Police chiefs and Government watchdogs write to PM in warning over funding cuts
Senior police chiefs and Government watchdogs have written to the Prime Minister warning they will be forced to make choices about which crimes they investigate if the Government announces spending cuts to policing, while victim support services are being 'pushed to the brink'.
In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, warned that cuts to police budgets will have 'far-reaching consequences', The Times reports.
Meanwhile, in a separate letter, Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales Dame Nicole Jacobs and Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales Baroness Newlove wrote to Sir Keir saying victim support services are being 'pushed to the brink', hit by funding cuts and rising costs.
The spending review is due on Wednesday next week, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said the Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces 'unavoidably tough decisions' as the demands of NHS and defence spending raise the prospect of cuts in other departments.
The letter from the police chiefs, which was signed by other senior police officers, said that negotiations between the Treasury and the Home Office were going 'poorly'.
'A settlement that fails to address our inflation and pay pressures would entail stark choices about which crimes we no longer prioritise,' it read.
Last week, senior police officers – including Sir Mark – wrote a letter in the Times calling on the Government 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.
Sir Mark also voiced his concern that fewer criminals serving jail time under proposals to end prison overcrowding will 'generate a lot of work for police'.
As well as increasing demand and new online threats from organised crime, Sir Mark and the other chiefs said the emergency release of prisoners to alleviate overcrowding and recommendations in the sentencing review would put more pressure on policing.
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 were concerned that '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, the Transport Secretary denied that some of her Cabinet colleagues are engaged in a row over funding for the police.
Asked about reports that negotiations between the Treasury and the Home Office ahead of next week's spending review were ongoing, Heidi Alexander told Times Radio: 'I know that the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, they are working hand-in-glove with the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.'
Responding to the suggestion they were 'having a row', she said: 'I'm not privy to any of those conversations.
'All that I've seen is a really collegiate atmosphere around the Cabinet table on the part of every single Cabinet member that we can start to deliver on our plan for change, we can get the economy firing on all cylinders, that we recruit those extra police officers – which was a big commitment at the election – that we can invest in the NHS, we can invest in our public transport in terms of the announcement that we are making today.'
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
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
SXSW London Debates: Is The Green Transition Financially Viable?
Rhian-Mari Thomas argues that the green transition is financially viable at SXSW London, referencing ... More the record amount of investment in the sector in 2024 Thought leaders across green finance and economics gathered to debate the financial viability of climate progress on day four of SXSW London. Held at the innovation and ideas festival's Climate & Nature House, a space hosted by Bellwethers to have meaningful environmental conversations, the session followed a traditional debate format encouraging a jovial air of competition. Sophie Lambin, founder and CEO of Kite Insights, and Stephen Dunbar-Johnson, president, international at the New York Times Company moderated the conversation. Lambin clarified that the debaters were tasked with addressing whether we can realistically and successfully invest our way to a green future, considering our current economic system and the state of the climate emergency, or whether we need new financial tools and a financial system. Arguing for the notion that 'the green transition is financially viable' were Rhian-Mari Thomas, CEO Green Finance Institute, Marisa Drew, chief sustainability officer, Standard Chartered Bank, and Fiona Howarth, CEO of Octopus Electric Vehicles. Arguing against the notion were Kathy Boughman McLeod, CEO Climate Resilience for All, Chaitanya Kumar, head of economy & environment at New Economics Foundation and Erinch Sahan, business and enterprise lead at Doughnut Economics Action Lab. Each debater was given three minutes to make their case. The debaters prepare their arguments on stage at SXSW London In support of the motion, Thomas started the conversation by saying that the green transition is 'economically strategic, it is socially imperative, and it is already underway.' She highlighted that a record $2.1 trillion was invested in green energy technology in 2024 according to BloombergNEF. Thomas sees this as evidence that the financial markets view green investments as smart economic strategy that not only provides financial opportunity, but protects us from the social and economic damage of the climate crisis. Howarth drew on the enormous success of her employer, Octopus Energy Group, as evidence that current investment is working. Started nine years ago, the company now employs 10,000 people and is valued at $9 billion while making green energy a viable option for consumers. She says this is thanks to 'smart innovators', and 'clever policy mechanisms'. Drew, instead, highlighted that emerging markets such as India, China, Indonesia and Middle Eastern countries have some of the fastest growing economies and are doubling down on green energy transition. 