 Mae yn dweud hangogledig i taethw look owners i chi ddemlockwch cancer yng Nghymru dd Yogfoddiag of the initial tactical fire arms commanders in the three regional control centres, using their professional judgement to support local policing as and when required. The new model will allow those highly trained ARV officers to make a valuable contribution to policing in their communities with a focus on vulnerability and speed of response. The proposals were presented to the Scottish Police Authority meeting this morning. The Fy enw gweithdoedd gyda Poliysgolion mewn proposol i gynffordd fenol angwychowadau 50 oes diwrnog y dess. Leitebeth y cyflwyffordd yn gweithio y mynd i dredig, a i gael i ddim o gweithi a fwylltiaid i dd tulid dros autum rhesliad yr oesbyddog. Fy fydd ddif Qiuoghwr o'r anhygoel hefyd wedi ei ddesparu gwaith iaid o gweithbeth more rapidly and reduce the risk of harm to the public and the offender. Police Scotland proposed to begin the selection process for around 500 officers to be trained to carry taser. Those specially trained officers will be deployed at the heart of local policing in all 13 divisions across Scotland, helping to keep their colleagues and the public safe. The Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland will keep both those issues under regular review. Liam McArthur I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed response. For those of us who are worried that this policy is part of a slippery slope towards an enforcement model of policing, what assurances can the cabinet secretary provide that consideration will be given to scaling back the deployment of armed police and tasers in the event that the threat to officers and the public reduces? That is not just a one-way shift towards universal arming. Does he share the concern of Dr Nick McEarall, law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, who appears to question whether the force is taking advantage of what he calls a vacuum of accountability at the top of policing in Scotland? With regard to his latter point regarding Dr Nick McEarall, the answer to that is no. This is an issue that she may be aware that Police Scotland has been planning for for a number of months and provided a briefing to party spokespersons, including his own party leader, a number of weeks ago about their plans and their thinking about this issue. It was delayed in terms of the announcement as a result of some of the changes at the head of Police Scotland, namely that of ACC Bernie Higgins. However, the paper then went to the SPA board this morning, and Police Scotland set out the details of that last week because the paper was in the public domain at that point. To suggest that this is in some way to do with a vacuum of accountability, it is simply inaccurate and misleading. In relation to the wider point that the member made regarding the deployment of firearms officers, an increasing number. The member will recall that I set out last year the increase in firearms officers that were required due to the level of threat that we faced as a country overall in the additional deployment that would come about through that. That announcement does not involve an increase in firearms officers. It is the use of existing firearms officers who are presently only deployed to incidents that either involve a threat to a life or to a firearms incident itself. However, where the tactical firearms officer believes that they could be deployed to an incident, whether there is particular vulnerability or where there is a need for speed and an ARV is available to respond to that quickly, then to be able to deploy them to that incident in order to deal with it at that particular point to support local policing. It does not involve an increase in firearms officers as such. The provision of the taser, especially trained officers, is to help to support public protection and officer protection because of the number of increasing incidents that they are experiencing where violence or a bladed instrument is being used, which clearly has a risk to police officers. I am sure that the member will recognise that there is also a duty of care to police officers in making sure that they are appropriately equipped to be able to deal with those types of incidents as and when they occur in order to bring them to an end quickly. On the last point, I certainly agree that I do not think that anybody would dispute the fact that police officers need to have the tools to keep both themselves and the public safe, including the deployment of armed officers. However, that is not the same as accepting that we should have armed police officers attending at all forms of incidents as a matter of routine. The deployment model under SPA scrutiny today proposes that armed officers may attend cases involving, for example, a domestic dispute. The public will rightly be concerned that the presence of an armed officer may heighten such a situation. Does the cabinet secretary share any of those concerns? I think that the member is misunderstanding the deployment model in which Police Scotland is intending to take forward. The member makes reference to them being used for routine policing purposes, which is simply not the case. They are there to help to support local policing and where the tactical firearms officer determines that there is a need to respond quickly and that there is a vulnerability and