TCC Blyth joins other police chiefs to outline the need for radical police reform

Temporary Chief Constable Maggie Blyth joined four other police chiefs at an event in Manchester today (Friday 6 November) to outline the need for radical police reform.

Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, delivered a speech outlining his arguments for reform before TCC Blyth joined Sir Stephen Watson, Victoria Fuller and Gavin Stephens, the chief constables of Greater Manchester Police, Cleveland Police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council respectively for a discussion on the subject. The panel then took questions from an audience.

TCC Blyth and CC Fuller earlier co-authored a piece on reform which was published by the Telegraph. TCC Blyth referenced many of the points made in this piece during today’s event.

You can read the article published in the Telegraph below.

Crime has evolved faster than the structures to combat it

The case for radical police reform, including a reduction in the number of forces, is not just about structures. It is fundamentally about investing in a sustainable way to keep communities safe, and cut crime.

Britain has a proud tradition of local policing, founded on Peelian principles. Our communities value forces that understand local concerns, local priorities and local people. There is therefore a legitimate fear that police reform, or indeed any centralisation of resources, could undermine the close relationship between the public and the police.

Yet the debate about reform has too often become trapped in arguments about force size. The more important question is whether the current system is equipped to tackle the realities of modern crime.

Crime has evolved far faster than the structures designed to combat it. Organised crime groups move people, drugs and money seamlessly across borders. Fraudsters can target victims from anywhere in the world. Acts of significant criminality, exploitation and harm can be planned and executed without the perpetrators ever setting foot in the victim’s force area.

Yet many of the organisational and funding arrangements on which policing depends remain rooted in a model developed for a different era, when most crime was local, and specialist capabilities were required only occasionally.

The consequences of this disproportionate reality are felt starkly by smaller forces.

Take Gloucestershire Constabulary and Cleveland Police. At first glance, they face very different challenges. Gloucestershire polices a largely rural county, balancing the demands of urban centres with widespread rural communities.

Cleveland serves one of the most demanding crime environments in the country despite being one of the geographically smallest forces, it serves some of the most deprived wards, with high levels of poverty increasing the complexities of policing.

Different circumstances, certainly, but a remarkably similar dilemma.

Gloucestershire must provide the same range of specialist policing functions expected of much larger organisations while operating with a comparatively modest workforce and budget. In recent years, it has absorbed substantial financial savings while grappling with the consequences of long-term underinvestment in technology.

Cleveland faces a different kind of pressure. Despite its size, it records some of the highest crime levels. The demands placed upon the force often resemble those faced by metropolitan forces.

Both forces are being asked to deliver increasingly sophisticated services through structures that were not designed for modern realities.

Recent events have exposed those pressures. Cleveland Police’s response to the tragic A66 collision that claimed the lives of seven people, including two officers, required a substantial deployment of resources. Gloucestershire Constabulary’s response to the incident at RAF Fairford similarly demanded a major operational effort.

Both forces performed admirably and we are both incredibly proud of our workforces.

What the public rarely sees, however, is the strain that follows. Investigators are diverted from other cases and neighbourhood teams are stretched as they provide reassurance to the affected communities, while everyday demand continues unabated. Mutual aid from neighbouring forces can help, but a system that routinely relies on borrowing specialist expertise is not sustainable.

Activity to address issues, especially around serious organised crime and homeland security, was taking place before the incidents that affected our forces over the summer. And the surging of resources which followed showed how quickly and robustly prevention and investigations could take place.

In the weeks after the A66 crash, with support from other law enforcement agencies, Cleveland Police arrested more than 50 individuals suspected of having links to serious and organised crime.

This raises a fundamental question: should every force continue trying to maintain every specialist capability independently?

The answer should be no.

Large forces can spread the costs of digital forensics, cybercrime units, covert surveillance and intelligence teams, and serious organised crime specialists across workforces numbering many thousands. Smaller organisations simply cannot achieve the same economies of scale.

Policing has already shown that collaboration works. Regional organised crime units and the national counter-terrorism network demonstrate that specialist expertise can be shared effectively without undermining local accountability.

That principle sits at the heart of proposals for police reform. Properly designed, it should not signal the death knell for local policing by the centralisation of services.

The right investment to tackle today’s crime today offers an opportunity to provide national capability where it makes sense, while amplifying local relationships and confidence.

This is particularly true when it comes to technology, procurement and enabling services. At a time of severe financial pressure, it makes little sense for the police service to procure 43 separate systems, negotiate 43 separate contracts and have 43 different decision-makers.

Shared platforms and nationally delivered specialist services would strengthen resilience, improve information sharing and release more resources for front-line policing.

Police reform is not about bigger forces but more effective policing. It should be creating a system that ensures every force, regardless of size, has access to the capabilities required to tackle modern crime.