'What is Saudi Arabia doing? It is spending billions, if not trillions, on diversifying its economy. What does that tell you? The energy transition is viable, and the old way is no longer going to be the case in the not-too-distant future,' she argued. The first rebuttal came from Sahan, who highlighted that while $2.1 trillion was invested in green energy last year, the Climate Policy Initiative estimates that $6 trillion per year is needed to fund a green transition. He also argued that financial viability of a movement currently means that it is still satisfying the ROI needs of the financial market. 'These parameters are holding us back,' he said, taking off his belt to use as a symbol that financial markets are placing a straightjacket on businesses and governments to make progress on climate. He then pulled out an apple to make the point that the current green transition focuses on low hanging fruit, undermining the need for larger systemic change that picks the fruit at the top of the tree too. Chaitanya Kumar argued that the current financial system is too heavily influenced by fossil fuel ... More companies to be a fully viable solution to the green transition Kumar's speech made the point that large investment funds have interests in many of the biggest companies in the world as well as oil and gas companies, intrinsically tying them together, and creating strong lobbying power. 'Incumbent power and the political economy of the transition is still very much held by fossil fuel interests around the world,' he said. He drew on examples of the lobbying by fossil fuel companies which saw the EU label natural gas as a 'green energy' in 2022 and Microsoft's pivot on its sustainability strategy to adjust for escalating AI emissions. Finally, McLeod, highlighted the social costs, as well as the environmental costs of the current system. 'The market we have, not necessarily the market we wish to have, incentivizes pollution, devalues people and overlooks protection,' she told the audience. Addressing the plight of informal women workers who are on the frontline of the climate crisis, she said: 'This economy is chaos. We cannot maintain these expectations of return and believe that there is a green future. That is a fantasy.' The debate was declared a tie after the audience were invited to applaud the team they felt debated the best. Summarising the conversation, Dunbar-Johnson emphasised the importance of debate on these issues: 'What you did is encapsulate the complexity of the arguments in these subjects. This is a subject that we must grapple with. If the money is there, do we have the political solutions to drive that? We do have instruments to drive it, but the reality is, too much of the narrative is about the cost of the transition, not about the cost of not transitioning and the opportunities.'
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Rogue And Illegal Ebikes Spark Challenges In UK Cities
Rush-hour cyclists, traffic and pedestrian commuters on Bishopsgate in the City of London, the ... More capital's financial district, on 28th February 2025, in London, England. (Photo by Richard Baker / In Pictures via Getty Images) Ebikes are a perfect solution for getting around cities — but rogue designs that aren't legal on UK roads need to be addressed, as do other sources of friction. Because of that, one local councillor has called to bring 'licensing laws out of the 19th century', saying at the Living Streets Walk Summit in Bristol that the demands of the delivery market and a failure to sufficiently crack down on illegal ebikes are leading to dangerous driving. And it's no surprise there are concerns. At the end of February, a pedestrian was hit in West London by an ebike rider in West London — not a rental or sharing scheme, to be clear — and died after a month in hospital. Though the ebikes hurtling around making deliveries, illegally modified bikes causing road chaos, and the rise of ebike sharing schemes are causing friction, this shouldn't be construed as cyclists as a whole being a problem on city roads, where cars wreak much more havoc – and take up more space, too. In the UK, ebikes are legal so long as they don't provide assistance above 15.5mph and are pedal assist, and the motor must only kick in when the rider is pedalling, rather than controlled via a throttle. Of course, if you've been on British city streets, you'll have seen plenty of fat-tire bikes go much faster, when the rider isn't pedalling; those should technically be rated as electric motorbikes and only be ridden on the road with appropriate registration, license and tax, and meet safety rules. Some of those bikes are illegally imported, and others are modified to break the law. A member of the City of London Police Cycle Team takes part in a police operation to confiscate ... More illegally modified ebikes near Bishopsgate Police Station in London. Police seizures of illegally modified electric bikes (e-bikes) soared in the past year amid concerns their speed and weight present a lethal threat to pedestrians, according to Freedom of Information (FoI) figures obtained by the PA news agency. Forces across the UK