Change to police service must offer clear benefit
SIR – Scottish policing is widely acclaimed as a modern, successful, highly effective and integrated service whose high levels of performance are recognised and valued by its partners and the public of Scotland.
This quality of service and high performance has not been achieved by standing still but by relentlessly pursuing improvement and embracing change over the years. Not change for change sake but change where greater public value can be achieved.
As three chief constables with significant experience of policing in Scotland, we are conscious of the current debate and ongoing consultation relating to the reform of the Scottish police service.
Until now we have remained silent in this debate but we now believe, in fairness to our own officers and staff and to the communities we police, that it is time for us to make our professional position clear.
This then is our honest appraisal of what we believe is best for the Scottish police service, for our ongoing partnership working across the sectors and for the positive outcomes our communities rightly expect from their police forces.

Change: The financial crisis has caused us to review our approach to the delivery of policing but, unfortunately, this review has very quickly been overtaken by a structures debate where almost all of the effort and political rhetoric appear to be focused on a single police force for Scotland with little quality research or value being attached to a robust evidential approach.
The safety of our communities is too important to be determined by such an approach where little cognisance seems to be being taken of current performance and the complexity, costs or timescales of change proposed or the significant reduction in police officers and staff associated with the change.
Indeed CoSLA, SOLACE and the Improvement Service set out principles of reform including an evidence-based approach that we all support but which is absent in the current process.
Change must offer clear benefit to the public and improve or at least maintain our current high standards of service. There is a distinct lack of hard evidence that a move to a single force would deliver greater fiscal efficiency, better governance or service improvements.
All the evidence, historically and by academic research, proves that almost all major public sector reform since 1980 has failed, has cost more and created a loss of strategic focus, performance and morale.
Localism: Public satisfaction in the Scottish police service is at an all-time high because the public recognise that the strengths of the Scottish police service are founded on local governance, accountability and responsiveness that meet their community’s needs.
Whilst acknowledging that some police work is nationally and even internationally focused, the bulk of our everyday role is local in nature. An “ownership and strategic understanding” of the areas and communities we police is a vital component in the success of our current structure.
British policing has always seen this relationship with the public as something that sets itself apart from some of the national enforcement agencies in other countries. As well as nurturing a close connection with our communities, and tailoring a service to meet their diverse needs, policing is intrinsically linked with the service delivery of other agencies.
Enhancing community wellbeing requires a shared local understanding of the needs of each area and how local agencies can collaborate to achieve these within the distinct geography of Scotland. Such co-ordinated activity relies on natural partnerships and positive relationships at local levels, and the evolving, outcome-focused structure of community planning partnerships has potential to deliver much more as it matures and is developed.
To restructure the police service alone given the cost, upheaval and uncertainty of any real benefit would be a step too far. Effective partnership arrangements are in place, with significant potential for continuing development, and the justification for interfering with them just does not exist.
For this reason we believe that any reform should be holistic and linked to the wider public sector work currently being developed under the Christie Commission.
Accountability: Each of our eight chief constables is held to account for the policing delivered in their areas by elected representatives of those communities they serve. These representatives are also instrumental in determining local policing priorities, policing style and in monitoring the local force’s performance.
It is appropriate that the same representatives of the communities being policed have the responsibility to set an element of police funding locally and that they allocate the level of this police funding, taking into account other priorities. This local funding element supports accountability and is a mechanism tried and tested over many years.
The relatively recently established Scottish Policing Board offers much potential to have oversight and direction in relation to national issues, and ultimately its role could be developed to embrace opportunities for particular collaborative approaches to be mandated.
Savings and costs: Any significant changes to our current policing structures will be expensive and, even in the longer term, would come with no guarantee of delivering savings. The savings as projected to date are largely speculative and untested, and it is clear to all that savings can only be achieved by way of a significant reduction in police officers and staff.
The suggested overall savings and costs are unrealistically optimistic and take no account of key aspects of cost and complexity of change related to areas such as information technology. One thing that is clear to us is that maintenance of the front line at current strengths will be impossible in a changed structure if budgets continue to be reduced on the scale proposed.
Political interference: However, a very real cost of moving to a single force would be in terms of distancing locally elected representatives and communities, jeopardising well-established partnership arrangements and raising concerns that the police service is a “tool of government”.
These are particularly heavy costs to pay where the benefits are not clearly evident – policing in Scotland is fully receptive to changes, however, there has to be a compelling case and this has not been made in the current debate.
Status quo plus: The current structure is tried and tested and has improving partnership arrangements in place. Substantial savings have been made by forces over the past 18 months and more will be delivered over the next two years which will significantly reduce the scope of savings that can be claimed by any significant structural change.
Yes, there are elements which require to be improved and collaboration needs to be pursued with a new aggression, but this can be achieved by pursuing the current eight-force model. It is not about the status quo it is about significant enhancement of that model whilst minimising the negative aspects associated with change.
Conclusion: How much better to concentrate on these strengths and opportunities and focus on the needs of the public rather than be distracted by structures and boundaries and put at risk the quality delivery of an extremely important public service.
We believe that our officers and staff and the Scottish public want us to continue to provide high-quality, preventative, community focused policing that meets the needs of our communities.
We do too and our professional experience tells us this will not be achieved by unnecessary and costly change.
Chief Constable C. McKerracher,
Grampian Police.
Chief Constable P. Shearer,
Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary.
Chief Constable G. Graham,
Northern Constabulary.