Top cops have called on John Healey to find more cash for struggling police forces – warning that public safety will be at risk if gaps are not addressed.
The Chancellor has been told that forces are relying on reserves and debt to balance the books – which is not sustainable in the long term. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) told The Mirror that delivering core policing services is becoming harder and harder due to funding constraints.
The warning was sounded ahead of Mr Healey unveiling his first Budget on Wednesday.
Chief Constable Paul Sanford, NPCC finance lead, said funding is “significantly” below what it should be. And the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents rank and file officers, told this newspaper that the government needs to urgently review officer pay.
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. More info
Paul Williams, the Federation’s acting deputy national chair, said: “Warm words and mere promises won’t help keep officers in the job. It’s time for urgent action. Government must give our officers the pay, protection and resources they need to keep the public safe.”
It has called for pay rises of at least 7% over four years to restore the value of police pay, as well as multi-year funding certainty for forces. It also said ministers must bring forward its promise to review police funding formulas.
Article continues below
Highlighting the challenges chief constables face, Mr Sandford said: “Police officers continue to protect the public and prevent serious harm, despite more prisoners being released early, more protests turning into disorder, and increasing demands linked to mental health, welfare and safeguarding.
“But it is becoming harder and harder to deliver core policing services as more responsibilities and expectations are placed on forces. Current funding is significantly below what is needed.
Article continues below
“Whilst police budgets have modestly increased in recent years, those increases have fallen short of covering basic inflationary pressures. Insufficient funding is a risk to public safety.
“Forces are constantly seeking further efficiencies, but after 15 years of underinvestment, most savings are made by cutting service – mainly visible policing.“Police reform is needed and must happen, but the benefits of which could take years to arrive, while many forces are struggling with budget pressures right now.
Article continues below
“These pressures need to be addressed now through our annual settlements.” Figures released by the Home Office in August showed £21.1billion of funding had been agreed for forces in England and Wales in the year to March 2027.
This was up 6.5% – almost £1.3billion – compared to the previous year, and 75.7% higher than the year ending March 2016.
Article continues below
Ahead of the 2027/28 police settlement, the Home Office has established a new “Financial Resilience Framework.” It is part of a wider overhaul of the policing system. The Home Secretary will set out the next steps of the Funding Formula after a review.
The NPCC estimates that in the next four years, debt is expected to rise by around £2.5billion across UK policing.
Article continues below
It argues that every £1 invested in policing generates £10.70 in economic value for businesses, and said a 10% increase in community policing could generate £13billion in economic benefits over three years.
It also pointed to studies that found businesses in areas of high crime have a 19% chance of surviving a decade, compared with 45% in low crime neighbourhoods.
Senior police leaders have warned that public safety could be put at risk unless Defence Secretary John Healey and the government find additional funding for policing. The warning comes amid growing concerns about pressure on police budgets, rising demand for services and the ability of forces across Britain to respond effectively to crime and emergencies.
Police forces are responsible for protecting communities, investigating offences, responding to calls for help and preventing serious crime. However, these responsibilities require sufficient officers, equipment, training and support staff. When budgets become stretched, forces may struggle to maintain the level of service that the public expects.
The warning has added to the debate over government spending priorities and the resources available to Britain’s public services. Police leaders argue that funding decisions have direct consequences for frontline operations, particularly when officers are expected to deal with increasingly complex cases while maintaining a visible presence in local communities.
John Healey’s involvement raises questions about the government’s wider approach to national security and public safety. Although Healey serves as Defence Secretary rather than the minister directly responsible for policing, the debate highlights the pressure on government departments to balance competing demands for public money.
The central concern is whether police forces will have enough resources to protect the public while responding to changing patterns of crime. If funding does not keep pace with demand, forces may face difficult choices about recruitment, neighbourhood patrols, investigations and specialist services.
Police leaders have repeatedly highlighted the importance of having enough officers available to respond quickly when members of the public report emergencies. Delays can increase anxiety for victims and make it harder to gather evidence. In serious cases, a slow response may also create additional risks for the people involved.
Neighbourhood policing is another area of concern. Officers who regularly work in the same communities can build relationships with residents, identify emerging problems and gather information that may help prevent crime. When forces have fewer resources available for local patrols, residents may feel that police are less visible and harder to contact.
This can weaken confidence in law enforcement, especially in areas already affected by antisocial behaviour, theft or persistent disorder. Residents want to know that reports will be taken seriously and that officers will be available when problems occur.
Funding pressures can also affect investigations. Criminal cases may require specialist knowledge, digital analysis, forensic testing and lengthy interviews. These activities take time and resources. When officers are handling large caseloads, investigations can become more difficult to progress quickly.
Victims may then face long waits for updates, while officers must decide which cases require immediate attention. Police leaders warn that sustained pressure can affect both the quality of service and the ability to prevent further offending.
The issue is particularly important as crime continues to evolve. Fraudsters increasingly use digital technology to target victims, while organised criminal groups can operate across regional and international boundaries. Police forces need appropriate technology, training and cooperation to investigate these offences effectively.
At the same time, officers must continue to respond to traditional crimes, domestic abuse, public disorder and emergencies. These responsibilities cannot simply be postponed when budgets are tight. Every force must decide how to distribute its available resources while meeting its legal duties.
The government faces difficult decisions over how public money should be allocated. Police funding competes with spending on healthcare, education, defence, housing and other essential services. Ministers must consider these competing demands while deciding which services require additional support.
Police leaders argue that funding decisions should reflect the consequences for public safety. They may point to rising demand, staff shortages or the cost of maintaining specialist units as reasons for additional investment. The government, however, must also consider whether forces are using existing resources efficiently and whether funding arrangements are delivering the intended results.
Additional money alone cannot resolve every problem facing policing. Forces also need effective leadership, appropriate technology and clear priorities. Better cooperation between agencies can help reduce duplicated work, while investment in digital systems may allow officers to spend more time on frontline duties.
Nevertheless, efficiency measures have limits. Officers cannot investigate every serious offence without sufficient time, and specialist equipment must be maintained. Training new recruits also requires investment before additional personnel can become fully operational.
The debate has consequences for communities across the country. People want to feel safe in their homes, on public transport and in town centres. Businesses depend on effective policing to protect staff, customers and property. Local authorities also rely on police cooperation when dealing with public disorder and persistent antisocial behaviour.
When residents believe that police are unable to respond effectively, confidence can decline. Some may become less willing to report offences or provide information, making it harder for officers to identify offenders and build cases. Maintaining trust is therefore an important part of public safety.
The situation can also affect police officers themselves. Heavy workloads, difficult working conditions and repeated exposure to distressing incidents can place considerable pressure on staff. Forces need to ensure that officers receive appropriate support while maintaining the staffing levels required to serve their communities.
Recruitment and retention are consequently important elements of the funding discussion. If forces struggle to attract experienced officers or retain specialist staff, they may lose valuable knowledge and face additional training costs. Stable funding can help organisations plan recruitment and provide clearer career development opportunities.
However, the government will also want evidence that any increase in funding produces practical improvements. Relevant measures include response times, the number of offences investigated, public confidence and the effectiveness of neighbourhood policing. Clear reporting can help taxpayers understand how money is being spent and whether it is achieving its objectives.
The warning from senior police figures therefore places pressure on ministers to explain how they intend to support law enforcement. If additional funding is not available, the government may need to clarify which services will be prioritised and how forces are expected to manage growing demand.
For John Healey, the wider debate highlights the challenges of balancing national security and public spending, although responsibility for police funding sits primarily with the government departments and authorities overseeing policing. Decisions about defence and policing may involve different budgets, but both contribute to the broader question of how the state protects the public.
Ultimately, the issue is not simply about the amount of money allocated to police forces. It is about whether officers have the resources needed to respond to emergencies, investigate crimes and maintain trust with local communities.
Police leaders have made clear that they believe funding pressures could carry serious consequences. The government must now weigh those warnings against other financial priorities and explain how it intends to maintain public safety.
For residents, the outcome will be measured through everyday experiences: whether help arrives when it is needed, whether crimes are investigated properly and whether local streets feel safe. The challenge for ministers is to ensure that financial decisions do not leave police forces unable to meet those expectations.