
Policing is broken, top officers warn Reeves
The police service is 'broken' and forces are shedding officers because of funding cuts, Rachel Reeves has been warned.
In a joint article for The Telegraph, the heads of the two bodies that represent regular officers and superintendents say police morale has been left 'crushed'.
As the Chancellor prepares to set police budgets in her spending review, the pair warn that underpaid and overworked officers are leaving in droves, while forces are being left with no choice but to cut their numbers to save money.
The last-minute intervention piles pressure on Ms Reeves, who remains locked in negotiations with Yvette Cooper over the Home Office budget, which includes policing.
On Wednesday, Ms Reeves will reveal the outcome of the spending review, which will set three years of departmental budgets after months of tussles with Cabinet ministers.
Angela Rayner, the Communities Secretary, finally settled her negotiations with the Treasury on Sunday night after pushing for more house-building investment, leaving only Ms Cooper still in talks.
The Telegraph understands that the policing budget will get a real-terms increase in each of the next three years, in a move that Ms Reeves will frame as a boost for tackling crime.
But police sources warned that 'the devil will be in the detail', stressing there could still be a drop in the number of total officers in the years ahead if not enough money is granted.
Nick Smart, the president of the Police Superintendents' Association, and Tiff Lynch, acting national chairman for the Police Federation of England and Wales, have co-written an article for The Telegraph.
In an unusual joint intervention, the pair write: 'The service is in crisis. When a young constable looks down at their payslip and wonders how they'll make rent this month, something is deeply wrong.
'When experienced detectives walk away from decades of service, broken by the demands placed on them, it's the police service itself that's broken.'
They add later: 'Police forces across the country are being forced to shed officers and staff to deliver savings. These are not administrative cuts. They go to the core of policing's ability to deliver a quality service: fewer officers on the beat, longer wait times for victims, and less available officers when crisis hits.'
They also deliver an explicit warning aimed at the Treasury, saying: 'It is against this backdrop that the spending review arrives. This is the moment where political rhetoric must meet practical investment. It is not enough to talk about 'tough on crime'. There must be the funding to match.'
It is just the latest intervention from police leaders, who have launched into a public lobbying effort to try to secure more funds amid fears of cuts in the spending review.
Police chiefs have said that Labour's election pledges to halve violence against women and girls, tackle knife crime and rebuild neighbourhood policing will be at risk without proper funding.
Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police, said that cuts would mean some crimes have to be ignored.
On Wednesday, Ms Reeves will hand out £300 billion more in public spending than the Tories had planned, having raised taxes by £40 billion last autumn and changed her fiscal rules to allow for more borrowing to invest in capital.
Her proposals are expected to include £30 billion for the NHS, which, along with the Minister of Defence, is the biggest winner, as well as an extra £113 billion for infrastructure projects.
But day-to-day departmental spending is still being squeezed.
In the next three years, annual spending will rise in real terms by 1.2 per cent, down from 2.5 per cent in the last two years, meaning real-term cuts for unprotected departments. A post-Brexit farming fund is to be cut in a further blow for the struggling agriculture industry, while Ms Rayner and Ms Reeves had a bitter dispute over money for social housing.
Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, also clashed with the Treasury before seeing off an attempt to significantly reduce the size of his £13.2 billion warmer homes fund for upgrades to housing stock.
Observers fear the Home Office has been among the departments most squarely in the Chancellor's crosshairs.
The total number of police officers in England and Wales peaked at 149,000 in March 2024. It is expected to fall this year, despite Labour putting in an extra £1.2 billion.
The Metropolitan Police is reducing its police officer headcount by 1,500 this year, even with the extra investment, as pay increases take up much of the funding.
The England and Wales policing budget for the financial years 2026/27, 2027/28 and 2028/29 will be unveiled on Wednesday. It is understood that it will rise quicker than inflation, meaning a real-term increase.
However, that alone will not guarantee there are no reductions in officer numbers in the years ahead as police forces struggle to retain staff and win over new hires.
A police source said: 'There are two types of settlement. One involves a paper exercise that just about scrapes over the bar in terms of inflation, while the other is a genuine funding settlement that seeks to solve the structural issues, restore trust and confidence in the service and back those on the frontline.
'We very much hope that it is the latter, but the devil will be in the details and we will wait to see what the Government announces.'
'Heed the warning, we are not crying wolf'
Chris Philip, the Conservative shadow home secretary, said: 'Despite hitting the British public with the biggest tax rise in a generation, we are now seeing police numbers under Labour falling.
