UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Criminal Justice

  • Yvette Cooper – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

    Yvette Cooper – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary and Labour MP for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That, given the exceptional security concerns raised regarding the Rt Hon Member for Fareham serving as Secretary of State for the Home Department, this House:

    (1) orders that there be laid before this House, within ten sitting days, a return of the following papers:

    (a) any risk assessment of the Rt Hon Member for Fareham by the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office relating to her appointment

    (b) any document held by the Cabinet Office, the Home Office or the Prime Minister’s Office containing or related to

    (i) any security breaches by the Rt Hon Member for Fareham

    (ii) any leak inquiries regarding the Rt Hon Member for Fareham, including during her time as Home Secretary and Attorney General

    (c) the minutes of, submissions relevant to and electronic communications relating to, any meeting within the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office at which the appointment of the Rt Hon Member for Fareham, or advice relating to that appointment, was discussed in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security; and

    (2) recommends that where material is laid before the House in a redacted form, the Government should at the same time provide unredacted copies of such material to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

    It is 15 days since the Prime Minister appointed his new Cabinet, and 14 days since it was reported that he had been advised not to reappoint certain Ministers, including the Home Secretary and, it was rumoured, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), to their posts on the grounds of standards and of security. Fourteen days in which it has been reported that the Home Secretary breached Home Office security arrangements not just once but seven times; that she may have also broken insider trading rules; that as Attorney General she was investigated several times by leak inquiries; that she ignored legal advice on Manston, contrary to her statement to Parliament; and that she failed to take the action needed to solve the dangerous overcrowding at Manston, leaving her successor and predecessor to pick up the pieces, and that she may well have run up a huge legal liability for the taxpayer as a result, breaching the ministerial code again in the process.

    It has also been reported that the Minister with Portfolio sent abusive texts to the then Government Chief Whip, that the Prime Minister was told about this and knew the former Chief Whip had put in a formal complaint, and that there are other complaints against the Minister without Portfolio including, most seriously, words used towards a civil servant about slitting his throat or jumping out of windows—words that it is reported the Minister with Portfolio has not denied using.

    This is in the space of two weeks. Many people have been appalled by these appointments, and serious doubts have been raised by many Conservative Members who believe standards need to be maintained. The Prime Minister promised us that this would be a break from his predecessors, from the favours-for-mates culture of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and from the chaos of the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). Instead, the opposite has happened.

    People have been appointed to senior jobs in the Cabinet, running the country, not because they can do the job or because they will maintain the high standards and security that the Government need but because of dodgy political deals. Here is what we know: the Home Secretary breached the ministerial code, sent Government documents not only to her private email but to other people outside Government who were not authorised to receive them, including a Back-Bench Member, his spouse, and someone else entirely by accident. She was forced to resign and then, six days later, she was reappointed.

    That, in itself, is extremely hard for people outside the Conservative party to understand. For a police officer who breached their code of ethics or who was responsible for security lapses to the point of being forced to resign, or for a civil servant, public appointee or company employee who was found to have broken their employment code or security rules to the point of being required to resign, the idea that they could be reappointed to that same job just six days later is unthinkable—the idea that somehow, because they had apologised in the meantime, six days off is just fine.

    Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)

    I have had letters from upset civil servants who have seen colleagues make lesser misdemeanours and lose their jobs, yet seen the Home Secretary, the woman in charge of national security, hold on to hers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows that there is one rule for the Home Secretary and one rule for everybody else?

    Yvette Cooper

    My hon. Friend is exactly right on that. It is worse, as the Government do believe that standards on ethics and security should be upheld throughout the public sector or across the economy, just not, it would seem, in the Cabinet—not in the post responsible for upholding the law and for maintaining our security. It really is one rule for them and another for everyone else.

    Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)

    I am hearing what the right hon. Lady is saying, but is this motion not an obvious attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the Labour party simply does not have any alternatives or policies in home affairs, or any other area for that matter? This is a simple, naked attempt to play the man not the ball—or in this case, the woman not the ball.

    Yvette Cooper

    The Labour party has set out a whole series of policies, both on what needs to be done to get neighbourhood police back on the beat—I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s party has cut 6,000 neighbourhood police from our streets over the last five years—and with the measures to set out a National Crime Agency unit to take on the criminal gangs who, unfortunately, the Conservative party has allowed to proliferate and set up a multimillion-pound criminal industry in the channel.

