Police will not have to pick and choose which crimes to investigate, says Reeves
Police will not have to make choices about which crimes they investigate following the Government's spending review, Rachel Reeves has signalled.
Senior police chiefs and Government watchdogs have written to the Prime Minister warning they will be forced to make difficult choices if spending cuts are announced by the Chancellor next Wednesday.
In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, Sir Mark Rowley – the head of the Metropolitan Police – and other senior chiefs, warned cuts to police budgets will have 'far-reaching consequences', according to the Times newspaper.
Meanwhile, in a separate letter, Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales Dame Nicole Jacobs and Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales Baroness Helen Newlove wrote to Sir Keir saying victim support services are being 'pushed to the brink', hit by funding cuts and rising costs.
But the Chancellor sought to ease the worries of police leaders.
Speaking in Rochdale, Ms Reeves told reporters: 'We will be increasing spending on police in the spending review next week, so that's not a decision… or a choice that I would recognise.'
The letter from the police chiefs said negotiations between the Treasury and the Home Office were going 'poorly'.
It read: 'A settlement that fails to address our inflation and pay pressures would entail stark choices about which crimes we no longer prioritise.'
Last week, senior police officers – including Sir Mark – wrote a letter in the Times calling for 'serious investment' in the spending review, which will set out the Government's day-to-day departmental budgets for the next three years.
'A lack of investment will bake in the structural inefficiencies for another three years and will lose a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the service,' the letter warned.
Dame Nicole and Baroness Newlove welcomed Sir Keir's 'personal commitment to halving violence against women and girls within a decade' in their letter, but said they are concerned 'funding cuts and scaled back ambition are leading to piecemeal policies'.
They called for a 'clear, well-funded national approach to prevent and respond to abuse, violence, and exploitation of women and girls'.
They added: 'With bold and ambitious investment, we can finally tackle the systemic stain of violence and abuse, one that would see us get to grips with misogyny, ensure victims can recover from trauma, and build a criminal justice system that delivers for survivors every single time.'
On Wednesday, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander denied some of her Cabinet colleagues are engaged in a row over funding for the police.
'I'm not privy to any of those conversations,' she said, adding there is a 'really collegiate atmosphere around the Cabinet table on the part of every single Cabinet member'.
A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We are backing the police to protect our communities and keep our streets safe with up to £17.6 billion this year, an increase of up to £1.2 billion.
'This includes £200 million to kickstart putting 13,000 additional neighbourhood police officers, PCSOs and special constables that the public will see back on their streets and patrolling communities, as part of our Plan for Change.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reform's new chairman is Most Haunted TV star
Reform UK's new chairman is a former TV presenter known for fronting a reality show about hunting ghosts. Dr David Bull, who is also an ex-hospital doctor, will take over from Zia Yusuf, who dramatically resigned from the party last week before rejoining just two days later. Dr Bull is a former deputy leader of Reform, having held the role from 2021 to 2024, when he was replaced by Richard Tice on Nigel Farage's return as leader. For around a year, the 56-year-old shared the job with Ben Habib, who has since quit the party and become an outspoken supporter of Reform critic Rupert Lowe. Before entering politics, Dr Bull worked as a TV host, starting as an on-screen doctor for Sky TV in the mid-1990s before joining Newsround, the children's news show, and going on to present the paranormal series Most Haunted Live. He has also appeared on BBC's Watchdog, going on to host the spin-off Watchdog Healthcheck and the live science show Tomorrow's World. He is now a presenter on TalkTV, the news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch, which went online-only last year. Dr Bull, who reportedly backs 'binning the burka', was revealed as Reform's new chairman by the Daily Mail. He will replace Mr Yusuf, who stepped down from his position in spectacular fashion last Thursday before rejoining in a new role on Saturday. His resignation followed a disagreement within the party over whether to ban the burka, an idea he branded 'dumb'. Senior Reform figures also said that Mr Yusuf's professional style, born of his former career as a Goldman Sachs banker, had led to personality clashes at the top of the party. The former chairman will now lead Reform's so-called UK Doge team, inspired by the US Department of Government Efficiency set up by Donald Trump and run by Elon Musk. Dr Bull is also a former doctor and has written two books: Cool and Celibate? Sex and No Sex and What Every Girl Should Know. According to his website, he qualified as a doctor in 1993 and went on to work for the NHS at St Mary's Hospital, Ealing Hospital and the Whittington Hospital, all in London, in the fields of general medicine, emergency medicine and general practice. He was briefly a Brexit Party MEP and initially ran as the Tory candidate for Brighton Pavilion in 2009 before stepping down to lead a Conservative policy review on sexual health. A Reform source told the Daily Mail: 'He looks and sounds good and he's been out and proud for years, so we have no worries about any skeletons in his closet.'
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves to give speech ahead of Spending Review
Rachel Reeves is set to deliver a speech at the GMB union conference as the Chancellor prepares to unveil her eagerly-awaited Spending Review tomorrow. Ms Reeves is expected to use the address to the union in Brighton today to hail the Government's new £16.7 billion commitment to nuclear power projects. The Chancellor has signed off on £14.2 billion of investment to build the new Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk. Meanwhile, Rolls-Royce has been named as the preferred bidder to build small modular reactors (SMRs) in a programme backed by £2.5 billion of taxpayers' cash. The funding is part of a wider programme of infrastructure investment worth tens of billions of pounds over the next decade which the Chancellor will confirm at the Spending Review in the House of Commons tomorrow. The review is expected to set out real-terms funding cuts for numerous Whitehall departments and the Chancellor's speech in Brighton will be watched closely for any clues about where the squeeze could be felt the most.
The National
28 minutes ago
- The National
Labour's reasoning for winter fuel cuts never did make sense
If Labour's by-election candidate had been able to hail a Westminster U-turn on Winter Fuel Payments (WFPs), perhaps he wouldn't have been so camera-shy in the days before the vote in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. That said, it's not immediately clear what the impact of this Westminster decision will be on Scotland's devolved Pension Age Winter Heating Payment, which the Scottish Government last year decided would be £100 for every pensioner household, with means-testing for higher payments. Will universality be maintained, even if the sums are increased to match the payments in England and Wales to which only some pensioners will be entitled? READ MORE: Labour 'left us to see winter fuel U-turn on social media', SNP minister says The Scottish Government received no more notice than any of the rest of us that this U-turn was coming, so will now need to reassess its plans. The whole situation is a guddle, highlighting once again the limitations on Holyrood making its own decisions that best meet the needs of its people. Given our colder climate, it seems likely the payments will be increased. But what a lot of wasted energy has been devoted to mitigating the impact of a UK Government policy decision that went down like a lead balloon as soon as it was announced, and has been blamed for the Labour Party's poor showing in the English local elections. The policy never quite made sense, given that it was trumpeted as a way to save the Government money but it could actually have ended up costing more than the previous universal system. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has largely U-turned on her Winter Fuel cuts (Image: PA) By linking eligibility for WFPs to receipt of pension credit (and certain other income-related benefits), Labour quite deliberately encouraged more benefit applications. Nearly 60,000 extra awards of pension credit have been made since the means-testing of WFPs was announced, and at an average value of around £4000 this will have cost an additional £235 million or so. It's a small sum compared to the £1.3 billion Labour hoped to save in the first year of limiting fuel payments, but it's a tiny fraction of the estimated unclaimed pension credit. The Government believes 880,000 households are missing out, but must have banked on far fewer than half of them making successful claims in response to the ending of WFPs for all. Had 440,000 been spurred into action and made successful claims, the bill could have been in the region of £1.76bn. This would have been no bad thing – the policy would have redistributed pensioner support from those who possibly didn't need it to those who definitely did. But this was not how Labour sold the policy, and indeed not how it worked out. READ MORE: SNP urge Rachel Reeves to abandon disability cuts after winter fuel U-turn The number-crunchers presumably took into account two important factors: one, that applying for pension credit is not particularly easy to do, and two, that many pensioners are strongly resistant to being perceived as benefit claimants, regardless of how low their incomes may be. I say 'perceived as', rather than 'being', because they are happy to accept their state pensions, which they do not consider to be benefits because they have 'paid in' for them, but are more reluctant to apply for means-tested top-ups. I can already hear some of our letter-writers cracking their knuckles ready to scold me for suggesting their pensions are benefits as opposed to simply entitlements. While pensioner pride is one factor in low benefit take-up, others include lack of knowledge about what is available – including the fact that even a modest pension credit payment acts as a 'gateway' to other benefits including Council Tax reduction, the Warm Home Discount and free TV licences for over-75s. Worryingly, between last July and this May a whopping 146,000 claims were refused, representing a 99% increase on the year before. Reporting on the high proportion of such claims in the months following the WFP change, the BBC suggested this could be 'due to people failing to meet the criteria, or failing to submit the 24-page, 223-question form properly'. Back in November, opposition MPs were critical of the fact that people were waiting 10 weeks for a decision, but appeared less curious to know why so many were being rejected. Is it plausible that so many of those who applied were actually ineligible, given what we know about low take-up rates? Or is it more likely that the application process is too arduous for many to complete correctly? Yes, some people may have felt it was worth applying even if they weren't sure they were eligible, but with the form taking an average of 16 minutes to complete it's certainly not a simple case of a few clicks. Labour will be hoping to move on from this policy disaster, and will stick to their line about desperate measures being required last summer. However, the matter of unclaimed pension credit, and the high number of rejected claims, is arguably far more important. Is the complexity of the application process a barrier too far? And how likely are proud pensioners to challenge decisions, or resubmit their claims, if they were disinclined to apply in the first place?
