COSLA Police Summit

23 August 2011

Is there a case for change ?

• There’s a real shortage of money– Already down over 4% this year, more to

come

• Not at all obvious that the last vestiges of the regions are how you would design the police today

Two questions

• Are the costs - cash and non-cash - of (any) change a good investment?

• On what basis do you design a new structure?

Not much sign that anyone has thought properly about either of these

What’s driven the demand for change ?

• Not performance, clearly• Cost: yes,

– though very mixed signals being sent via obsession with officer numbers

– Weak connection between structure and cost reduction

• Frustration• Desire for control?

– Holyrood feels accountable for everything

Not the best climate for a dispassionate analysis of costs and benefits

Case for one force

• A case can be made– Essentially economies of scale

• But supporting material disappointingly thin– Lots of assumptions, no analysis– Looks like “policy based evidence”

• Complete absence of any proper consideration of governance

Governing the police

• Not the same as other public services• Part of Justice system

– Officers of the law– Accountable to courts, fiscals etc

• Particular UK tradition– Self consciously different from mainland Europe

This consideration wholly absent from work

House of Lords Constitution Committee

“The operational independence of the police is rightly regarded as a constitutional imperative in the United Kingdom...it is essential to ensure that any reform to the governance of the police does not jeopardise this principle…”

Implications

• Distributed power over police– Not controlled by government

• Has been that rather shaky three-legged stool

• Not obvious that can be safeguarded with only one force– History of Met not wholly reassuring

A second gap

• Good policing works via partnerships– Essential part of outcome driven approach– Preventive aspect emphasised by Christie

• No thought given to how change will affect partnership working

Better case can be made for three

• Distributes power: meets critical governance point

• Less disruptive to partnerships• Offers most of purported efficiency

gains: less of transition costs• Needs to give Ministers real powers as

well– Reflecting reality of accountability