that they have an ARV able to respond to that more quickly than local policing to be able to do so. The member gives an example of a domestic incident. If we had a situation where a woman was under threat from her partner at home and there was an ARV, quite literally sitting round a corner that could respond to that call but did not do so because of the existing deployment model and they would have to wait for five or ten minutes before local policing could arrive to it, I suspect that most members in the chamber would say, I would prefer that the ARV to respond as quickly as possible if they are able to get there more quickly. That is exactly what the new deployment model is about. It is not about using it for normal routine policing matters, it is to allow the tactical firearms officer to make a decision that if the ARV officers are closer at hand to respond to someone who is vulnerable or where there is a particular issue about responding quickly to be able to deploy those officers, and I would have thought that all members would recognise that that is about making use of the very high skills that those officers have. It is also worth keeping in mind, ARV officers are police officers first who are highly trained in firearms capability as well, and the intention is—and it is this Government's clear intention—that Police Scotland remains an unarmed police force but with a specialist armed capability that can be deployed as and when necessary. That will continue to be the case with this change to its deployment model. Liam Kerr Does the cabinet secretary agree that, where an allegation has been made of improper use of firearms, it is necessary for public transparency, trust in the police and to ensure that learning outcomes are developed that a full investigation takes place? Yes, that is the case. Of course, anytime when a firearm is used by Police Scotland or where a taser is used by Police Scotland officers, the matter is automatically referred to to the Police Investigation and Review Commissioner to evaluate the use at that particular point and whether it is operated within the normal standard operating procedure within Police Scotland. Every time a firearm is used or a taser is used by Police Scotland, it is automatically referred to the Police Investigation and Review Commissioner to consider the matter. Mary Fee Can I ask the cabinet secretary of following the integration of BTP Scotland into Police Scotland? Will those BTP officers who carry tasers be included in the figure of 500 officers to be equipped with tasers? BTP officers only have a very limited capacity around taser capacity, and they have no firearms capacity in Scotland at all. Any firearms capacity that is delivered within a railway system in Scotland is delivered by Police Scotland because BTP does not have that special zone here in Scotland. One of the reasons why I believe that it should be within a single command structure is that the issue about the taser officers is of a limited support that is provided to BTP at the present moment through their overall UK approach to matters. It will be an operational matter for the chief constable to determine whether they continue to be taser officers that are included within that 500 or whether they supplement that 500. What I can assure the member of is that overall, within Police Scotland, their intention is to have 500 specially trained officers to be able to support local policing as and when it is appropriate. John Finnie Thank you. Cabinet secretary, you have told us that existing model is flawed. You are commending a new model. You are seeing a situation where a largely defensive police service has an increasing offensive capacity. The Scottish Green Party does not oppose these moves at all. Briefing or meeting with parliamentarians does not equate to consultation. Will you encourage Police Scotland to publish both risk assessments—the one for the existing model and for the proposed model, if it is not already being agreed—in order that we can have the fullest discussion about what is supposed to purport to evidence the need for those changes, please? Michael Matheson Cabinet secretary, on relation to the policy intention behind us, it was set out in the paper that was published by the Scottish Police Authority last week and was considered by the Scottish Police Authority today, on the deployment model for both firearms officers and for the use of taser. I assure the member that I believe that, if there is an ARV nearby that can respond to an incident where there is a need for a quick response or where there is a particular issue of vulnerability, we should utilise the skills of those officers to be able to do that. The new deployment model allows that to happen under the command of the tactical firearms commander who will decide on whether it is appropriate or not. That will not be a decision that will be made by the local police commander, but it is a decision that will be made by the tactical firearms commander. Police Scotland will set out its rationale as to why that is the case, nor to ensure that there is appropriate control and decision making around those issues. It has also been set out very clearly by the Scottish Police Federation about why it is important that its officers have the appropriate protective equipment to deal with issues when it involves violence or weapons, and that tasers can play an important role in helping to address those incidents by bringing them to a quicker end and also in helping to protect officers and the public. Having said that, though that is not about simply using it on a proactive basis or on an on-going basis, it is to support local policing and it will be deployed as and when it is appropriate by local commanders. There is a clear process in determining when they will be used and how they will be used. I believe that the new deployment model in both those areas will help to support local policing in addressing issues more effectively. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the findings by the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland that the budget for day-to-day spending is expected to fall by £250 million between 2018-19 and 2019-20. Cabinet Secretary, Derek Mackay. I first of all formally welcome James Kelly as the finance spokesperson, as appointed today to his new role. In my budget statement last Thursday, I was clear about the detrimental impact that UK Government austerity is having on this Scottish budget, highlighting that over the 10-year period to 2019-20, Scotland's block grant will have been cut by £2.6 billion in real terms. I also quoted from the Fraser of Allander Institute, who said that by 2019-20, the resource block grant will be around £500 million lower in real terms than in 2017-18. Monday's analysis by IPPR Scotland simply reiterates those points and confirms that the Scottish Government is facing significant and damaging real terms cuts to our budget for day-to-day spending as a result of that continuing UK Government austerity. In order to mitigate those cuts, protect our NHS and other public services and to support our economy, we have reformed income tax in Scotland, our only significant fiscal lever to provide growth in our tax revenues. Of course, while we have taken action to protect public services, the best way to stop public sector cuts would be for the UK Government to end the damaging austerity and invest in public services and the economy. James Kelly I thank the cabinet secretary for his welcome to my post and I look forward to constructive exchanges. With that in mind, I am sure that he will be concerned that his budget has begun to unravel since he last spoke from that position on Thursday, because it is not just the IPPR analysis. We know from Spice that there is a real terms cut in local government funding of £135 million, and we also know that there is not funding that has been put in place in order to address the issue of the pay increases. In terms of local councils, it is not just the numbers that affect local areas, the job losses, the closure of day centres, the reduction in library services. Will the cabinet secretary accept that, in effect, he must lead Parliament last Thursday, and will he revise the budget allocations in order to produce a fair settlement for local government? I assure James Kelly that the budget is perfectly intact. I think that I gave it a fair presentation last week over a half hour contribution. I know our worth of questions, there is much detail in the documentation, and I am glad that Members will have had more time to look over it to see what a productive and positive budget it is. It is investing many parts of the public sector, as well as ensuring that it is the right environment for business growth. Why is that important so that we can grow revenues, ensure that employment is at a high level and ensure fair social justice? Specifically, in relation to local government, I set out the figures to the chamber, and those numbers remain the same, which was essentially a cash freeze in resource terms with more in capital. I pointed out that, if local authorities used their council tax powers up to 3 per cent increase, they would put their budgets in the real terms increase as well. I think that James Kelly is right to point to the analysis about the real terms reduction to Scotland's budget. Of course, that concerns us in progressive parties, and that is why we are using the powers and levers that we have to protect the people of Scotland from this right-wing austerity and ensuring that our front-line services are adequately funded. In relation to pay, I set out pay policy, which I think is fair in recognising the cost of living for public sector workers. I do not set local governments' pay, but I believe that local government is adequately resourced so that they can have a fair settlement. That is now for a matter for local authority to engage on. Just as I look forward to further engagement with James Kelly, I also look forward to further engagement with COSLA. The cabinet secretary said that one of the levers at his disposal was tax, but in looking at the Fraser of Allander institute analysis, although £164 million would be raised through the tax changes when account is taken of business rates relief and other factors, there is only actually £28 million available for investment in other areas of the budget. The reality is that the tax policy is all over the place. How can it be fair that some of those between £43,525 and £58,500 pay less tax, but those between £24,000 and £43,525 pay more? The reality is that the tax policy is not coherent and it is not delivering for social justice, so will the cabinet secretary redraft that tax policy to produce a fair and consistent set of rates, which will deliver