Shabana Mahmood wants to shake up the police, but there could be a fight ahead

The Home Secretary says there is a “daily crime epidemic” such as shoplifting and phone theft.

It reminds Shabana Mahmood of the years she worked at the cash register of her parents’ corner store, a cricket bat at the ready to deter thieves who would steal repeatedly under the counter.

While crimes in general have decreased in recent years, such crimes are also increasing, accompanied by increasing public concern.

“Will my phone be stolen? Will I be robbed? And if I do that, will the police respond to my call?”

These are what a former Home Secretary described as the “most fundamental” questions from voters who expect governments to keep them safe.

Faith in the police was also eroded by scandals and mistakes; whether these are the appalling crimes committed by a small number of serving police officers, or the astonishing outrages committed by the West Midlands Force and The chief initially refused to resign..

Whichever way you look at it, there is widespread political consensus that the way the police are organized doesn’t really work.

But there is no such easy consensus on a solution.

The Home Secretary is on the scene with a plan he describes as the biggest change since the police was established two centuries ago. Politicians can rarely be accused of underreporting. And Mahmood was rarely accused of wandering around.

His full proposals will be revealed on Monday, but we already know he wants to dramatically reduce the number of police forces in England and Wales from 43 to just a dozen, though he won’t specify a number.

Sources BBC police officers Must have professional licensesLike doctors or lawyers, they will be expected to renew every few years. The government wants ministers to have the power to sack Chief Constables they deem inadequate and send crack teams into failing forces.

The “biggest change”, one insider told me, was the creation of a major national force, expected to be formed by merging the National Crime Agency (NCA) with Counter Terrorism and other elements of the national policing force, currently run by the Met.

The Home Office will not confirm full details of what this organization might look like. But this isn’t the first time politicians have tended to think bigger is better.

In 2006, Labor established the Serious and Organized Crime Agency (SOCA), which has been called “Britain’s FBI”. Frankly, when it failed to meet expectations, the Coalition government replaced it with the NCA. Believe it or not, it was called “Britain’s FBI” again.

But now, according to various sources, this is also likely to be combined with other organizations to become a giant responsible for handling this work.

From where? A former interior minister puts forward a simple logic. “Most forces do not have the capacity to deal with serious and organized crime, whether it is smuggling or financial crime.”

They argue that they are mostly driven by international networks. So whether it’s consolidating forces at the local level or creating a single national megapower, they argue, the point is to respond to how crime is changing.

“The police need to be both bigger and smaller, these days it is the big international organizations that are orchestrating crimes that affect small communities,” the former interior minister said. he said.

They and other insiders acknowledge the changes are in part to also address the cash issue.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs has a huge budget, but compared to other government departments it has not had generous settlements in recent years. To remember Yvette Cooper expects more In last-ditch meetings with Rachel Reeves last year?

“The elephant in the room is money,” says one senior figure.

The Home Office thinks it is right to get rid of some “ridiculous” anomalies caused by 43 separate powers (the obligation to buy trousers and helmets or BT devices separately) rather than coming together to secure a better and cheaper deal for taxpayers.

Another insider says the changes make sense because “the environment is complex” and there are so many different national-level initiatives trying to tackle different types of problems. It’s better to have a large organization working with more organized local forces – so maybe.

Labor tried to achieve this the last time they were in power and clearly failed. This was the police inspectorate’s idea, not the government’s; However, the Home Secretary of the period, Charles Clarke, wanted to throw aside more than 20 forces for reasons that are very familiar today, and he hit a wall of resistance like a slap.

There were objections from some forces and opposition politicians, and eventually the plans fell through.

Conservatives will make the same argument this time, questioning what evidence there is currently to show that reducing force makes any difference to reducing crime, or whether it is good to use force at all.

They accuse the top power, the Met, of having the lowest crime-solving rates, and there has been scandal after scandal.

Hundreds of millions of pounds were also saved in Scotland – where eight powers were merged into one by the SNP years ago – but this too had a number of high-profile problems. Don’t be surprised if there is a very loud opposition debate about the risk of major powers losing ties with local communities. And police chiefs becoming accountable directly to the home secretary and Parliament, rather than scrapped local police and crime commissioners, could lead to accusations of power usurpation.

Policing in this country is, in principle, functionally independent of ministers. If the powers are greater and more directly judged and controlled by the home secretary, is this principle relaxed?

So will the plans really come true? Even though the government has a mega-majority, given the number of swings and the increasingly long list of canceled plans, it’s a valid question to ask when major changes emerge.

Scrapping several dozen forces was “very, very hurtful last time” for Labor, one insider says.

There is a very important difference this time.

Senior police officers, including Sir Mark Rowley, people who advocated for these changes in our program months agolargely on board. Rank and file can have a very different appearance.

The Police Federation questions what the restructure will do for the morale of overworked officers and whether the proposed changes will make a difference, telling us: “The case for change is clear, but police leaders’ track record on major change is dismal. Less force does not guarantee more or better policing for communities.”

As for licenses, the federation is particularly aggrieved that doctors and lawyers “have industrial rights that police officers do not have, and at the same time they receive much higher wages.”

“Ministers used the analogy of making police officers fit for ‘matches’. Policing is broken and officers are on their knees, not fit for matches,” he said.

“The service is the most inexperienced it has ever been, with resignations, attacks on officers and absenteeism due to mental health illnesses at record levels.”

It will also likely take years for the plans to come into effect. Mergers will begin with consultation, a government classic, with the hope of reaching broad consensus rather than conflict. Maybe wisely.

But that means potential changes are still years away and it’s a long journey in Parliament, where there could be major fights that could get ugly. And the Home Secretary has the challenge of making the argument that these major changes will make a real difference to people’s lives.

No one wrote “POLICE REFORM NOW” on a sign.

Even a source backing the plans is skeptical. “The political reward is zero, the political risk is high… Will the next home secretary think in a few years: ‘Is this all a bit strange?'”

But other observers think this is exactly the kind of big move a government with a massive majority should make; A significant structural change that may not win punter-friendly acclaim but will update and modernize an outdated public service.

Mahmood’s fans think he can’t and won’t waste time. The Home Secretary may not have a cricket bat under his bench these days, but he looks ready for a fight.

Top image credit: PA/Getty

BBC In Depth It’s the home of the best analysis on website and app, with new perspectives that challenge assumptions and in-depth reporting on the biggest issues of the day. Emma Barnett and John Simpson present their selection of the most thought-provoking deep reads and analysis every Saturday. Sign up for the newsletter here