    There is also a responsibility on the Government to maintain standards, including security standards. It is not just about what happened before the Home Secretary’s breach; since she was reappointed, a Home Office review has found that she had, in fact, sent Government documents to her personal IT seven times in six weeks, which is quite a rate. There have also been reports that when she was Attorney General she was involved in not one but several leak inquiries, including one involving briefing to a newspaper about a security service case. Notably, that briefing was later quoted in court against the Government and made it harder for them to get the injunction they were seeking. Another case involved the leaking of legal advice on the Northern Ireland protocol and another involved the early leaking of a court judgment.

    It has also been reported that both the Cabinet Office and the Cabinet Secretary advised against this appointment. Obviously, this is serious. The Home Secretary is in charge of security and has to show leadership on this issue. She has to be trusted by the intelligence and security agencies, and by senior police officers, not to be careless with information. She has to show that she takes security and standards seriously, because that is what she has to expect of others.

    So this is an exceptional situation, which is why we have laid this motion. If the Prime Minister does have confidence in the Home Secretary not to be careless with public safety or with issues around security, he should release the facts. What other security lapses by the Home Secretary was the Prime Minister informed about before he reappointed her? Did he ask whether there had been other lapses in the Home Office or as Attorney General before he reappointed her? What information was he given about the other reported leak inquiries and whether she might have had a role in them? Was he advised against reappointing the Home Secretary on security and standards grounds? If the advice and the information he was given was all fine, tell us, show us. If it was not, start explaining why on earth the security and public safety of our country is put in careless hands.

    Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)

    Talking about “careless hands” is an appropriate way of starting this intervention, because before 2019 the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), actually cast doubt on our security services by questioning the intelligence on the Salisbury poisoning. Did every Labour MP not try to make him Prime Minister of this country? Is the real threat to our national security not Members on the Labour Benches?

    Yvette Cooper

    Members will know that, at the time of the Skripal crisis, I disagreed with some of the words used by the right hon. Member for Islington North, and I was very clear about that in this House and about the importance of backing our security services. However, I would say to the hon. Member that I have a lot more concerns about his right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, who, at the height of the Skripal crisis, chose to go to a place called the Russian Mountain, to a villa in Italy, where he met an ex-KGB agent without his officials. He took a guest, but he did not report who that guest was. He did not report the meeting with the ex-KGB agent to the Department when he returned, nor can he remember whether any Government business was discussed. I suggest to the hon. Member that he should be extremely worried about his right hon. Friend’s careless approach to security and to our national security.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    Order. I have allowed a bit of ding-dong there, but please can we now focus on the motion before the House today?

    Yvette Cooper

    This motion provides for redactions if there are any national security concerns about the content of the information requested, and it provides for unredacted information to be sent to the Intelligence and Security Committee instead, so there can be no security objections to this motion—quite the opposite. If Conservative Members care about credibility and security, they should support the motion now.

    Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

    Is it not rather more fundamental than that? If a constituent comes to me with something important and I have to sort out the problem, it is crucial that that remains confidential. If I break that trust, I will be letting my constituent down, and also damaging democracy itself, because we must trust our politicians. Is not that really what is at stake here?

    Yvette Cooper

    The hon. Member is right that there are standards that have to be followed. When the issues are around important Government business, it is a problem when somebody has breached those standards to the point of effectively being sacked and then is reappointed just six days later. That is what people across the country will not understand.

    Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)

    I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend. She is making an excellent speech. This is an incredibly important debate. Is not the problem that the standards being observed in the Government have just sunk too low? Reappointing somebody six days after such serious security breaches brings into question the level at which the Government think it appropriate to guard our national security. The response of Members on the Conservative Benches today suggests that they do not take it seriously either, and that needs to change urgently.

    Yvette Cooper

    My hon. Friend is right. There has been a real sense over many years now that the respect for standards in public life from the Government and the Conservative party has been deteriorating and has been undermining standards in our important institutions. The Prime Minister promised us that there would be something different. Instead, what we have is more of the same.

    The Cabinet Office has already recognised that the Home Secretary broke sections 2.1 and 2.14 of the ministerial code. There are further serious concerns that she may have broken it a third time and also ignored legal advice that the Home Office was breaking the law. Yesterday morning, her successor and predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said that he had had clear advice—legal and policy advice—about dangerous overcrowding at Manston, about being in breach of the law, and about the need to take emergency measures, which he then took. We have deep concerns about how the Government could have allowed this situation to develop in the first place, why they badly failed to crack down on the criminal gangs that have proliferated in the channel and why they allowed Home Office decision making to collapse, so that only half the number of decisions are being taken each year compared with six years ago and only 4% of last year’s small boat arrivals had their claims determined, so that there is now a huge backlog of cases that has led to overcrowding and the last-minute use of costly hotels in inappropriate locations.

