Spending review a ‘huge blow' for police and will hamper efforts to recruit 13,000 neighbourhood police officers
The government's spending review is a "huge blow" for police and will leave forces struggling to recruit 13,000 neighbourhood officers promised by Labour, police leaders have warned.
The chairman of the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) said Rachel Reeves' plans for an average 2.3 per cent rise in police spending per year, the equivalent of £2bn, will cover little more than inflationary pay increases for existing officers and staff.
Meanwhile a projected £1.2 billion black hole in police funding will continue to grow, chief constable Gavin Stephens warned.
He insisted policing is still focussed on meeting the government's ambitious manifesto pledges to halve violence against and women and girls and knife crime in a decade but admitted the tough funding settlement will make progress 'slower'.
Chief constable Paul Sanford, chair of the NPCC's finance committee, warned it will be 'incredibly difficult' to meet the government's pledge to recruit 13,000 additional neighbourhood officers, PCSOs and special constables.
Home secretary Yvette Cooper promised every community a named, contactable officer as part of her Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee last November. So far around 3,000 officers have been recruited.
CC Sanford added: 'We will be working incredibly hard with the Home Office to complete as much of the recruitment that is required as is possible in the years ahead, but based on this settlement, that does look a real challenge for us.'
He also warned forces have increasingly relied on borrowing money to balance the books and the cost of debt is expected to go up by 49 per cent in the next three years.
There is also no additional funding to help police to manage more offenders expected to serve their sentences in the community under plans laid out by the Ministry of Justice, following David Gauke's sentencing review.
President of the Police Superintendents' Association (PSA), Nick Smart, described the spending review as a 'huge blow' to policing and claimed the fallout 'has the potential to put public safety at risk'.
He said: 'Many of the government's election pledges centred around a commitment to 'safer streets', promising the public that it would meet ambitious targets such as halving knife crime.
'Yet the lack of investment announced today means we will continue to struggle to deliver the basics, to maintain officer numbers, cover inflationary costs, cover pay awards, and function as we are, let alone move forward on new public safety and transformation initiatives.
'Leaders representing every part of the police workforce have come out in unison, stating the stark truth of policing today, stressing that it will be impossible to deliver on the pledges made by government without increased, long-term investment, and once again, we are ignored.'
Considering the funding challenges, he said 'conversations must be had' around where police can begin to say 'no' when other services turn to them for support, adding: 'We cannot continue to be society's sticking plaster when other services falter.'
Acting national chairwoman of the Police Federation, Tiff Lynch, accused the chancellor of failing to listen to police officers or the home secretary in the lead up to the review.
She said: "This spending review should have been a turning point after 15 years of austerity that has left policing, and police officers, broken.
"Instead, the cuts will continue and it's the public who will pay the price.
"As rank-and-file officers kit up for night duty this evening, they'll do so knowing exactly where they stand in the Government's priorities.
"It is beyond insulting for cabinet ministers to call on police to 'do their bit' when officers are overworked, underpaid, and under threat like never before.
"They are facing blades and bricks, managing mental health crises while battling to protect their own, and carrying the weight of trauma and financial stress home with them every day."
The union, which represents 145,000 rank and file officers, claims police pay has fallen by more than 20 per cent in real terms since 2010, while the number of crimes allocated to each officer has risen by a third.
Roger Hirst and Joy Allen, joint leads for funding for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, agreed the settlement is not enough to meet government targets to reduce crime.
Mr Hirst warned some areas forces will have to rely on council tax hikes to maintain officer numbers, while Ms Allen said a lack of capital investment will leave many forces struggling with outdated digital infrastructure as well as ageing buildings and vehicle fleets.
Ms Reeves has said she recognises "that not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want" from Wednesday's spending review, but insisted forces can meet the government's manifesto commitments.
Asked about concerns raised by policing figures, she told the BBC: "I recognise that not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want in this spending review."
