IT is five years since the creation of a single police force in Scotland. Back in 2013 voters were promised enhanced policing alongside greater accountability, transparency and governance. But communities were quickly forgotten as the Government's parliamentary majority pushed aside suggestions for improvements to their proposals. A vital Reform Business Case was abandoned alongside the rejection of an audit of local services. Even attempts to create a Parliamentary committee to oversee this new environment were delayed. In best 'Yes Minister' fashion officials, directed by Ministers, created a centralised police service by the back stairs.
Steve House, then chief constable, and his nemesis Vic Emery, former SPA Convenor, played their part in this tragedy with aplomb providing wholesale redundancies for police staff, control room closures and the slashing of regional resources without reference to a published Business Plan. The results delivered controversies and a collapse of morale. The public became aware of problems as officers and staff at the coalface felt ignored. The closure of police offices alongside the creation of the much maligned 101 telephone access for non-emergencies merely served to distance police from their communities. Indeed Dave Watson of Unison along with others tried to raise these issues but he was largely ignored as the Police Federation and Superintendent's Association looked the other way.
Policing turned political when the M9 tragedy - when a couple died after being left for three days in a crashed car - became public knowledge and when Cath Murray, a researcher at Edinburgh University, documented the extent of 'stop and search' affecting Scottish communities. But House's decision to 'change' police firearms policy put the tin hat on things when it became evident he had secretely briefed Government outwith SPA or Parliament's knowledge of his changes. As a brouhaha erupted the authorities closed ranks, denied facts and hid behind their 'heartfelt' defence of brave and hard working police officers. The problems however were largely attached to the chiefs at the head of the various bodies and not those further down the chain of command.
In all this, the inspector of constabulary, the Auditor General, and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner were available to assess what was going on but these bodies operated belatedly as part of a scathing review exercise. The Scottish Police Authority should have been on the case.
The ignominious departures of Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Minister, alongside Emery, House, and others, allowed for the abandonment of the many assertions of misconduct, mismanagement and incompetence - still yet unanswered. Instead 'a big boy did it and ran away' became the strategic response to demands for answers as the irrefutable evidence of failures amassed.
Frontline staff were left opened mouthed. Allegations of financial irregularities affecting senior leaderships arose in addition to the unprecedented mauling of the force by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner in relation to illegal surveillance. After investigating, the chief constable of Durham's use of the terms 'reckless body' and 'failure in leadership' to describe elements of Police Scotland to the Parliament's Justice Committee only made things worse.
But SPA board members said little. Moi Ali had already resigned her position on the board complaining of bullying and secrecy whilst anonymous members interviewed by Dr Ali Malik in December 2017 commented that 'central government throughout the entire process has been too heavily involved'. Another said 'government's view has been, through the civil service, quite forcibly put to us'. The relationship between the police and government should be one of arms' length to say the least. Yet government still moved civil servants to significant posts at the SPA.
The promise of efficiency savings of £1.1 billion by 2026 is yet to be delivered though there is now an £45m annual budget gap. Equally policing reforms (and the savings) largely based on the delivery of a new IT system have been stymied despite promises of an imminent system launch repeatedly offered to Parliamentary committees ... before the project was eventually abandoned.
At the launch of Police Scotland, I reminded a deputy chief constable that the immediate success of policing across our communities relied on constables, sergeants, inspectors and staff working 24/7 and answering their calls. Success for their leadership, however, would only be delivered if in five years time policing had been reformed and communities felt safe going forward.
Today unfortunately we have a restructured service badly bruised by the people who failed to face up to the demands that comes with diligent reform. The calls however to abandon Police Scotland and revert to multiple forces are a mistake. Its not the structure that has failed these past years, its the quality of the leadership which so far has failed to introduce genuine reforms to match the needs of our public and the communities that seek security and safety. Policing by consent is vital to the culture of policing. It affects the way in which police officers deliver their duties. The public can only give consent when they have information provided to them regarding the issues and the options. A effective police authority seeks out that evidence on our behalf.
Great hope is invested in the new SPA convenor Susan Deacon and the latest Board additions. In their selection of a new chief constable we must begin to see an Authority fit for the purpose of keeping policing out of politics. Academic research has confirmed the outstanding issues. In my view it is time for a full committee of the Scottish Parliament to oversee relationships across all the emergency services to ensure delivery is in tune with local needs but fit for national demands. On these hopes depend a happy anniversary tenth anniversary in five years time.
Graeme Pearson is the former Director General of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. As a Labour MSP, he was Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Labour frontbench team by Johann Lamont in June 2013.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel