Policing White Paper: Structural reform is welcome - but safeguards needed to prevent politicisation

On the 26^th of January, the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, unveiled plans for what she calls “the most significant” changes to policing in 200 years.

With Lord Hogan-Howe, the former MET commissioner, appointed to determine the shape of new police force boundaries, the proposals are moving from blueprint to reality, making scrutiny of its foundations more urgent than ever.

The white paper recommends numerous proposals, most significant of all the creation of a National Police Service (“the NPS”). Policing does need reform: public trust has collapsed, fragmented systems mean standards vary significantly and work that could be done nationally is often needlessly duplicated. However, whilst JUSTICE welcomes some proposals, many lack sufficient detail to assess their likely impact.

In delivering its ambitious agenda, JUSTICE urges the Home Office to balance the need for robust national standards with empowerment of local actors to deliver programmes responsive to community needs, and the need to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability.

A closer look at some key proposals:

Community policing needs infrastructure not rhetoric

To build a police force “more rooted in local communities”, the Government plans to introduce 13,000 more neighbourhood officers. The review has also recommended numerous proposals underpinned by the Prime Minister’s “Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee”. However, for community policing objectives to succeed, they must be backed by appropriate infrastructure. A focus on local policing should also inspire the implementation of good local policing practices at a national level.²

Research indicates that effective diversionary schemes are often the best way to prevent low-level criminal behaviour in the community.³ Although the white paper details how neighbourhood officers will take on a more active presence in communities, the only diversionary schemes it mentions are ‘Respect Orders’ (a creation of the Crime and Policing Bill). JUSTICE has previously shown that without proper safeguards, these, and other similar kinds of civil orders risk criminalising non-harmful behaviours (e.g. feeding birds). Moreover, these orders can lead to further marginalisation of those that have significant mental ill-health, are economically vulnerable, or neurodivergent. Without significant investment, and collaboration between police and experts, making these civil orders the sole plan for diversion will not work.

JUSTICE welcomes an increased emphasis on Right Care, Right Person. Police are often called to situations where they may not be suited, and Right Care, Right Person attempts to ensure that the most appropriate agencies attend calls which are concerned with mental health. However, broader changes are needed in how civil courts and police deal with mentally vulnerable individuals to ensure they connect people to support. This requires proper investment and a coordinated, joined-up approach.

Governance and accountability at the national level

The white paper proposes a reduction to the current patchwork of 43 police forces, and the establishment of Local Policing Areas (“LPAs”) at borough and town level within larger merged forces. LPAs would be overseen by a “more active” Home Office that would set clear strategic directions from the centre, monitor police force performance and work in partnership with police organisations to drive improvements as needed.

Whilst the government is justified in prioritising efficiency, restructuring is not a silver bullet. The Government points to Police Scotland’s £2 billion saved as evidence that mergers work. However, they overlook how the restructuring introduced significant governance failures and accountability concerns that required major reforms, underscoring the importance of governance structures that embed accountability from the outset.

The paper also recommends sweeping new powers for the Home Secretary, amongst other things, to dismiss chief constables on performance grounds, alter police force boundaries, and appoint national police commissioners to oversee the NPS. These and other powers need robust safeguards. Former Greater Manchester chief constable Peter Fahy worries that:

“if a future government makes the head a political appointment and directs it to focus on illegal immigrants or a particular racial group... we could end up with a Minnesota situation where local politicians and the local chief are against the deployment and see other priorities.... The crucial importance here will be the operational independence, the oversight and independence.”

The Government plans to update the Policing Protocol to protect “operational independence”, yet the Protocol is secondary legislation which police officers need only “have regard to”. It can also be unilaterally revised by the Home Secretary.

Elsewhere, JUSTICE argues the Government should be mindful in their introduction of national performance targets. Although the intention to embed accountability and evidence-based interventions is sound, rigid targets risk the creation of perverse incentives. For example, following the Manchester Chief Constable’s strategic priority to increase arrests, numbers rose by 52%. However, charges rose only 30%, suggesting officers felt pressured to complete arrests for the sake of meeting quotas.

Individual Police Accountability

The white paper announces several positive proposals to reform  police accountability culture. JUSTICE welcomes recognition that failures to address misconduct creates legitimacy concerns that ultimately impact police productivity and their ability to positively impact communities.

However, these commitments sit alongside contradictory measures elsewhere. The Crime and Policing Bill proposes granting anonymity to firearms officers charged with offences, whilst the Government intends to raise the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s prosecution referral thresholds in use of force scenarios, creating unnecessary barriers to accountability where prosecutions are already rare.

JUSTICE stresses that the promised “root and branch review” of misconduct thresholds and any reforms thereafter must centre concerns from affected victims, communities, and families to ensure transparency and prioritise public accountability, not merely cost-cutting.

JUSTICE also has concerns about police scrutiny work being transferred from Police and Crime Commissioners to resource-constrained local authorities without additional funding. Without dedicated Home Office funding for a mandatory national scrutiny framework, mergers risk undermining burgeoning community scrutiny initiatives.

Technology: promises and pitfalls

JUSTICE’s recent report on AI in Policing recommended establishing standards, securing effective oversight, and enabling public participation through an independent central body. The proposal for Police.AI is therefore welcome. However, it must go beyond a public register of AI tools, and facilitate genuine transparency through governance standards, public evaluations, impact assessments, and ongoing public participation. Crucially, it must be independent to ensure legitimacy and public trust in holding police accountable.

What next?

Before legislation is drafted, the Government must answer a multitude of critical questions. The success of this reform agenda will be judged not by structural reorganisation alone, but by whether it delivers policing that is more effective, more accountable, and better trusted by communities.

JUSTICE stands ready to engage constructively with the Home Office and policing partners to ensure these reforms uphold the fundamental principle of policing by consent and deliver positive changes for the public.