She added: "We're not able to do everything that everyone would want, but real-terms spending power increases for the police of 2.3 per cent a year, above inflation, enabling us to deliver on the commitments we made in our manifesto."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Humza Yousaf says Westminster must review its 'moral compass' over Palestine Action ban
Humza Yousaf said Westminster's decision to ban Palestine Action, effectively branding them a terrorist organisation, was unacceptable. The UK government's move to ban a protest group which broke into an RAF base has been described as a 'shameful abuse' of terrorism law. Humza Yousaf said Westminster's decision to ban Palestine Action, effectively branding them a terrorist organisation, was unacceptable. The group broke in to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and sprayed two military planes with red paint. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is preparing a statement for tomorrow which would make it illegal to be a member of the group if it passes in Parliament. Yousaf said the move had 'deeply angered' him. He said: 'We have a UK government that believes protestors who are demonstrating against genocide are terrorists and should be put on a terror proscribed list, but yet Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the international criminal court, is not only not proscribed on that list but is actively sold weapons by our government. 'As a former justcie secretary and someone who believes in civil tells me that the UK Government needs to seriously recalibrate its moral compass, but I also question whether its got a conscience whatsoever.' Fellow former justice secretary and now Alba party leader Kenny MacAskill said: 'Proscribing daft lads and lassies for opposing genocide while refueling the machines causing it is perverse and disgusting.' Prime Minsiter Keir Starmer condemned Palestine Action 's activity on Friday as 'disgraceful'. The group was previously behind a stunt at Trump Turnberry where they sprayed pro-Palestinian slogans on the golf course and damaged the turf. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The small boats crisis is out of control. This plan could solve it
In December 2018, Sajid Javid, then home secretary, cut short his holiday and declared a 'major incident' after 78 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats in four days. Since then six more home secretaries, and four prime ministers, have struggled with the same problem: how to stop the boats. All have failed. A record 17,000 have crossed so far this year. More than 900 crossed in a single day this month. There are some who argue that this proves, once again, that irregular migration can't be stopped and there is no point trying. This is wrong: the premise is false and the counsel unwise. Irregular migration can be controlled. There are plenty of examples of countries stopping or significantly reducing it. Australia has reduced it to almost zero: not once, but twice. It did so in 2001, and again in 2013, by shipping 'boat people' off to Nauru, a tiny Pacific island. Israel did the same in 2012 by building a fence and pushing migrants from Africa back across its border with Egypt. And, in the United States, President Trump is making a pretty good fist of it now: by strengthening border patrols and denying asylum applications at America's southern border, he has reduced encounters with irregular migrants to 12,000 in April this year, compared with 240,000 in April 2023. All these policies have three things in common: they are cruel and they violate people's rights. But they are also popular; or voters are at least prepared to put up with them if nothing else appears to work. In Australia, the 'Pacific solution' is now backed by both main parties. Trump is polling steadily on migration, even if the expansion of his deportation policy has dented support in recent weeks. None of this is lost on Nigel Farage, or his equivalents on the Continent. Seeing all else fail, voters are warming to Reform's promise to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and turn boats back at sea, using the navy if necessary. It is doubtful whether this very dangerous policy could work: you still need a place to push boats back to, and France is unlikely to be obliging. But it sounds simple and radical enough to tempt both voters and, it seems, the Conservative Party. This is a big problem for a Labour government that has promised to reduce migration but is reluctant to follow that path. Sir Keir Starmer's government desperately needs a humane, lawful, effective alternative. Is there one? More law enforcement is definitely not the answer. Close to £1 billion has been spent on boosting patrols in France; even more won't make much difference. A 'safe third-country agreement', with another faraway country that will admit and process asylum seekers, is perhaps an option. There is a version of this policy that could work, and could be lawful. The Supreme Court was clear on this, even as it scotched the previous government's half-baked Rwanda plan. But Labour criticised this policy so vehemently in opposition it would struggle to revive it now. • 1,378 migrants tried to cross the Channel in one day. France stopped 184 There is still one thing worth trying, however. It's also a safe third-country agreement, but not with Rwanda or some far-flung country. The deal the UK needs is with countries much closer to home: countries in the EU. From an agreed day onwards, the UK would agree with a group of EU countries, ideally including both France and Germany, to swiftly return almost all migrants who arrive irregularly across the Channel. This would reduce crossings to zero within a few weeks. As soon as it became clear that there was no prospect of success, the incentive to undertake a dangerous, costly journey would evaporate. After a few weeks, therefore, the number of transfers back to participating states would also fall to zero. The agreement would not be with the EU itself and would not replicate the unwieldy and unworkable system for intra-EU transfers known as the Dublin system, under which hardly anyone ever got sent anywhere. Anything that resembled this would fail — it is essential that asylum seekers do not suspect that there is a good chance of remaining in Britain anyway. Instead, it would be an ad hoc, one-off agreement with a coalition of interested EU countries, designed to ensure fast, efficient transfer for almost everyone within three or four weeks, with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family ties. The idea is not to turn boats around at sea. Intercepted migrants would be brought to British shores. They would be held securely and processed fairly. They would get a hearing, but unless they could present a credible other ground to remain here their claims would be declared inadmissible because there was a safe country to which they could be sent. There is no question that Germany and France — or Denmark, or Austria or the Netherlands for that matter — are safe. Their asylum systems are no worse, arguably better, than ours. Transfers would, therefore, be perfectly legal. There is an obvious question about such a deal. Why would European countries go for it? France and Germany have both had significantly higher numbers