Met Police chief calls for 'mega' forces in push for major policing shake-up
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said the current system of 43 county forces hasn't been fit for purpose "for at least two decades" and should be replaced by 12-15 mega forces.
Those larger forces would be better able to use modern technology and would reduce "expensive" governance and support functions, he said.
Sir Mark said the 43-force model "was designed in the 1960s and hasn't been fit for purpose for at least two decades".
"It hinders the effective confrontation of today's threats and stops us fully reaping the benefits of technology," he said.
"We need to reduce the number of forces by two-thirds, with the new bigger and fully capable regional forces supported by the best of modern technology and making better use of the limited funding available."
Writing in The Sunday Times, he called his plans "the first serious reform of our policing model in over 60 years".
Chancellor Rachel Reeves' decision to increase police funding by 2.3% above inflation each year in the recent spending review was "disappointing", he added.
Police forces have lost 3,300 officers and staff in recent years, which was "a big hit" from a total of more than 40,000, Mr Rowley told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg.
He said he was "determined to improve day-in and day-out experiences of Londoners on the streets. We can only do that if we focus ruthlessly on police work.
"When new recruits join they expect they're going to spend most of their time protecting the public, enforcing the law, catching criminals. Within a couple of years 80% of them are saying 'I spend most of my time safeguarding the vulnerable, that's critical work, but that's not the core work of policing'.
"So we need help to cut away some of these areas where other pressed public services have effectively pushed work to the police."
He also called for football clubs, especially those in the Premier League, to pay more towards the cost of policing matches across the country, which, he said costs £70 million.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
30 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
No age limit on law, says Met Police chief as 83-year-old arrested at protest
The law does not have an age limit, the head of the Metropolitan Police said after an 83-year-old reverend was arrested when protesters gathered to show support for Palestine Action which has been banned as a terror group. The Metropolitan Police posted on X on Saturday afternoon saying officers were responding to the demonstration in Parliament Square, London, and later added that 29 people were arrested. On Sunday afternoon, the force said that all 29 have been bailed pending further inquiries. The protest started at about 1.10pm and officers were seen taking people away shortly after 1.30pm. Reverend Sue Parfitt, 83, who was sat in a camp chair with placards at her feet, appeared to have been taken away by officers. A woman seen lying on the ground in handcuffs was lifted by officers and put in a police van. Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley was asked on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg whether it was a good use of police time after the priest was pictured being taken away from the demonstration. He said: 'The law doesn't have an age limit, whether you're 18 or 80. 'If you're supporting proscribed organisations, then the law is going to be enforced. 'Officers, you could see, did it with great care and tried to preserve that person's dignity, but they're breaking a serious law. 'Palestine Action have over the last 18 months, I have to be careful what I say, because there's cases coming to trial, but some really serious criminal offences that they're accused of. There are millions of pounds worth of damage on multiple occasions. There are assaults, there are weapons used. 'It is not about protest. This is about an organisation committing serious criminality and obviously the Home Secretary was persuaded by the papers on her desk to proscribe them, that law has come into force, and if people want to defy that law, then we have to enforce it.' Palestine Action lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday which sought to stop the protest group being banned, less than two hours before the new legislation came into force at midnight. The designation as a terror group means that membership of, or support for, Palestine Action is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A group had earlier said it was set to gather in Parliament Square on Saturday holding signs supporting Palestine Action, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. In a letter to the Home Secretary, protesters said: 'We do not wish to go to prison or to be branded with a terrorism conviction, but we refuse to be cowed into silence by your order.' The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million of damage. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident at RAF Brize Norton.
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will Keir Starmer cave to pressure on the two-child benefit cap?
K's first big showdown with the Labour left in government came as a group of rebels voted for a King's Speech amendment calling for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped. The ruthless prime minister, with the confidence of a man who had just led Labour to a landslide election win, suspended seven of his own MPs. Starmer wanted to instil fear in those who might not be on board with his agenda in the future that rebellion would have consequences. But a year on, Starmer is weakened. Labour MPs are emboldened after forcing their leader's hand over his controversial welfare cuts, and the two-child cap on benefits is likely to be next. Implemented by austerity architect George Osborne, the limit, which restricts parents from claiming certain benefits for more than two of their children, is hated across the Labour Party. Critics say the cap punishes children, with experts predicting 470,000 could be lifted from poverty if Starmer scrapped it. But how likely is it that the prime minister will give in to pressure and axe the cap? Bridget Phillipson on Sunday warned that future spending commitments – including on Labour's child poverty plans – had been made harder by the £5bn U-turn on welfare. The education secretary said ministers are 'looking at every lever and we'll continue to look at every lever to lift children out of poverty'. But, pushed on whether a change to the two-child cap was now less likely, Phillipson said: 'The decisions that have been taken in the last week do make decisions, future decisions harder.' Alternatives to scrapping the cap entirely, such as lifting it to a three-child cap, are also believed to have been floated in government. The Resolution Foundation has said increasing the two-child cap to three children could reduce child poverty by 320,000 by the next general election, costing £3.2bn per year by 2030. It said this would be 'preferable' to the current system, but that benefits should be allocated in line with need, which would require fully scrapping the two-child limit at a cost of around £4.5bn. The chancellor is already braced for tax hikes in the autumn Budget, having warned the cabinet last week they could be more painful than last year's punishing increases. And any move to scrap or alter the two-child limit would need to be paid for by more tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere. Downing Street figures have been pointing rebels demanding a change to the welfare U-turn they forced, arguing the £5bn cost of that has derailed any plans to scrap the benefit cap. But the argument has already sparked anger among left-wing MPs, with Labour's Jon Trickett saying: 'The suggestion that the Labour government will leave children in poverty because they couldn't take welfare benefits from the disabled is truly shocking.' Phillipson and work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall are currently leading a Child Poverty Taskforce, which was due to report in the spring, but has been delayed to this autumn to coincide with the Budget. The taskforce is looking at 'all the available levers we have across government' to deliver the 'ambitious' child poverty strategy promised in Labour's manifesto. Senior Labour figures have also reportedly warned that tax hikes are on the horizon after the benefits climbdown, with the chance of a change in the controversial cap looking increasingly remote. 'My assessment is that is now dead in the water,' a No 10 source told The Sunday Times. Even Starmer, who previously let it be known that he wanted to scrap the cap, ordering the Treasury to find a way to fund the plan, dampened expectations of a change last week. He said: 'I personally don't think there is a silver bullet… we have got to look at a range of things.' As long as Starmer is prime minister, he will face round after round of calls for the two-child cap to be scrapped. The question is, will he give in?
