allegations against the police division, which is part of the Crown Office.

What if someone is unhappy about their complaint? What happens to it? The Police Scotland website says:

“If the reasons for your complaint are clear and we see it’s a minor, non-criminal complaint, we will record it. An officer from our Professional Standards Department will contact you to discuss the details of your complaint.

It may be that we can resolve your complaint quickly by providing information or explanation.

If we need to look at your complaint in more detail, our Professional Standards team will record it and contact you to explain the next steps. Your complaint may be allocated to an investigator to carry out further enquiry.

If you make a complaint direct to the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC), they will direct you back to Police Scotland. We will then follow the same process as if you had contacted us directly.”

As Dame Elish Angiolini conceded, the system was reasonably good already, but there was room for improvement. One of the major parts of the bill that will strengthen the system is that an offending officer will not be able to escape discipline and punitive measures simply by retiring and, therefore, avoiding the outcome of a finding of gross misconduct. That practice is too often used as an escape route, and it is totally indefensible. The bill will also create barred and advisory lists to stop people who do not meet the high standards that are expected of police officers from gaining employment in policing anywhere in the UK.

I will conclude this brief contribution by referring to my experience as an MSP in my dealings with the police. In the vast majority of cases, we worked as a team, often in the interests of a vulnerable constituent, but—however rarely—I have experienced slipshod policing, as has been referenced by previous speakers. In those cases, only the use of what pressure I could bring to bear ensured that my constituents’ concerns were appropriately addressed. That should not have been necessary. However, I repeat that my contact over 25 years has been overwhelmingly positive.

I welcome the fact that the bill will weed out those who fail to meet the high standards that are rightly required of our police service, make those who are found guilty of gross misconduct pay the price for that, and strengthen the PIRC to ensure public confidence in the whole complaints procedure—by which I mean either complaints by the public against the police or complaints by police against fellow officers. However, there is one important issue. We must ensure that the balance is struck between fairness to the complainer and fairness to those who are subject to a complaint. That is crucial.