'They have chosen to prioritise spending on Ed Miliband's mad green projects, on inflation-busting pay rises for their trade union paymasters and spending £100 billion a year – five times the police budget – on debt interest payments.
'Labour have got their priorities wrong and need to urgently consider. As policing minister, I delivered record police numbers last year. But Labour are recklessly putting all that at risk and endangering the public by doing so.'
Mr Smart later elaborated on his comments in the joint article.
He said: 'Our message is 'heed the warning, we are not crying wolf'. It is crunch time for the Chancellor. If you give billions to the NHS, education and defence but ignore policing, then the consequences will be felt by the public.'
Spokesmen from the Treasury and Home Office did not issue a comment when approached on Sunday.
In a separate development, secondary school pupils will be taught skills in artificial intelligence as part of a drive to put the technological power 'into the hands of the next generation', Sir Keir Starmer will announce on Monday.
Some one million students will be given access to learning resources to start equipping them for 'the tech careers of the future' as part of the Government's £187 million 'TechFirst' scheme, Downing Street said.
Our morale has been crushed by a broken system
By Nick Smart and Tiff Lynch
A row at the heart of government is coming to a head – and the consequences will shape the future of policing in Britain.
And there's no mistaking that this future is unclear. The service is in crisis.
When a young constable looks down at their payslip and wonders how they'll make rent this month, something is deeply wrong.
When experienced detectives walk away from decades of service, broken by the demands placed on them, it's the police service itself that's broken.
When chief inspectors and superintendents – often the most senior officers on duty overnight across entire counties – are battling burnout and crushing stress, it becomes a national emergency.
Despite this, police are being asked to do more with less – again – as pressure mounts on already overstretched budgets.
Why? Policing faces a £1.2 billion shortfall. This is before it is asked to deliver the ambitious pledges of the new government.
Police forces across the country are being forced to shed officers and staff to deliver savings.
These are not administrative cuts. They go to the core of policing's ability to deliver a quality service: fewer officers on the beat, longer wait times for victims, and less available officers when a crisis hits.
Let us cast our minds back to the summer of 2024. Police officers turned out to protect amid riots and disorder. But there were no additional officers to pick up the day jobs. We need resilience.
Ministers have pledged to halve violence against women and girls, to tackle knife crime, and to rebuild neighbourhood policing. But policing is much more than this.
These ambitions cannot be delivered without sustained, long-term, stable investment in the service. Further cuts will not simply stall progress – they will reverse it.
It is well known that the wider public sector is broken. As a result, every day, the police are picking up the work of others when they become overwhelmed, effectively becoming society's sticking plaster.
Officers are responding not just to crime, but to the vacuum left by other public services – from mental health to social care.
The job has become a catch-all for the sharp end of state failure, a failure that spends 80,000 police hours a year supervising patients awaiting mental health treatment rather than preventing, detecting and solving crime.
Since 2010, police officers of all ranks have faced wave after wave of mounting pressure. Real-terms pay has fallen by over 20 per cent.
Morale has been crushed. Retention has plummeted. More than 9,000 officers left the service last year – the highest figure on record. Forces are losing experienced personnel faster than they can replace them. Year after year, this is ignored by government.
The new recruits who do arrive are bright and brave. But they are stepping into an environment where the strain is immediate, the workload relentless, and the support too often inadequate. It is a self-defeating cycle: we train the next generation only to burn them out before they reach the ranks where experience matters most.
A new constable earns less than £30,000. After deductions, many take home barely more than the Living Wage. And the problems continue further up the ranks, too. Senior officers are regularly asked to effectively work 24 hours at a time, breaching the very laws put in place to protect them.
They cannot strike. They are held to the highest ethical standards and under a constant microscope of scrutiny. And they continue to serve, even as pay stagnates and pressures grow.
It is against this backdrop that the spending review arrives. This is the moment where political rhetoric must meet practical investment. It is not enough to talk about 'tough on crime'. There must be the funding to match.
What the police service needs is sustained investment in structures, people and new technology, so that chiefs can plan long-term and deliver a service that is fit for purpose. It needs:
A fair, independent pay review system not bound by Treasury limits, nor instructed in what is allowed to consider.
Immediate action to raise starting salaries, so policing is a viable, long-term career, not a financial sacrifice.
A long-term funding settlement that reflects genuine investment and allows chief constables to plan.
Real investment in officer wellbeing, not just words.
And a commitment to a defining purpose so that the police police, rather than doing the work of other public bodies.
If the Government is serious about halving knife crime, protecting women, and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system, it must first invest in the people responsible for those outcomes and fund a police service that can be designed around today's demand.