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Government faces battle over Send overhaul as campaigners voice fears
Downing Street is facing another bruising battle following last week's humiliating retreat on welfare reforms, as MPs, campaigners and parents voice concern at its overhaul of special needs education for children in England. A letter to the Guardian, signed by dozens of special needs and disability charities and campaigners – including the broadcaster Chris Packham, actor Sally Phillips and Jane Asher, actor and president of the National Autistic Society – says parents fear the reforms may restrict or abolish the vital education, health and care plans (EHCPs) that more than 600,000 children and young people rely on for individual support. The letter, with more than 100 signatories backing the newly formed Save Our Childrens' Rights campaign, is calling for EHCPs to be retained, 'now and in the future', or risk seeing thousands of children 'denied vital provision, or losing access to education altogether'. Labour MPs who spoke to the Guardian are worried that ministers are unable to explain key details of the special educational needs (SEN) shake-up being considered in the schools white paper to be published in October. Several MPs warned that issues in the white paper such as the future of EHCPs could eventually cause another rebellion, similar to that which forced the government to gut its welfare bill after a major backlash from backbenchers. One MP said: 'This could be a massive problem. We are hoping there will be proper engagement around it, but we are worried about some of the signals we are picking up.' Another said: 'People are really, really worried about this. It is one of the things that is going to make people feel very, very uncomfortable.' The letter published in the Guardian is evidence of growing public concern, despite reassurances from the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, that no decisions have yet been taken about the fate of EHCPs. Signatories to the letter include academics studying disability and neurodiversity such as Prof Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the University of Cambridge's autism research centre, and campaigners including Rosa Monckton, as well as parent-led group Special Needs Jungle. 'As new education reforms loom, every sign from the government suggests the right to an education, health and care plan (EHCP) is to be removed from children attending mainstream schools. Local authorities want EHCPs drastically reduced, or removed altogether, to relieve them of duties they often find costly and troublesome,' the letter states. 'Without statutory support, underpinned by necessary extra resources for schools, it's extremely unlikely that ministers will achieve their aim of more children with Send thriving, or even surviving, in mainstream education. 'A reduction or complete snatching-away of EHCPs in mainstream education wouldn't mean their needs magically vanish. It would, instead, increase applications for already overcrowded special schools or mean they would be forced out of school altogether.' Although ministers contend that policies are still being developed, discussions are said to include the phasing out of EHCPs over a number of years, or restricting them to the most profound level of need. Fears about the fate of EHCPs were raised in May when Dame Christine Lenehan, the government's strategic adviser on special educational needs and disabilities, said EHCPs would 'probably' change because there were questions if they were 'the right vehicle'. One Labour backbencher said several MPs had requested meetings with Phillipson and Catherine McKinnell, the school standards minister, to question them on the plans. The MP added that the meetings so far had been unsatisfactory because ministers told them only that no decision over EHCPs had yet been made. Marie Tidball, the Labour MP who gave an emotional Commons speech against the welfare bill last week, said the Send reforms were now a major focus for many of her fellow backbenchers. Speaking on a live edition of the Guardian's Politics Weekly podcast at the Crossed Wires festival in Sheffield, Tidball said: 'There's going to be lots of work done over the summer on this, and I know that colleagues will be very keen to involve backbenchers who've got huge amounts of experience on that issue.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Asked by the BBC on Sunday whether she could rule out getting rid of EHRCs, Phillipson said: 'What I can say very clearly is that we will strengthen and put in place better support for children.' Saying that details would be set out in the autumn in the schools white paper, Phillipson said she fully understood that 'having access to that EHCP, and what that brings, is incredibly important'. More funding alone was not the answer, she added, saying there was also a need to 'just take a step back and think about, how do we build a better system'. A DfE spokesperson said: 'The evidence is clear that this government inherited a Send [special educational needs and disabilities] system left on its knees – which is why we are looking at changes to improve support for children and stop parents having to fight for help. It is totally inaccurate to suggest that children, families and schools might experience any loss of funding or support. 'This government is actively working with parents and experts on the solutions, including more early intervention to prevent needs from escalating and £740m to encourage councils to create more specialist places in mainstream schools.' One supportive MP said Phillipson and her team had done a lot of outreach to MPs to try to prevent a repeat of last week's dramatic Commons scenes. 'The education team are doing a really, really good job of engaging with people,' the person said. 'There will be a consultation and a proper process.' But they added that many Labour MPs were concerned because of the amount of mail that was being generated by anxious parents. 'Parents of Send kids are climbing up the walls right now,' they said. 'Our job is to get them down from those walls.' EHCPs were introduced in 2014, and give statutory force to plans agreed by parents and local authorities about the additional support for children and young people up to the age of 25 with assessed special needs or disabilities. But as the number of EHCPs has rocketed above 600,000, in part because of increasing assessments of autism, ADHD and speech and language difficulties, the strain on local authority high needs budgets, as well as related transport costs, has pushed many councils in England towards insolvency.
