Michael Kelly: Single Scottish force is right course for police

THE rooting out of the corrupt Metropolitan Police commander, Ali Dizaei is a welcome, if singular, sign of the willingness of the police to pursue its own miscreants.

It contrasts with failures to quickly identify and punish those in a series of other incidents over the years.

Ranging from the shooting of a man carrying nothing more offensive than a wrapped-up table leg to the gunning down of an innocent Brazilian electrician, such incidents suggest we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to the question, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will keep an eye on those who guard us?).

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It is a question older than Rome itself, but, given last month's report by the Accounts Commission and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland into Tayside Police, it has not yet been answered north of Hadrian's Wall. The report reached the disturbing conclusion that Scottish police boards may be failing to hold chief constables to account. It found members of Tayside Joint Police Board lacked a proper understanding of their role. The Accounts Commission also said that the problem might not be unique to the region and that police chiefs, local government and ministers might need to put corrective measures in place.

The question was brought into even sharper focus last week when a report from the chief constable went before the board of the Strathclyde Police Authority for information but not a decision. The board was invited to note that Chief Constable Stephen House was initiating a pilot study of Taser stun-guns. Though members made known their distaste at the use of such weapons, they had no power to vote against their introduction. It was said to be an operational matter, entirely for the police to decide.

Well, not entirely, because "operational matters" introduces a grey area. What boards can and cannot influence appears to depend on who – the police or board members – can win the tug-of-war for power. With a powerful, competent chair backed up by able board members sitting opposite a co-operative police chief, political influence can be significant. The Strathclyde board would point to the general introduction of community policing as a battle they had won. It result in, for example, 134 police teams patrolling with high visibility on foot, rather than driving around in comfortable vehicles.

However, the report into Tayside suggests this is the exception. For a start, boards are not well enough resourced to carry out their function.

Yet modern democratic societies need to be exercising more, not less, political control over the police. The retention of DNA databases, the prevalence of security cameras and other electronic surveillance allow the police to collect more and more information about ordinary citizens, which could be misused.

The balance of power should always be tilted towards the elected members. Thus the use of guns, Tasers and CS gas should be subject to political veto. Politicians, not the police, should decide which areas of crime are to be prioritised. "Operational matters" should be defined very narrowly as day-to-day running, with strategy and policy being directed by the politicians.

Let there be no complaint that this will politicise the police. They, like most powerful organisations, are pretty good at devising and following their own political agendas.

During the 1980s miners strike, they took to stopping pickets in Kent in anticipation that they might commit crimes hundreds of miles away in Yorkshire. Such prescience! And the cover-up after the death of Jean Charles de Menezes – he was wearing bulky clothing; he jumped over barriers – was getting their retaliation in first.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Especially in today's climate, a plea to give more power to discredited politicians may well be met with howls of protest. But when we feel badly let down by our elected representatives, we must guard against the sentiment that it would be better to leave things to a philosopher-king, leviathan or benevolent dictator.

Bumbling politicians with their hands in the expenses till are far preferable to any tyrant committed to "cleaning things up".

The police are there to guard our civil liberties. We must be able to monitor how they do that.

There is no lack of bodies purporting to supervise the police. We now have a National Police Board under justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, a police board under the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the eight local police boards, a forum of the chairs of all these boards and the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland. Plus the two organisations that looked into Tayside.

In addition, somewhere out on the wing there is the Scottish Police Services Authority (incorporating the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, which has not recovered in leadership or authority since the acrimonious departure of its chief executive in 2008). It is an organisational nightmare. Honest individuals – and it is generally accepted that in Scotland we have very honest police – with goodwill can muddle through such chaos. But when things go wrong, effective control in the absence of proper structures is impossible.

It is time for root-and-branch reform. A single Scottish police force would have about 17,000 officers, compared with the Met's 33,000. There would be enormous economies of scale, welcome in these times of austerity – getting rid of seven chief constables for a start – and greater efficiency.

Political control would be straightforward. The force would be supervised by a properly resourced national board of elected politicians – half MSPs and half councillors – chaired by the justice secretary and producing its own public report. It would have statutory powers to dictate strategy and policy. Below that, the relevant chief superintendent would report to a local board to ensure community needs were not neglected.

There will be objections that this centralisation of power will lead to less, not more control. However, we should not be embarrassed if we cannot devise the complete answer as to how we supervise those who supervise us. Not even Plato managed that. He thought the police could police themselves.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

There is only one way to protect the wee man from the tentacles of the state. That is by adopting for ourselves that other Latin phrase, the motto of our police forces – semper vigilo. That is, never take your eye off the ball.

Related topics: