London Daily

Focus on the big picture.
Friday, Aug 01, 2025

Priti Patel accused of ‘power grab’ over new policing proposals

Priti Patel accused of ‘power grab’ over new policing proposals

Exclusive: chief constables and commissioners criticise plans to make it easier for home secretary to intervene

Police leaders have accused Priti Patel of a “power grab” that would allow the home secretary to intervene in local law enforcement matters and silence chiefs who want to speak out on issues deemed politically sensitive.

An extraordinary row has broken out behind the scenes, with police bosses accusing Patel of trying to obtain new powers without parliamentary approval.

The vehement backlash from chief constables and police and crime commissioners (PCCs) comes after an attempt by the government to redraft a written protocol that tries to define where the responsibility lies in policing.

Parts of the plan have been labelled “profoundly dangerous” anda “power grab threatening operational independence” by one chief constable. Police and crime commissioners, in a private response, described some of the government proposals as “ultra vires”, meaning going beyond the home secretary’s legal authority.

The government handed powers over local policing to PCCs as part of its localism agenda a decade ago. But one government proposal makes it easier for the home secretary to intervene in such matters, while another increases the pressure on chiefs and PCCs to answer to the home secretary.

A Home Office source with close knowledge of Patel’s thinking rejected the criticism. They said: “It is not a power grab, it is not a threat to operational independence, but making clear whose job and whose responsibility things are in the policing world. Should it not be the home secretary’s role to ask questions?”

The row at the top of the criminal justice system in England and Wales centres on the Home Office’s attempt to revise the policing protocol, which was first produced in 2011 and came into force in January 2012.

The Home Office draft of its new version, seen by the Guardian, was sent to chief constables and PCCs for their views, with consultation closing on 2 May. It sets out how the government, chief constables and police and crime commissioners should work together.

It is widely agreed that, after a decade, updating the original version is a good idea. But the new draft protocol gives the home secretary the right to demand answers from chief constables, which PCCs believe impinges on their role.

One chief constable said the protocol “expanded” the home secretary’s role beyond what is written in law.

Another said: “It was your party that gave these powers away, if they don’t like it, take it back with legislation through parliament. A lot of chiefs believe the way it is written now is ultra vires. They are angry.”

Since Patel became home secretary, her department has wanted more involvement in policing under a policy called “lean in”. The chief constable said: “They use the term leaning in. For the first time, the chiefs are leaning out.”

A Home Office source said the changes made sense and expressed bafflement at the opposition. “We are going to write down more clearly whose job is what, who can ask for information and who can do various things,” they said.

The 2012 version of the protocol made clear that the introduction of PCCs had “allowed for the Home Office to withdraw from day-to-day policing matters”.

The new version, police leaders say, tries to claw back power without parliamentary approval, with Patel and her officials wanting to expand her “legitimate role in holding PCCs and CCs [chief constables] to account”, and thus make it easier to take police leaders to task.

The proposed protocol says: “We propose to lower the threshold for home secretary intervention in appropriate circumstances. This would equip the home secretary to intervene earlier as required, thus reducing the risk of failing to deliver effective policing.”

Government proposals would also increase pressure on police leaders to provide the home secretary with information that she asks for, which they are not obliged to do. The document says: “In order to ensure that the home secretary is equipped with the information required to respond to the public and parliament, PCCs and CCs should expect the home secretary to ask chief constables for information about policing matters.”

In their private response, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said: “There is no formal statutory power for the home secretary to require the police and crime commissioner to give information … As such, any attempt to create a legal responsibility for police and crime commissioners to provide information to the home secretary through the protocol would be ultra vires.”

Also in the proposed protocol is a demand that chief constables act “in a politically neutral manner”, which has been added to the previous stricture that they must be impartial.

This is opposed by chief constables. One chief said they would be “fettered” and unable to comment on public policy that they believe may affect crime fighting – such as the effects of austerity. Another chief said it was so imprecise that they could not publicly speak out on issues of political dispute – such as tougher sentences or opposing the decriminalisation of cannabis, which is supported by some frontline politicians.

The elected police and crime commissioners said such a “recentralisation” cannot be done through “amendments to the protocol”. Instead, they said: “Creation of new powers of strategic oversight can only be achieved through primary legislation and must be subject to the full scrutiny that is required of primary legislation.”

In another section, they say, the “proposed change seeks to alter the constitutional relationship between the police, the people, and central government, which is one of the great strengths of British policing”.

The deep misgivings come despite the protocol’s foreword giving this reassurance: “The protocol cannot create new law, provide actors with powers they do not already have, or take away the discretion of any relevant body to use their existing powers.”

It adds: “By updating the protocol, we intend to bring greater clarity to the role of the home secretary in the policing landscape, as well as the role of chief constables, PCCs and police and crime panels.”

Newsletter

Related Articles

0:00
0:00
Close
JD.com Launches €2.2 Billion Bid for German Electronics Retailer Ceconomy
Azerbaijan Proceeds with Plan to Legalise Casinos on Artificial Islands
Former Judge Charged After Drunk Driving Crash Kills Comedian in Brazil
Jeff Bezos hasn’t paid a dollar in taxes for decades. He makes billions and pays $0 in taxes, LEGALLY
China Increases Use of Exit Bans Amid Rising U.S. Tensions
IMF Upgrades Global Growth Forecast as Weaker Dollar Supports Outlook
Procter & Gamble to Raise U.S. Prices to Offset One‑Billion‑Dollar Tariff Cost
House Republicans Move to Defund OECD Over Global Tax Dispute
Botswana Seeks Controlling Stake in De Beers as Anglo American Prepares Exit
Trump Administration Proposes Repeal of Obama‑Era Endangerment Finding, Dismantling Regulatory Basis for CO₂ Emissions Limits
France Opens Criminal Investigation into X Over Algorithm Manipulation Allegations
A family has been arrested in the UK for displaying the British flag
Mel Gibson refuses to work with Robert De Niro, saying, "Keep that woke clown away from me."
Trump Steamrolls EU in Landmark Trade Win: US–EU Trade Deal Imposes 15% Tariff on European Imports
ChatGPT CEO Sam Altman says people share personal info with ChatGPT but don’t know chats can be used as court evidence in legal cases.
The British propaganda channel BBC News lies again.
Deputy attorney general's second day of meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell has concluded
Controversial March in Switzerland Features Men Dressed in Nazi Uniforms
Politics is a good business: Barack Obama’s Reported Net Worth Growth, 1990–2025
Thai Civilian Death Toll Rises to 12 in Cambodian Cross-Border Attacks
TSUNAMI: Trump Just Crossed the Rubicon—And There’s No Turning Back
Over 120 Criminal Cases Dismissed in Boston Amid Public Defender Shortage
UN's Top Court Declares Environmental Protection a Legal Obligation Under International Law
"Crazy Thing": OpenAI's Sam Altman Warns Of AI Voice Fraud Crisis In Banking
The Podcaster Who Accidentally Revealed He Earns Over $10 Million a Year
Trump Announces $550 Billion Japanese Investment and New Trade Agreements with Indonesia and the Philippines
US Treasury Secretary Calls for Institutional Review of Federal Reserve Amid AI‑Driven Growth Expectations
UK Government Considers Dropping Demand for Apple Encryption Backdoor
Severe Flooding in South Korea Claims Lives Amid Ongoing Rescue Operations
Japanese Man Discovers Family Connection Through DNA Testing After Decades of Separation
Russia Signals Openness to Ukraine Peace Talks Amid Escalating Drone Warfare
Switzerland Implements Ban on Mammography Screening
Japanese Prime Minister Vows to Stay After Coalition Loses Upper House Majority
Pogacar Extends Dominance with Stage Fifteen Triumph at Tour de France
CEO Resigns Amid Controversy Over Relationship with HR Executive
Man Dies After Being Pulled Into MRI Machine Due to Metal Chain in New York Clinic
NVIDIA Achieves $4 Trillion Valuation Amid AI Demand
US Revokes Visas of Brazilian Corrupted Judges Amid Fake Bolsonaro Investigation
U.S. Congress Approves Rescissions Act Cutting Federal Funding for NPR and PBS
North Korea Restricts Foreign Tourist Access to New Seaside Resort
Brazil's Supreme Court Imposes Radical Restrictions on Former President Bolsonaro
Centrist Criticism of von der Leyen Resurfaces as she Survives EU Confidence Vote
Judge Criticizes DOJ Over Secrecy in Dropping Charges Against Gang Leader
Apple Closes $16.5 Billion Tax Dispute With Ireland
Von der Leyen Faces Setback Over €2 Trillion EU Budget Proposal
UK and Germany Collaborate on Global Military Equipment Sales
Trump Plans Over 10% Tariffs on African and Caribbean Nations
Flying Taxi CEO Reclaims Billionaire Status After Stock Surge
Epstein Files Deepen Republican Party Divide
Zuckerberg Faces $8 Billion Privacy Lawsuit From Meta Shareholders
×