Jim Gallagher: One force option has too many drawbacks

SNP can push through reform, but its goals need to be clearer and the means acceptable to all

EARLIER this summer, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was confidently talking up the "growing consensus" that Scotland should have only a single police force. When only one in ten of the responses to his consultation agreed, he announced a period of reflection. The Scottish Government will announce its plans later in the year. What should an administration without a "monopoly of wisdom" do now?

The overwhelming weight of consultation responses might be against, but ministers might think the weight of argument is on their side. After all, most responses came from those with an interest in policing, who would say that, wouldn't they? There may be a grain of truth there. All progress has its detractors, and many of those contributing to this debate have interests at stake. But wise ministers - and politically shrewd ones - will reflect more deeply on two things.

First, the obvious political point. Whatever Kenny's got growing, it ain't a consensus. What would the effect be on morale and performance if he chose to push through a change that councillors, the Police Federation and many chief constables so clearly oppose? And what about the new government's aspirations for consensual politics? Is this really the issue on which to demonstrate that SNP ministers are the masters now?

The second point is more serious. Are Kenny's plans properly thought through, or is there real substance in the objections? His plans for cutting forces to cut costs are set out in a slight pre-election consultation paper. More detailed costings are in what ministers call the "sustainable policing" project. (Language is the first casualty in politics. "Sustainable" is the new word for cheaper. "Targeted for delivery at national level" is the Orwellian euphemism for centralisation.)

Policing is expensive, and needs to be cheaper. But a wholesale revision of its constitutional framework needs to be based on more than just a hope that merging forces will cut costs. The government's work is scandalously light on three other critical issues affected by structural change.

The first two are integral to the government's objectives.

Would structural change support a policing style which is responsive at the neighbourhood level, solving problems and preventing crime, not just responding to it? Second, how will it affect the police's ability to work along with other public bodies to achieve the outcomes ministers want for Scotland?

These issues are central to ministers' policy for public service reform, but they feature only fleetingly in the consultation paper. They are substantially absent from the subsequent work. Would a single national force have the right incentives and freedoms to respond very locally, to prioritise neighbourhood concerns, and to keep investing decreasing resources in preventive work with a long payback period? Reasonable question. The paper simply asserts that this critical policing task will be unaffected by radical change to police leadership and management.

Successive Scottish administrations have increasingly emphasised that public agencies must work together on intractable problems. A hallmark of SNP government is to take this further, empowering local councils and others to work together towards shared outcomes. The police have been very active players in this arena, working with others to address causes and not just symptoms. So one might have expected an analysis from government of how "nationalising" the police service might affect these relationships. Does size matter here? Would a single force work as well with 32 councils as eight do?

The largest force at present relates to 12 councils. Is its capacity for partnership-working different from others? Can partnerships work if 12 becomes 32? Reasonable questions to ask. The consultation paper simply asserts that relationships operating at divisional level would be unaffected by change. The Christie Commission on Public Service Reform went over this ground again. It argues that when money is tight, more rather than less emphasis should be given to prevention and joint working. There is scope to criticise its work, but not its conclusion, which implies politely that the police reorganisation plans ignore these criteria.

There is a third, yawning gap in the Scottish government's work: the governance and accountability of the police. The assumption is that, once structure is settled, accountability can be bolted on. This is rather like souping up a car, and planning to add some sort of steering and brakes later.

Governance is important for all public services, but it matters especially for the police because of the powers they have, and the discretion they exercise. Police forces take some very sensitive decisions - not just whom to arrest or what crimes to pursue, but how to police everything from football crowds to political protests. The absolutely critical thing is that these decisions continue to secure the consent of the public.

The presenting reason for the Scottish Government's proposals is cost reduction.

But it's not at all obvious that structural change is essential to achieve that, indeed the government's figures show that having a single force of itself delivers only a very small part of the savings the government foresees. Nor will reorganisation deliver savings in the next few years when they are most needed. Indeed, history shows that it is sure to cost something, and usually saves less than its bright-eyed enthusiasts predict.

The underlying reason, however, is the lack of progress on cutting costs through common services. It shows present police governance does not work well, at least from ministers' perspective. And they have a point. The performance of police boards in overseeing forces is mixed, though the evidence does show it is getting better.

Chief constables have been very slow to adopt common practices to improve efficiency, and the new shared services body got off to a very shaky start. So maybe it's not surprising that ministers and their frustrated advisers want to cut the Gordian knot and nationalise the lot of them.It is easy to sympathise with the frustration, but it's not a sensible basis for policy. Instead, a well-functioning governance for policing should be designed, that all can buy into. It should ensure policing that is responsive to solving neighbourhood and community problems, and give local partnerships the best chance of working. Police governance should give real power and influence to local councillors, but also real and better defined powers to ministers. It's got to make it easier to cut costs, but it must not be blind to the risks of centralised power over policing: a monoculture that could stifle innovation, and a single unchallenged authority.

Most of all perhaps, the governance has to save ministers from themselves. Under the pressure of the accountability they feel, they can be drawn into operational policing in a way that undermines its proper independence, and so, in the long-run, public consent. Ministers excitably directing lorryloads of grit to one street or another during bad weather may just look a bit silly, though even that led to one ministerial resignation; ministers feeling the need to direct investigations or public order operations is dangerous for them and the rest of us. It's not at all easy to see how that can be avoided in a single national force.

There's a famous Whitehall syllogism: something must be done… this is something… so this must be done. In this debate it rather feels as if a single police force is "something". You've spotted the conclusion doesn't follow. So might ministers.

• Professor Jim Gallagher is a former head of the Scottish Justice Department.