The central arguments made by Prosper UK are about business and the economy. So why is policing relevant? There are two reasons. The first is that part of the underpinning of a successful UK economy is the existence of a well-ordered society where the rule of law is enforced fairly. Good policing is a key part of that. The second is that a pragmatic Conservative approach to creating a good society recognises the importance of respect for institutions, which need to change all the time as problems change but which need to maintain public confidence. Indeed it is the collapse of confidence in the ability of current institutions to perform their functions adequately that has led to the rises of simplistic alternatives. 

It is in this light that we should look at the Government’s proposals for wholesale “reform” of the police. Shabana Mahmood reached for one of the worst political cliches when she launched her policy, saying that policing was “the last great unreformed public service”. Any police chief who lived through the huge, necessary and comprehensive changes made under Theresa May as Home Secretary will find it laughable to think that they have not been reformed. 

But as a lifelong Tory Reformer I accept that new times always create new challenges, so we should look at why these proposals are dangerous and ought to be resisted. Not all the individual ideas area bad. A National Police Service tackling the most serious crime is sensible and is really an extension of the existing National Crime Agency. The emphasis on technology in crime-fighting is welcome. 

But some of the other ideas are old and bad. The idea that fewer, bigger forces will make crime-fighting more effective has been around for decades, and has been tried in Scotland, where all local forces were merged into one in 2013. For a time after this Scotland’s long-term decline in crime rates continued, but in the last few years this has been reversed in some key areas, including violent crime, sexual crime and drug crimes, all of which are on the way up. So to be very charitable, the jury is out on whether big (and inevitably disruptive) changes to local forces help. Yet the Government is determined to go down this path. 

In addition the Government has announced the abolition of elected Police and Crime Commissioners without a shred of consultation or evidence. They are to be replaced by a dog’s breakfast consisting of Mayors in some places and local authority policing and crime boards in others, such boards to be scaled up at some indeterminate time to cope with new bigger forces which will cover many local authorities. Presumably many of the new Mayors will have areas which are not coterminous with police areas, so there will have to be new arrangements there as well. Also, who decides what police precept to charge in any area? Police accountability is really important in a democracy, and this will make it more opaque and less effective. PCCs have largely not seized the public imagination, but they are democratically elected, so should not be casually discarded by central government. 

Potentially even worse is the additional powers the Home Secretary is taking to herself to direct operational policing. Politicians not having these powers is one of the basic tenets of a free society and are worth defending fiercely. The exact extra powers she wants are currently also opaque, hiding behind a declaration that the Home Secretary will take a more active leadership role in policing. Even if you are entirely relaxed about Shabana Mahmood or Chris Philp having greater powers to tell the police who to arrest, consider some options if the worst happens. Would you be equally relaxed about Zia Yusuf? Or in a left-wing coalition what about the Greens taking the Home Office. Does anyone fancy Mothin Ali deciding how we police demonstrations? 

But perhaps the biggest reason for a moderate Conservative to bridle at these “reforms” is that there is no democratic mandate for them. They were not mentioned in the Labour manifesto, so they have never been put before the public and never subject to the scrutiny of an election campaign. Abolishing police forces, removing the current democratic oversight arrangements and giving the Home Secretary new powers to direct police operations are significant and radical changes. There is no credible argument that this is emergency legislation, so there is no justification for bringing it forward in this way. 

The proposals not only threaten to make policing worse and more difficult in some areas but also ignore the need to put a political programme before the electorate as a first step before major legislation. This convention is one part of the reason Britain functions as a democracy where Parliament and the laws it passes are accepted, even at times like these. That functioning rules-based democracy is one vital basis for a healthy economy, so Conservatives should feel comfortable in defending it. In this case we should also be energetic in scrutinising the Government’s proposals and rejecting many of them.  

This article was written by Damian Green, who has supported Prosper UK since its launch and previously served as First Secretary of State. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Prosper UK.