Police Reform and Non Home Department Police Forces

 

POLICE REFORM AND NON HOME DEPARTMENT POLICE FORCES

It’s been a long time coming.  For 30 years talk of reducing  the number of police forces in England and Wales has provided a back drop to all considerations about the future of policing.  The White Paper “From Local to National; A New Model for Policing” was published by the Home Office last month. (i)

The White Paper contains the long awaited proposals for the restructuring of policing including:

(1)    The number of forces

(2)    The creation of a national police service which will absorb NPCC, CTP, CoP, NCA etc

(3)    Individual licence to practice provisions for serving officers

(4)    New governance and financial provisions

(5)    A range of other kindred matters

The existence of 43 geographic forces in England and Wales is a product of evolution and arises mainly from the reforms that came out of the Royal Commission of 1962 (ii) and its natural born child, The Police Act 1964 (iii).  Before the 1960s the land was covered in small county, city and borough police forces.  Prior to the amalgamation that followed the passage of the 1964 Act Non Home Department Police Forces (NHDPF) were among the biggest in the country, especially the British Transport Police and the Port of London Authority Police.

Calls, on the grounds of efficiency, for a further reduction in the number of forces led in 2006 to the last Labour government suggesting the creation of ‘strategic forces’.  HMIC produced a significant and influential report in 2005 advocating structural change (iv).  Much of that report remains relevant 20 years on.  In the end the opponents of change were victorious.  Not all of the opposition was logical and some it of had a whiff of parochialism about it.  There was considerable concern around the process of change and widespread acknowledgement that mergers and restructuring would be painful for those involved and could divert attention from the policing task.  We are likely to see a resurgence of opposition – although I am surprised at how little has been seen since the publication of the 2026 proposals.

No doubt the experience of creating a single force for Scotland (v) will have been factored into the plans being developed at the Home Office.

So, what does the White Paper say about the NHDPFs? 

Nothing.

Not a mention. Not a word.  For the purposes of the paper they do not exist. There is no consideration given to the fact that a reformed police service will have a great impact on the way our railways, nuclear and defence and port facilities will be policed.

The Home Office clearly states that it is responsible for policing, but in the same breath denies any role in the policing of some of the most parts of our national infrastructure.  There is a wilful blindness in operation that works against the public interest.

As part of the reform programme an independent review of  the ‘New Number of Forces’ has been appointed under the former Commissioner of the Metropolis, Lord Hogan-Howe.  The terms of reference for this review have not yet been announced but a recent press release stated:

“The review will identify the optimum number of forces and the geographic areas they will cover. It will also consider how the new forces are governed and held accountable to ensure the new system is effective in delivering local policing across the country and responding to the priorities of local communities.(vi)

Nothing here about NHDPFs.

The history of the NHDPFs contains many examples of being overlooked when national issues are considered.  They find themselves playing legislative catch up.  These forces were ignored by the Royal Commission and they are being ignored now.

Taken together there forces have several thousand officers who police complex environments.  Some police public space (vii).  Many NHDFs have specialist officers including many that carry firearms.  The public interest is clear: there should be a joined up approach to how policing is structured.

The current proposals create an opportunity to sweep away the niche maze of legislation, the restrictions on jurisdiction and the dual responsibility for some areas. The public see only a uniform or a detective – they do not study cap badges.  The thought that some officers have restricted powers or have different training rarely occurs to the individual who only turns to the police when they need help.  They would not be impressed by the Home Office pretending that the interface between local and specialist forces is nothing to do with them and does not feature in their plans, or even in their thinking.

Currently it appears that the issue of NHDPFs will be left until reform elsewhere is complete.  This officially designates NHDFs as an afterthought.  Of course the majority of policing is conducted by forces that operate under the remote supervision of the Home Office, but this is not an argument to exclude consideration of the bits that don’t.

There are already three national forces (MDP, CNC and BTP).  Should they not be a part of the proposed national police service (as forces performing similar functions are abroad)?  Or at the very least have their relationship with that organisation described from the outset.

Other questions spring to mind:

How will officers in NHDPFs operate without a licence to practice – or if they are allowed to obtain one how would this work

              How will the new regime for standards be applied to these forces?

What line of accountability will there be for these forces?  The current structures will look very strange when viewed alongside those of the new mega forces.

Will NHDPFs have access to the new developments (AI research, technology procurement etc) that are proposed ?

Will NHDPFs be viable – for example does the country need a separate transport police when the new forces are likely to be big enough to each cover large parts of the railway network?

As we look to the future there is a danger of returning to the past.  No one wants these specialised forces to became security guards in police uniform, dwarfed in status by the forces that surround them and fit only as a source pension supplements for retired local officers. 

NHDPFs do a good job, but they do not do it in isolation.

The government claims to want more efficient, more professional and better joined up policing.  They will not achieve this by ignoring the Non Home Department forces.  There is an opportunity here that should not be wasted.

 

Philip Trendall

March 2026

 

 

(i)                  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/from-local-to-national-a-new-model-for-policing  (Viewed 12 March 2026)

(ii)                 The Report of the Royal Commission on the Police 1962, Cmnd 1728

(iii)               Police Act 1964, Ch 48 1964

(iv)               HMIC [2005] Closing the Gap. A Review of the Fitness for Purpose of the Current Structure of Policing in England and Wales

(v)                 Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.  Acts of the Scottish Parliament 2012 asp 8.  This Act created the constabulary called the Police Service of Scotland (section 6).  This constabulary functions under the brand of ‘Police Scotland’

(vi)               https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lead-of-independent-review-on-new-number-of-forces-appointed [03 March 2026] (Viewed 12 March 2026)

(vii)             The example of the British Transport Police comes to mind – in London alone the Underground sees nearly 4 million passenger journeys a day.

#Police Reform #FromLocalto national #From Local to national #Non Home Department Police Forces #Non Home Office Police Forces