confiscated 937 e-bikes in the year to August 11. Picture date: Thursday September 12, 2024. (Photo by Jonathan Brady/PA Images via Getty Images) Police forces have started to crack down on illegal bikes. Last year, the City of London police confiscated 937 dodgy ebikes, up from 511 the year before, including one that was modified to reach 70mph. That had been used by a food delivery worker, according to reports, and it's not clear that he ever actually hit that top speed; the bike was taken by police, and the rider faced no action, according to reports. Delivery companies need to address the use of illegal bikes by riders on their platforms, but such rogue bikes are also used for crime, with police also reporting the use of illegal ebikes and scooters for drug distribution. Dodgy ebikes aren't just a problem in London and the UK, but New York has tried to crack down on the issue too. Ed Plowden, a Green councillor for Bristol, speaking at the Living Streets Walking Summit in Bristol this week, said it's time for action before the issue with ebike delivery drivers gets out of hand. "I do think that we're seeing a new danger, which is for want of a better phrase, 'Uberoo' – and it's a really unlicensed market where people have been pushed to deliver things really, really fast, and we are seeing some really quite risky behavior, which is making all of us less safe," he said. "And I'd like to see a bit more licensing and a bit more regulation of that market, because the people are putting themselves at risk by the way that they're moving around the city, often on personally changed vehicles," he said. "So I think that's something that we really need to drag some of our licensing laws out of the 19th century." He added it goes beyond dodgy ebikes, with issues raised by ebike sharing platforms, including messy pavement parking. 'Some of the tech companeis are making our cities more dangerous for all of us by putting people onto really quite dangerous vehicles that they've adapted themslves and asking them to whizz around really, really fast,' he said. While the introduction of a 20mph speed limit on Bristol roads has improved road safety, he says that casualties from road safety issues have gone back up. 'Some of the electric scooters and soem of the ways that people are forced to move very quickly through our city, delivering things is making our cities less safe for all of us, and we need some better regulation there of the tech bros,' he added. Indeed, beyond delivery ebikes, sharing platforms also continue to spark concerns. One alarming story comes via London Centric, which earlier this year reported on an alarming trend of legs broken when Lime bikes fall on riders after problems braking. Another ongoing challenge is how such "sharing" bikes are left littered on sidewalks, potentially blocking access — it's even tripped up celebrities like Timothee Chalamet. Speakers at the conference noted that pedestrians are supposed to be prioritized on pavements, but admitted that doesn't always happen. Rental bikes are pictured scattered across a pavement on 26th February 2024 in London, United ... More Kingdom. E-bikes left unsafely on pavements present hazards for pedestrians, in particular for disabled and elderly people. (photo by Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images) Plowden added that giving over space encourages better behaviour — suggesting making room for bikes of any sort to be parked would help ease the challenge. But he noted that councils may find it difficult to remove car parking spots to make space for cycle parking because the former is a source of revenue, and the latter is not. It's worth noting that the health benefits of active transport — cycling and walking, essentially — are so high that they may outweigh the safety risks. Professor Scarlett McNally, also speaking at the conference, said "the benefits outweigh the risks by 10 to one." What do the bike companies say? A spokesperson for Forest (formerly known as Human Forest) said that it takes rider and pedestrian safety "extremely seriously" and that it doesn't publish raw incident figures, but that "serious injuries are rare". The company admitted that e-bikes are naturally heavier due to battery and motor, but that the weight is distributed to enhance balance and minimise the risk of tipping. LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 4: A Lime rental e-bike on the pavement in Leadenhall Street on June 4, 2024 ... More in London, United Kingdom. (Photo by) A Lime spokesperson echoed that, noting that share bikes need to be more sturdy and that ebikes are generally heavier than standard bicycles, saying that Lime bikes are about the same weight as other share bikes on London roads. "At Lime, safety is our highest priority," a spokesperson for Lime said in a statement sent to Forbes. It guides how we design and maintain our vehicles, how we develop technology and educational materials to encourage safe riding, and how we work with cities to provide safe riding environments. As part of our London Action Plan, we are increasing our investment in safer riding education to improve the safety of all London cyclists." "In London, 99.9% of trips end without a reported incident, which speaks to the strength of our safety record across millions of journeys," the spokesperson added. "The majority of Lime users are responsible, and incidents of dangerous cycling are rare. When they do occur, we take them seriously and work closely with the police and local authorities to support investigations."
