![](https://emergencyservicestimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ESS-Button-resized.png")
The Home Secretary told police chiefs in November 2024, “National arrangements on procurement will generate savings to reinvest into frontline policing.” That makes sense. By pooling purchasing power, one could argue that purchasing some technology solutions via national procurement could help negotiate better commercial deals, driving down the cost of technology for individual forces. These savings could then be reinvested into further technological advancements and improved policing services at the local level.
One advantage to this national procurement approach, is that some technology solutions could be identified as a nation-wide solution. This could significantly improve interoperability and data sharing across policing systems. That would be welcome. One of the biggest challenges in the sector is the lack of integration between the different systems used by various forces. This creates inefficiencies and, at times, even risks public safety.
If purchasing were more standardised, with a strong emphasis on only selecting technologies that conform to the policing industry’s interoperability pledge, we could see a future where systems seamlessly work together. By aligning with these interoperability standards, we could eliminate many of the barriers that prevent forces from sharing data and resources effectively.
Driving better decisions and a common approach
The Home Secretary’s announcement is a change in direction; previous incumbents championed a local approach. Consequently, every police force has an established strategic direction they have deliberately steered their technology towards. For a national arrangement to work, each force would need to follow a shared agenda to some extent. This could be complex.
Each police force operates their own budget, and they all have their own levels of budgetary constraints. Some have more financial wriggle room than others. They certainly all have different arrangements in place for legacy systems. And they are tied into independent contractual agreements, resulting in differing durations and terms, and further complicating efforts to standardise or align systems. Consequently, we have a patchwork of technologies being deployed across the country.
The natural advantages of national procurement
There are some innate advantages to using national procurement to make big-ticket purchases for core technology solutions. It could help mitigate barriers that have historically prevented collaboration and standardisation. By pooling resources at a national level, forces could procure cutting-edge technologies, whether for general operational needs or specialised areas of policing, without being constrained by budgetary limitations or conflicting agreements.
We might see suppliers realising the benefits of entering partnerships and funding innovation, resulting in their respective systems working together to deliver interoperability.
These investments could be funded by combining forces’ capital budgets and a central allowance from the Home Office. This would allow forces to tap into economies of scale, reducing the financial burden on individual forces and ensuring a more uniform approach to technology acquisition. And as the Home Secretary suggested, national procurement could generate savings to reinvest in other areas of policing.
Challenges for police forces at a local level
Getting all forces to agree on something radical like this could be challenging. However, perhaps the Home Secretary’s recent announcement is an early indication that these choices around technology may be taken out of the local force’s hands.
The varying size of each force and the money allocated to capital budgets for such investments and managing procurement on a large scale means that the potential benefits outweigh some significant challenges. How, for example, could you ensure fair distribution? If suppliers cannot enter a closed market, this could suffocate competition.
Given the potential benefits, one might ask why this approach hasn’t already been adopted. The truth is that many factors are at play, including the Home Secretary’s perspective that the previous government married localised decision-making with “weak national structures”.
What are the challenges of a national model?
Aside from the issue of differing budgets, one significant challenge lies in the complex web of existing contracts and agreements that police forces are bound. Often spanning several years, these agreements can tie forces into technologies and vendors, making it difficult to adopt a standardised approach.
Moreover, other factors to consider include the administrative burden of managing centralised funds and frameworks and the potential resistance from forces that may prefer the flexibility to make their own procurement decisions. Despite these challenges, the idea of more centralisation, particularly regarding technology, is a growing trend in policing. The Home Secretary seems committed to moving elements from local decision-making to national decision-making.
Learning lessons from the past
It wouldn’t be the first time that policing has been successful by acting in unison. One of the best recent examples was undoubtedly the roll-out of national counter terrorism arrangements during John Reid’s time as Home Secretary. There was consensus between police leaders and the government in addition to the impatient of public scrutiny. Delivery was also undoubtedly made easier by the targeted allocation of resources.
This is an edited version of a two-part blog post published on the Triad website, where it will be followed soon by a third and final post exploring how technology providers could help support the goal of a centralised, national approach to policing technology.
