David Blunkett's intervention in the running of Sussex Police sent shockwaves across the country this year.

Many MPs and senior police held the view that the fate of Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse should be in the hands of the local police authority, not the Government.

Mr Blunkett disagreed. He sent a fax to the police authority demanding it acted to restore public confidence. Within hours, Mr Whitehouse was gone.

Officially, the beleaguered Mr Whitehouse had taken early retirement but MPs such as Norman Baker said he was effectively sacked.

The Lewes MP said Mr Blunkett shouldn't have interfered and it must not happen again.

Four months on, Mr Blunkett is preparing to publish a Bill to reform the police service. Its aims are to "help the police fight crime, ensure they can co-operate effectively across police force boundaries and establish a new complaints system".

Mr Blunkett is in the middle of a consultation on what it should involve.

It gives an indication of what he has planned.

Chief constables across the country, conscious of Mr Blunkett's willingness to intervene in the case of Mr Whitehouse, are worried their "operational independence" is at risk.

In short, they fear meddling by the Government.

The main planks of the reforms were set out by Mr Blunkett in a recent speech and centred on the establishment of a Police Standards Unit.

It would be charged with finding examples of 'best practice' and spreading them across the country.

It would keep an eye on how officers are performing and report back on things like levels of staff sickness and bureaucracy.

Mr Blunkett said: "Some areas are performing excellently but others are not. We must address that unevenness so that, no matter where they live, the public can expect the same quality of service. It is simply not acceptable in 21st Century Britain that the quality of policing depends on which community you live in.

"If standards are not raised and if there is a refusal to follow accepted good practice to put things right, I will look to the Chief Constable and the police authority to take whatever steps are necessary. As a last resort, I will want to require that remedial action is taken.

"We are considering what reserve powers it will be necessary to take through the Police Bill."

It is this last comment that has set alarm bells ringing. Senior police officers have concerns that, if things are not going how the Home Secretary wants, he will step in and force their hands.

In response, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has published its own plan for reform.

It states police do not want to be constantly looking over their shoulders,wondering what Mr Blunkett is thinking.

The document says: "ACPO believes that the public should continue to have an independent police service . . . and that policing can be successful only if the public trusts it for its accessibility, its transparent effectiveness and its integrity.

"That will be achieved only if policing is provided under the clear management of attested, independent and accountable officers, supported by other police employees, volunteers and other authorised police associates.

"Policing often has to be long term to be effective. Therefore, performance standards and means of assessing success should not be dominated by narrow, short-term considerations. Nor should policing be micro-managed in a way that would inhibit innovation."

Conservative West Worthing MP Peter Bottomley said an increase in the Home Secretary's powers could have a negative effect on the public's perception of officers' ability to make their own judgements.

He said: "If the proposals undermine confidence in the police and the police's confidence in itself, that would be a backward step."