a proper settlement for much-needed investment in Scotland's communities? If even the daily records describing me as Robin Hood of Holyrood Disciples, I must be doing something right in their eyes, and that is the view of the daily record in terms of the progressivity of our tax system. However, it is true to say that we are trying to create the conditions for economic growth, so our business rates policies absolutely do that. James Kelly referenced one of the elements as part of that package. Taking an example of non-domestic rates allios by not lifting the relief that the allios were receiving was welcomed by local government. In fact, with memory serves me correctly, it was welcomed by the Labour Party. I think that there is a range of decisions that are set in the right context and circumstances, but overall on tax, we are raising more to ensure that the real-terms reduction that we have received from the right-wing Tory Government is essentially overturned by our decisions, good governance in the tax decisions that we have been able to take. That is progressive. In recalibrating and resetting the overall tax structure, it is fairer, it is more progressive. More than 70 per cent of taxpayers, of course, will pay less. Those earning under £33,000 will pay less, while also raising more for our public services. In the documentation that I have published, it shows that it could be described as an anomaly where last year we froze the threshold for the higher rate. We are proposing to increase the threshold for the higher rate this year in this budget, so the anomaly that is created there is just part of resetting the whole system, but overall it is more progressive and certainly ensures that we have turned real-terms decline into a positive that is resetting this in a way that uses our power to absolutely protect front-line services and also properly reward our public servants. Can the cabinet secretary tell us what alternative balanced tax and spending proposals the Labour Party has brought forward? I agree that it is simply not credible for Labour to assert that austerity can be ended by this Parliament without specifying exactly how. To be fair, the economy has faced some turbulence and the Labour Party has faced some turbulence as well over the recent period. There has been a change in leadership and spokespeople, but the last remaining information that I had was engagement from Alec Rowley. There was a proposition that was costed in our discussion paper on the role of income tax in Scotland and we modelled the position of the Labour Party, which essentially would put a penny on the basic rate. Of course, that is not what the Government has proposed. Actually, our starter rate, if you compare that now to the basic rate of what Labour would have proposed, is a 2p difference in the pound. The Government has taken a methodical approach to that. We engaged with stakeholders. We have set out our progressive plans and it has met the four tests that we have set out about a more progressive system protecting lower income earners and ensuring that we protect public services in supporting the economy as well. It stands out in sharp contrast to the chaotic position of the Labour Party. However, that said, with a shadow cabinet in place, maybe the Labour Party will want to come and see me with constructive proposals going forward as we take the budget through the legislative process of the Scottish Parliament. The Fiscal Commission is forecasting continued slow growth with the resultant £2.1 billion decrease in tax revenue. What is the cabinet secretary's preference to make up the shortfall, cuts to public spending or further tax rises? Bill Bowman is certainly the man to ask there because he has to follow the Tories tax policies that would have to find another £501 million for next year from front-line public services to fund the position of the Tory tax cuts for the richest in society, whether it is big business, property owners or those in income tax. My balanced budget will allow us to invest in the economy, deliver tax in a fair and progressive way and invest in our public services, turning it into real-terms growth. On the Fiscal Commission's forecast, I am sure that Bill Bowman has looked at the full detail of the report and identified issues about productivity, working-age population and levels of employment. The greatest threat on all those indicators is the Tory party, the mismanagement of Brexit, the decisions that you have taken, the on-going austerity, the attacks on those with the least. All of that is what has compounded the problem and presents the greatest risk to our economy in the UK and specifically to Scotland. However, in the face of those cuts to the Scottish budget, in the face of that uncertainty and in the face of the mishandling of the Brexit negotiations, this Scottish Government is investing in our economy and in our people through skills, innovation and business growth, through education and infrastructure, to ensure that Scotland is the best place to live, work and invest. Although the Fiscal Commission's forecasts, some would argue that they are a bit cautious. EY, for example, gave far more positive and higher forecasts in terms of economic growth. We will invest in the economy to ensure that we are in a stronger position. Thank you very much to the cabinet secretary and members. That concludes topical questions.