of asylum seekers per capita than the UK in recent years. They could not possibly agree to any arrangement in which the traffic was all one way. For this reason the UK would have to offer something in return: to take in, through organised legal channels, a fixed number of asylum seekers from the EU a year for the next few years: say 20,000 a year for four years, after which the scheme could be reviewed. A capped scheme similar to the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme would be set up to achieve this. This would be a good deal for Britain. Admitting 20,000 asylum seekers a year would be 30,000 less than are likely to arrive this year if nothing changes. Some would see this as an admission of failure, but a sharp reduction in numbers and, crucially, the restoration of control would quickly bring political dividends. A scheme such as this would almost entirely eliminate illegal migration. In comparison, the Darwinian lottery of the UK's current protection system, where over half of those securing it must have the strength and resources to undertake deeply hazardous journeys, is surely unsatisfactory. But what's in it for a Macron, or a Merz? Ultimately, something similar. Mainstream parties in Europe are leaching support to populists promising much more radical solutions to irregular migration. Right now, they have no policies of their own that credibly offer control. Nor are uglier ones that they are already endorsing (pushbacks at external borders from Greece to Poland, and deals with Tunisia and Libya to intercept boats and take them back before they even get there) working particularly well. This deal offers the outline of such a policy. Western European countries have every interest in showing their voters that migration can be controlled lawfully and humanely through safe third-country agreements. If they agreed this policy with Britain, EU countries would then need to invest in similar arrangements of its own, with partners it can find. For EU countries, finding (genuinely) safe third countries to transfer migrants to will be harder and will take time. But it is not impossible. Short of legalising the abuses occurring at their own borders, this is the only policy option they have. Developing this plan with the UK could quickly show that the model, control through co-operation, works. They would have a narrative and plan: two things sorely lacking right now. Like all good agreements, this one appeals to interests on both sides. It won't appeal to everyone. Participating states would be criticised from all sides: too generous for some, not generous enough for others. But if even closely allied, rights-respecting countries such as Britain and Germany cannot reach civilised migration control agreements, there is little hope for such agreements being reached anywhere. And little hope, therefore, for humane border control — meaning cruel ones will prevail. John Dalhuisen is a senior fellow at the European Stability Initiative. The ESI helped to broker the EU-Turkey deal in 2016, to address the migrant crisis caused by the Syrian civil war
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Ukraine war briefing: Russia repatriated at least 20 of its own dead soldiers in recent exchanges, Zelenskyy says
Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Russia sent Ukraine at least 20 of its own dead soldiers in recent exchanges with Kyiv, describing it as a result of Moscow's disorganisation in carrying out large swaps of wounded PoW's and remains of troops. Zelenskyy said that an 'Israeli mercenary' fighting for Moscow was among the dead Ukraine had received. Officials did not disclose the identities of the bodies: 'They threw the corpses of their citizens at us. This is their attitude toward war, toward their soldiers. And this is already documented. Sometimes these bodies even have Russian passports,' he said. He said the Russian side insisted the dead were all Ukrainians. Zelenskyy has also accused western firms of supplying Russia with 'machine tools' used to make weapons, in remarks made public Saturday. He said companies from Germany, the Czech Republic, South Korea and Japan were among them, as well as one business 'supplying a small number of components from the United States.' He said most of the companies supplying tools to Russia were from China, but that dozens of western firms were also culpable: 'We have passed on all this information to all countries, our partners, everyone … We strongly urge everyone to impose sanctions on these companies,' the Ukrainian leader added. The Ukrainian president also called on Ukraine's western partners to allocate 0.25% of their GDP to helping Kyiv ramp up weapons production and said the country plans to sign agreements this summer to start exporting weapon production technologies. In remarks released for publication Saturday, Zelenskyy said Ukraine was in talks with Denmark, Norway, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Lithuania to launch joint weapon production. He also said on Saturday he was planning staff changes in Ukraine's diplomatic corps and also in government institutions to boost the country's resilience. He gave no time frame for the decisions. Siarhei Tsikhanouski, a leading Belarus opposition figure, was freed on Saturday after more than five years in prison, in the most significant move so far by Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko to try to ease his isolation from the West. Lukashenko has been shunned by the West for years and faced sanctions after brutally crushing pro-democracy demonstrations in 2020 and then allowing Vladimir Putin, his close ally, to launch part of his 2022 invasion of Ukraine from Belarusian territory. The release came just hours after Belarusian authorities announced that Lukashenko met with US president Donald Trump's envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, in Minsk. In the Donetsk region, Russian strikes on Saturday on key towns on the eastern front of the war in Ukraine killed at least one person. The Russian military said its forces had captured another small village in its slow advance westward through Donetsk region. Russian forces struck Sloviansk and Kramatorsk – two cities that Moscow will target as its forces press on. Donetsk region Governor Vadym Filashkin said one person died and three were injured in Sloviansk. In Kramatorsk, officials said at least one person was trapped under rubble and a number of other residents were injured. In the north, another person died in a drone attack in the north near the Russian border, Ukrainian officials said. A mass drone attack on the town of Nizhyn near the Russian border killed one person and damaged local infrastructure. Reports from Kharkiv region in the north-east suggested Russian troops were closing in on the city of Kupiansk. On Friday, the Russian Defence Ministry said it had captured the village of Moskovka, just outside the city of Kupiansk. Deportation of Ukrainians is part of a continuing 'cleansing' operation of the occupied territories, reports the Guardian's Shaun Walker in Zaporizhzhia, which may accelerate if US-led attempts to push Russia and Ukraine into a peace deal result in the freezing of the current frontlines, solidifying Russian control over the territory Moscow has seized over the past three years.
