Anna Firth is the former MP for Southend West and Leigh
The fundamental principle on which British policing is built is that of public consent.
Yet the Home Secretary is proposing the most radical shake-up of policing in a generation without first securing the consent of the people whose police forces she proposes to reorganise.
Central to the Government’s reforms is the merging of 43 county police forces into roughly 10 regional, “mega” forces alongside a new National Police Force.
There is no manifesto mandate for abolishing local police forces. Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised more neighbourhood policing, a named officer for every community – the very definition of localism – alongside stronger standards and greater collaboration in areas such as procurement, IT and shared services.
Nobody voting Labour in Essex in 2024 was told that they were voting for the disappearance of Essex Police and its replacement by a vast Eastern police force stretching from Shoeburyness to Norwich and from Lowestoft to Tring. Yet that is the scale of the change now being planned.
Bigger does not mean better when it comes to policing. The Metropolitan Police Force is the biggest police force in the Country, yet fails to solve 95 per cent of reported crimes and has serious problems with culture, leadership and accountability.
Astonishingly, however, there has been no nationwide public consultation regarding these reforms, nor is any planned.
That matters – not least because previous governments contemplating fundamental policing reform recognised the importance of consulting the public.
When Tony Blair’s Labour Government attempted to similarly merge police forces in 2005/06, Ministers explicitly declared that “consultation is a vital part of the process” and, once the new vast police forces were proposed, affected police authorities, forces and local authorities were given statutory periods in which to object. Not surprisingly, the proposals swiftly collapsed amid huge public opposition and concerns about cost and practicality.
Five years later, when David Cameron’s coalition government replaced police authorities with directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners, the Government also recognised the importance of public consultation. Its 2010 Policing in the 21st Century consultation was open to the public and a formal Government response was published before legislation proceeded.
Contrast that with this Labour government. No manifesto mandate, no public consultation on the Government’s white paper and, instead, a so-called “independent” review by Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe, a man whose views on police mergers are well known.
Yet where the public has been asked, there is precious little evidence of public consent.
Last week I held a packed public meeting in Leigh-on-Sea with Essex Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner, Roger Hirst.
The verdict was overwhelming. Resident after resident spoke about the importance of local knowledge, local leadership and local accountability.
One resident summed up the fundamental flaw in the proposals perfectly: “You don’t make poor-performing forces better by making good-performing ones worse. It will level them down rather than level them up.”
Another ex-senior Southend police officer asked the obvious question:
“If we’ve got a new Prime Minister who wants to decentralise government, why are we looking to centralise the police service?”
Why indeed? The evidence from across Essex tells the same story. A survey conducted by the Essex Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner received around 1,700 responses. Nearly 70 per cent opposed the creation of regional police forces, while 85 per cent said local, visible policing was important.
Police and Crime Commissioners up and down the Country have conducted similar surveys and all have shown overwhelming opposition to the Government’s plans.
There is, of course, a case for reforming parts of British policing. Some forces face serious difficulties. Modern crime crosses county and national borders. Counter-terrorism, serious organised crime and international criminal networks require national capabilities.
There is also a perfectly sensible Conservative case for forces sharing procurement, technology, specialist services and back-office functions where that saves taxpayers’ money.
But collaboration is not the same thing as centralisation and the existence of struggling forces does not justify abolishing successful ones.
Essex serves a population of around two million and is delivering strong results. Indeed, Hirst told our meeting that Essex’s crime solve rate is around twice the national average and more than three times that of London. He also highlighted significant reductions in knife crime and domestic abuse achieved through locally designed partnerships and interventions. Why jeopardise that?
But what problem would abolishing Essex Police actually solve?
Another resident spoke passionately about the importance of officers understanding the communities they police: “Keeping it local means we have people who understand the residents, who understand the area and the needs of that area.”
That local knowledge is not some sentimental attachment to county boundaries. It has practical consequences.
Southend is not Cambridge. Leigh-on-Sea is not Norwich. The challenges of policing our seafront on a hot summer bank holiday weekend are different from those facing rural Norfolk or central Peterborough.
Our residents rightly expect the people making policing decisions to understand those differences. As another resident observed: “It’s that small local knowledge that gets things done, and gets it done quickly.”
There is also the question of cost.
Hirst told the meeting that £500 million has been allocated over the current spending review period to policing reform, with estimates of the eventual cost of restructuring potentially reaching around £1.2–£1.3 billion, all coming out of existing budgets.
At a time when every police force is under financial pressure, taxpayers are entitled to ask a very simple question: how many police officers could that money put on our streets?
We have seen it before across the public sector: expensive consultants, new logos, new management structures, new headquarters and years of disruption – while the public wonders why the service they actually receive has not improved.
Where an individual police force is demonstrably too small or failing, there should be mechanisms allowing it to collaborate or voluntarily merge with a larger, more successful force.
But that is very different from imposing a one-size-fits-all restructuring on successful forces.
There was one other key question raised which ministers must answer.
“When are we going to have a full national consultation on it?”
Before ministers embark on one of the biggest restructurings of policing in generations, the public deserve to know precisely what problem is being solved, what evidence supports the proposed solution, how much it will cost and what safeguards will preserve genuinely local policing.
In Essex, residents have already given their answer.
They want visible police officers who know their communities. They want decisions taken locally. They want money spent fighting crime rather than rearranging bureaucracy.
And they do not want a successful Essex Police force levelled down in the pursuit of Whitehall centralisation.
