POLICE chiefs are facing fresh allegations of hiding information from the public after it emerged that armed officers have responded to hundreds of routine incidents since a pledge that the practice would end.
After being put under pressure by MSPs, senior Police Scotland figures admitted that armed officers have been involved in more than 1,500 everyday incidents including pub brawls and drink-driving offences since October, when chief constable Sir Stephen House said they would only be deployed in firearms cases or where there was a threat to life.
The revelation has led to new claims of a culture of secrecy within Police Scotland following controversy over its policy regarding stop and search, while the Scottish Police Authority (SPA), which has a remit of holding the national force to account, was described as "not on the ball".
The force was also criticised at Holyrood yesterday at First Minister's Questions for refusing to publish responses to a consultation regarding a proposed merger of two divisions in the West of Scotland.
Appearing before Holyrood's justice sub-committee on policing, Assistant Chief Constable Bernie Higgins said that in five cases since October, armed response vehicles had been dispatched by control rooms to non-firearms incidents.
Police armed with handguns and tasers had pro-actively taken action on a further 1,644 occasions in the period, ACC Higgins confirmed, arguing they were free to exercise "professional judgement" if they came across incidents such as break-ins or encountered drunk drivers.
Liberal Democrat justice spokeswoman Alison McInness, whose questioning led to officers making the admission, said it was another example of Parliament "not being given the full facts".
She added: "We've been given assurances this is not happening, now we find it is. Once again the whole truth had to be coaxed out of senior officers.
"Despite the fact this has been one of its most controversial policies, Police Scotland has again chosen not to be wholly upfront with either Parliament or the SPA to which they are accountable. Senior officers seem to operate on a need-to-know basis which is limited to their own ranks.
"It is surprising the SPA didn't see fit to monitor the attendance of armed officers to routine incidents and the police didn't see fit to tell them."
Five months ago, following growing public alarm over a policy that allowed armed police officers to attend routine incidents, Sir Stephen directed that: "Armed response vehicles will now only be deployed to firearms incidents or where there is a threat to life."
The apparent u-turn came after Police Scotland's policy on the deployment of permanently armed officers was thrust under the spotlight last year when independent MSP and former police officer John Finnie became aware that some policemen and women were carrying weapons in side holsters, rather than in locked boxes in their vans.
Police chiefs admitted yesterday that they should have been more upfront about the change.
A review of the policy regarding armed officers is currently being undertaken and is close to being finalised.
ACC Higgins said that Police Scotland had been consistent in its position, arguing that the force had maintained that firearms officers would remain free to exercise professional judgement over "anything they might come across".
He added that in the first year Police Scotland was in operation, there had been 30,000 incidents of armed officers interacting with members of the public, which he said showed there had been a "huge reduction" since the revised policy was introduced.
However, Scottish Conservative justice spokeswoman Margaret Mitchell said: "Clearly this information was not forthcoming from the Chief Constable, HMICS or the SPA. This will further serve to undermine confidence in Police Scotland and the Chief Constable."
Committee convenor Christine Grahame also attacked the force and the SPA, saying Police Scotland policies that caused public alarm had instead been exposed by the press or politicians.
"What we are looking for is a much more robust SPA and a communicative Police Scotland," she said. "We wait for that to be delivered."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article