The Government says it's committed to law and order. If that's true, it must start by supporting the people who uphold it.
The public rightly wants visible patrols, faster responses, and safer communities. So do the police.
Now is the time to act on promises and use this Spending Review to commit to funding a police service that can deliver.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sky News
32 minutes ago
- Sky News
Can you trust Rachel Reeves' spending review numbers?
Sky News' Sam Coates and Politico's Anne McElvoy serve up their essential guide to the day in British politics. The Home Office is the last department to finalise their budget with Chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of Wednesday's spending review. All eyes are on Yvette Cooper and the noise that comes out of Westminster today and tomorrow that will indicate how much cash the home secretary has secured for things like policing. And, with Nigel Farage due to make a speech today, Sam and Anne catch up on a wild weekend for Reform - at the start of which party chairman Zia Yusuf resigned over a proposed ban on burkas - only for him to reverse his decision and return 48 hours later.


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
The path to cheap power will be very expensive
LONDON, June 9 - Europe's ambition to develop cheap, clean energy has recently received a harsh reality check, as power failures and a string of cancelled renewables projects made it clear that the road to inexpensive power will carry a very high price tag. European investments in renewable energy have risen sharply over the past decade as governments have begun implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – an effort that sped up after Russia's invasion of Ukraine created an energy price shock. The share of renewables in the EU's power sector rose to 47% in 2024 from 34% in 2019, with a record 168 gigawatts (GW) of solar and 44 GW of wind power capacities installed between 2022 and 2024 alone, according to EU data. In Britain, renewable generation exceeded 50% for the first time in 2024, data showed. But investment in grid infrastructure, including pylons, cables, transformers and battery storage technology, has barely kept up with the rapid change in the power generation mix. Between 40% and 55% of low-voltage lines will exceed the age of 40 by 2030, while their length increased only by 0.8% between 2021 and 2022, according to a European Commission report. The Commission last week issued guidance for developing electricity networks in which it estimated the bloc will require 730 billion euro of investments in power distribution and another 477 billion euro in transmission grid developments by 2040. The underinvestment in grid infrastructure has created strain in many systems, a risk that was laid bare on April 28, with the catastrophic blackout in the Iberian Peninsula. Regulators are still investigating exactly what triggered the collapse of the power systems in Spain and Portugal. But what is known for sure is that the outage was preceded by the disconnection of two solar farms in southern Spain. The Spanish system is heavily reliant on renewables, but the issue was not the energy source itself. Rather, the problem was that the grid system had not been updated to account for the fact that solar-powered plants, unlike those using fossil fuels, do not generate inertia – the kinetic energy created by the rotation of spinning generators – which can help stabilize a grid in the event of power disturbances. To overcome this challenge, operators would need to invest in technologies such as synchronous condensers or batteries that kick in within milliseconds in the event of an outage to offer backup. The Iberian debacle puts a spotlight on the fact that more investment is needed in the mundane, but vital, elements of grid infrastructure. Another reality check for Europe has been the realization that offshore wind – once heralded as a potential renewables game changer – simply has lousy economics today. Danish offshore wind giant Orsted on May 7 cancelled a major project off the eastern coast of Britain, Hornsey 4, dealing a blow to the country's ambitions to develop 50 GW of clean power capacity by 2050. The recent rise in material costs forced the cancellation, according to Orsted, which had already sunk 5.5 billion Danish crowns ($840.5 million) into the project. And then on May 16, the Dutch government postponed tenders for two offshore wind farms with a total capacity of 2 GW due to a lack of interest from potential bidders. Several companies said they saw no viable business case for the projects, which offered developers no government subsidies. These two cases suggest that capital-intensive projects like offshore wind simply won't make economic sense without more ambitious government policy initiatives. The challenge is not unique to Europe. While worldwide investment in clean technology has risen, the headline figures mask a less rosy picture. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a report published on June 5 that global investment in power grids reached a record $390 billion in 2024 and is set to surpass $400 billion in 2025, 20% higher than a decade ago. But spending on power grid upgrades has not kept up. In 2016, about 60 cents were invested in grids for every dollar spent on new generation capacity. That ratio has dropped to less than 40 cents as the costs of renewables has declined, according to the IEA. This imbalance is unsustainable as ageing Western power systems – especially those in Europe – will increasingly experience problems unless trillions are spent in grid upgrades. The investment shortfall partly reflects a fundamental time horizon mismatch. Governments face public pressure every time energy bills – or taxes – rise, so they will struggle to convey to voters the long-term benefits of spending billions in tax dollars to support building modern, low-carbon power systems. But energy companies and utilities seeking to invest in renewables and grids will need long-term policy certainty, and given the challenging economics for many renewables projects, they will often also require generous subsidies. To be sure, the long-term costs of inaction to mitigate climate change will be far higher, and the EU is already spending over 100 billion euros annually on fossil fuels subsidies. But long-term thinking is not an easy sell for politicians in a time of growing populism, nationalism and polarization. Ultimately, if European governments want their populations to have cheap, green energy, they will need to accept the reality that getting there will be more expensive and more government-driven than previously advertised. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