Anna Firth is the former MP for Southend West and Leigh
The fundamental principle on which British policing is built is that of public consent.
Yet the Home Secretary is proposing the most radical shake-up of policing in a generation without first securing the consent of the people whose police forces she proposes to reorganise.
Central to the Government’s reforms is the merging of 43 county police forces into roughly 10 regional, “mega” forces alongside a new National Police Force.
There is no manifesto mandate for abolishing local police forces. Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised more neighbourhood policing, a named officer for every community – the very definition of localism – alongside stronger standards and greater collaboration in areas such as procurement, IT and shared services.
Nobody voting Labour in Essex in 2024 was told that they were voting for the disappearance of Essex Police and its replacement by a vast Eastern police force stretching from Shoeburyness to Norwich and from Lowestoft to Tring. Yet that is the scale of the change now being planned.
Bigger does not mean better when it comes to policing. The Metropolitan Police Force is the biggest police force in the Country, yet fails to solve 95 per cent of reported crimes and has serious problems with culture, leadership and accountability.
Astonishingly, however, there has been no nationwide public consultation regarding these reforms, nor is any planned.
That matters – not least because previous governments contemplating fundamental policing reform recognised the importance of consulting the public.
When Tony Blair’s Labour Government attempted to similarly merge police forces in 2005/06, Ministers explicitly declared that “consultation is a vital part of the process” and, once the new vast police forces were proposed, affected police authorities, forces and local authorities were given statutory periods in which to object. Not surprisingly, the proposals swiftly collapsed amid huge public opposition and concerns about cost and practicality.
Five years later, when David Cameron’s coalition government replaced police authorities with directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners, the Government also recognised the importance of public consultation. Its 2010 Policing in the 21st Century consultation was open to the public and a formal Government response was published before legislation proceeded.
Contrast that with this Labour government. No manifesto mandate, no public consultation on the Government’s white paper and, instead, a so-called “independent” review by Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe, a man whose views on police mergers are well known.
Yet where the public has been asked, there is precious little evidence of public consent.
Last week I held a packed public meeting in Leigh-on-Sea with Essex Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner, Roger Hirst.
The verdict was overwhelming. Resident after resident spoke about the importance of local knowledge, local leadership and local accountability.
One resident summed up the fundamental flaw in the proposals perfectly: “You don’t make poor-performing forces better by making good-performing ones worse. It will level them down rather than level them up.”
Another ex-senior Southend police officer asked the obvious question:
“If we’ve got a new Prime Minister who wants to decentralise government, why are we looking to centralise the police service?”
Why indeed? The evidence from across Essex tells the same story. A survey conducted by the Essex Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner received around 1,700 responses. Nearly 70 per cent opposed the creation of regional police forces, while 85 per cent said local, visible policing was important.
Police and Crime Commissioners up and down the Country have conducted similar surveys and all have shown overwhelming opposition to the Government’s plans.
There is, of course, a case for reforming parts of British policing. Some forces face serious difficulties. Modern crime crosses county and national borders. Counter-terrorism, serious organised crime and international criminal networks require national capabilities.
There is also a perfectly sensible Conservative case for forces sharing procurement, technology, specialist services and back-office functions where that saves taxpayers’ money.
But collaboration is not the same thing as centralisation and the existence of struggling forces does not justify abolishing successful ones.
Essex serves a population of around two million and is delivering strong results. Indeed, Hirst told our meeting that Essex’s crime solve rate is around twice the national average and more than three times that of London. He also highlighted significant reductions in knife crime and domestic abuse achieved through locally designed partnerships and interventions. Why jeopardise that?
But what problem would abolishing Essex Police actually solve?
Another resident spoke passionately about the importance of officers understanding the communities they police: “Keeping it local means we have people who understand the residents, who understand the area and the needs of that area.”
That local knowledge is not some sentimental attachment to county boundaries. It has practical consequences.
Southend is not Cambridge. Leigh-on-Sea is not Norwich. The challenges of policing our seafront on a hot summer bank holiday weekend are different from those facing rural Norfolk or central Peterborough.
Our residents rightly expect the people making policing decisions to understand those differences. As another resident observed: “It’s that small local knowledge that gets things done, and gets it done quickly.”
There is also the question of cost.
Hirst told the meeting that £500 million has been allocated over the current spending review period to policing reform, with estimates of the eventual cost of restructuring potentially reaching around £1.2–£1.3 billion, all coming out of existing budgets.
At a time when every police force is under financial pressure, taxpayers are entitled to ask a very simple question: how many police officers could that money put on our streets?
We have seen it before across the public sector: expensive consultants, new logos, new management structures, new headquarters and years of disruption – while the public wonders why the service they actually receive has not improved.
Where an individual police force is demonstrably too small or failing, there should be mechanisms allowing it to collaborate or voluntarily merge with a larger, more successful force.
But that is very different from imposing a one-size-fits-all restructuring on successful forces.
There was one other key question raised which ministers must answer.
“When are we going to have a full national consultation on it?”
Before ministers embark on one of the biggest restructurings of policing in generations, the public deserve to know precisely what problem is being solved, what evidence supports the proposed solution, how much it will cost and what safeguards will preserve genuinely local policing.
In Essex, residents have already given their answer.
They want visible police officers who know their communities. They want decisions taken locally. They want money spent fighting crime rather than rearranging bureaucracy.
And they do not want a successful Essex Police force levelled down in the pursuit of Whitehall centralisation.