Police chiefs accuse ‘significant political figures’ of improper interference

Top politicians are trying to influence police operations by putting senior officers under pressure either directly or via the media, a watchdog has found.

Chief Inspector of Constabulary Andy Cooke told the Home Secretary in a letter on Wednesday that most police chiefs in 12 forces in England and Wales visited by inspectors experience “improper pressure or interference from significant political figures”.

The finding was revealed in a letter giving an update on a review of activism and impartiality in the police commissioned by previous home secretary Suella Braverman last year, in what was cast as a war on “woke” policing.

The ordering of the review itself was given as an example of such political interference.

“Senior police leaders told us that when this takes place in public, it makes it harder to maintain an appearance of impartiality.

“Most senior officers told us that they experience what they believe to be improper pressure or interference from significant political figures, whether through direct contact or through the media. Many cited this commission and the associated correspondence as one example of this.”

It was also claimed that an unnamed MP told their local force that a more senior politician would get involved if certain action was not taken.

Mr Cooke said: “MPs are perfectly entitled to make representations about issues affecting their constituents. But MPs shouldn’t seek to interfere with the operational independence of the police.

“In one example, we were told of an MP implying that a more senior political figure would become involved if a particular action was not taken.

“Many officers and staff told us that they thought operational activities on matters such as protest policing, or stop and search operations, are directly or indirectly influenced by the views of the police and crime commissioner or mayor, or senior figures in Government.”

Some members of the public had asked officers whether their force was Labour or Conservative, inspectors said.

A row broke out last year over the influence of politicians on the police after Mrs Braverman and the Prime Minister were involved in a stand-off with Britain’s most senior officer over whether to ban pro-Palestinian protests in London on Remembrance weekend.

Chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Gavin Stephens, said: “It is imperative for police leaders to be allowed the space to make difficult operational decisions and have the collective responsibility to maintain operational independence.

“While it is vital this independence is maintained, we recognise the importance of engaging with and listening to all our partners across policing, including the Government.

“I am working closely with the chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and officials across government, to ensure that we maintain strong and effective working relationships in order to keep our communities safe and feeling safe.”

Other initial findings from the activism review by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) included that some forces risk discriminating against people with disabilities, the elderly or of certain faiths because too much emphasis is being placed on other protected groups.

Mr Cooke wrote: “The importance of the police engaging with communities to serve them effectively shouldn’t be underestimated; it is the bedrock of policing by consent.

“All the forces we inspected showed they had a good understanding of the diverse nature of their communities.

“Generally, they tailored their services, support, engagement and recruitment accordingly.

“But we did find examples of forces placing particular emphasis on those with certain protected characteristics (usually in respect of race, sex and sexual orientation).

“In so doing, forces risk discriminating against those with other protected characteristics, such as disability, age or some faiths.”

The increase in the number of staff networks representing different groups is also making it more difficult for forces to be impartial, the watchdog found.

Mr Cooke said: “As forces strive to create a more inclusive workplace, the number of staff networks has grown.

“In addition to those networks supporting a wide range of protected characteristics, there are many others, such as those for ex-military staff.

“Their purpose is no longer purely to support those from under-represented groups.

“The presence of networks that hold views and actively campaign on contested matters makes it harder for forces to be, and appear to be, impartial in the view of the workforce and the public.”

HMICFRS inspectors carried out work in 12 police forces: Cheshire, Dorset, Dyfed-Powys, Gloucestershire, Greater Manchester, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Metropolitan, Northumbria, Sussex, West Midlands and West Yorkshire.

It is due to publish its full report later in the year.