More than 1,000 doctors urge MPs to vote against assisted dying bill
More than 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying bill, calling it a "real threat to both patients and the medical workforce". The bill - which is due to be voted on by MPs for a final time on 20 June - would allow terminally ill patients from England and Wales to end their lives "on their own terms", providing they have a life expectancy of six months or less. A separate bill is currently passing through the Scottish parliament. But doctors from across the NHS have written to MPs, warning them of their "serious concerns". Notable signatories include Sir John Burn, a geneticist who has led decades of cancer research, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who was knighted for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a Welsh doctor, professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords. The letter is signed by four doctors who hold OBEs, two who have MBEs, and one CBE. The letter says that while a debate is needed on end of life care, "this bill is not the answer". It raises concerns that not enough evidence has been heard from doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups. "This bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe," it goes on to say, calling it a "deeply flawed bill". 1:40 Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said it was the "single most important piece of healthcare legislation in 50 or 60 years". "It will have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession." He said many doctors who remain neutral, or who even support the principle of assisted dying, remain concerned about the bill. "We don't think it's a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce." What stage are the two assisted dying bills at now? The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of 55 in November. Scotland's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland Bill) pass with a 14 majority in May. But the legislation has not been without controversy, with 150 amendments made to get it through the first stage. The bill will return to the House of Commons for a third reading this Friday. If voted through by MPs it will then proceed to the House of Lords. 'No safeguards against coercion' One of the areas of concern raised by the medics was the inability to properly identify patients at risk of coercive control. "Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk," the letter says. It also warned it would widen social inequalities, with patients who do not have the resources for a comfortable death more likely to opt for assisted dying. "People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult." Data from the Annual Report of Dying With Dignity from Oregon in 2024 found 9.3% of those people who choose assisted deaths do so for financial reasons. 'Doctors get it wrong 40% of the time' Concerns have also been raised around the inaccuracies of medical prognosis. "Research demonstrates that doctors get prognosis wrong around 40% of the time," the letter says. "As such, patients may end up choosing an assisted death and losing what could have been happy and fulfilling months or years of life." 1:50 The bill is also a risk to families, the letter says, as it does not require doctors to speak with family members. "A close relative may know nothing until they get a call to arrange collection of their relative's body," it says, adding that there is no mechanism for a family member to raise concerns about a request. The letter also addressed the potential impact on the medical workforce. Evidence from the Netherlands suggests "doctors feel pressurised when dealing with patient requests for assisted deaths, meaning that doctors may end up having involvement despite it being against their principles, because they want to help their patients". Doctors' letter highlight concerns about the risk to: Patients Does not necessitate treatment of depression or other remediable factors; does not protect against risk of coercion, particularly for women and the elderly; does not ensure that the assessment panel must meet the patient; will widen social inequalities, adversely affecting the socioeconomically deprived; does not take account of the inadequacies of assessing medical prognosis. Families Does not necessitate any involvement of families. The first they may know is when they are called to come and collect the body; assumes that an assisted death is 'better' than a well-managed natural death but there is little or no evidence in the literature for this assertion. Palliative care Makes it a legal right for patients to access assisted dying, but does not mandate a comparable right to be able to access other end of life services; means that patients may choose assisted dying because palliative care provision is inadequate • Places palliative care consultants (a speciality in which 80% of doctors are opposed to assisted dying) at the heart of delivering the services; ignores the fact that the UK is currently ranked higher for its palliative care services than any country that delivers assisted dying and the fact that countries that introduce assisted dying almost invariably see a decline in the quality of their palliative care services. The medical workforce Does not adequately recognise the risk of harm to doctors from delivering assisted dying; is unclear whether assisted dying should be considered a 'treatment'. Provision of adequate care Proposes a panel which is not a multidisciplinary team and will not know the patient; proposes use of drugs which are not regulated or approved and does not mandate any monitoring of their complications.