    However, there is also a serious question whether the Home Secretary has just made things worse by ignoring legal advice and allowing dangerous overcrowding, leading to even more last-minute inappropriate procurement and running up substantial legal liabilities when she should have an alternative plan to cut the backlog and cut hotel use instead.

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

    Plaid Cymru supports this motion. The context here is the reappointment of the Home Secretary, and the appointment of a Minister without Portfolio despite bullying allegations against him—and all that after one Prime Minister was brought down by scandals and another due to ineptitude. Is it not the problem not just those specific individuals, but the fact that the very systems of accountability here in Westminster are fundamentally unfit for purpose, save for maintaining the thinnest pretence of competency from this Tory Government?

    Yvette Cooper

    The right hon. Lady makes an important point, because the standards in our public life and public institutions have depended on people respecting them and on people across public life believing in them and taking them immensely seriously. That is why it is so corrosive when, bit by bit, they are undermined, and why it is so damaging when a new Prime Minister who promised us he would be so different from his predecessors is simply reinforcing the same problems and the same damaging situation.

    Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)

    The Home Affairs Committee has just returned from a visit to Manston this morning. We heard that the numbers have reduced from over 4,000 at the end of October to just over 1,200 today. What perplexes the members of the Committee is that we do not understand how the number of people could reach 4,000 in a facility designed for only 1,600. How was that allowed to happen? I am very interested in what my right hon. Friend says about Manston and about getting some answers; we very much hope that the Home Secretary will come to the Home Affairs Committee to give those answers shortly.

    Yvette Cooper

    My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. I hope the Select Committee will be able to get answers, because if the then Home Secretary, now the Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), was clear on 20 October that overcrowding was getting worse and that emergency measures were needed to stop the Home Office breaking the law, why on earth did the current, and former, Home Secretary fail to act in her meeting on 19 October, just the day before—a meeting on Manston that she told us about in her resignation letter to my right hon. Friend?

    It has been reported that the Home Secretary was warned in the middle of September about the deteriorating circumstances, the fact that things were going to get worse and the high risk of successful legal challenge because the Home Office was breaking the law. She was warned on 1 October and again on 4 October, but she still failed to take the emergency measures that her successor was forced to take. She told the House:

    “I have never ignored legal advice.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2022; Vol. 721, c. 639.]

    The advice made clear what the law said and how things would get worse unless she acted, so what on earth is her definition of the word “ignored”? The definition I looked up says, “To disregard intentionally”, and that appears to be exactly what she did.

    If the Home Secretary wants to claim it was not intentional, but somehow accidental—that she just did not really have a clue what the consequences were of her inaction—I think that makes things worse.

    Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)

    If my memory serves me correctly, the right hon. Lady brought an urgent question to this place about a year ago opposing the use of Napier army barracks for those who enter this country illegally. She has just said she also opposes costly hotels. Just where would she accommodate those who have entered our country illegally?

    Yvette Cooper

    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall that what happened at Napier was that the Government ended up with a huge outbreak of more than 200 covid cases, at the height of a covid crisis, because they were failing to follow basic public health rules and requirements. To be honest, it was an incident that the Home Office again does not seem to have learned from, as we have had outbreaks of diphtheria, MRSA and scabies at Manston. Frankly, if the Home Office and the Government want to solve this properly, they need to address the total collapse in decision making, with just 14,000 decisions being made a year, which is half the number being decided just five or six years ago. That huge backlog has increased as a result of Government legislation that has added to the bureaucracy and made those delays much worse.

    Dame Meg Hillier

    The backlog is a hugely significant issue. Among my heavy case load, I have a surgeon who cannot move hospitals because he cannot get his visa turned around, families who are separated and spouses who cannot live together. That is the real human impact. We are turning our back on good people who want to work and live in this country because they are caught in the backlog as a result of the Home Secretary’s actions.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    Just before the shadow Home Secretary responds, I say to Members on both sides of the House that this is quite a specific motion on the papers relating to the Home Secretary. It is not a general debate on the Home Secretary or other Government Ministers, so please be mindful of that in any interventions from either side of the House, so that we can focus on what this motion is about.

    Yvette Cooper

    The issue is about whether or not the Home Secretary is continuing to breach the ministerial code. We know that on 19 October she had already broken the ministerial code twice, and she may have done so again in a subsequent meeting, also on 19 October. How many times can a Minister break the ministerial code in a single day and still be reappointed six days later?

    Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend notes that the Home Secretary says that she did not ignore the law, but she does not say that she followed the law or complied with the law. Yesterday, a Minister appeared to be saying that the Home Secretary chose to break the law in one way, rather than another way, which was to put people out destitute on to the streets of Kent. Is that not almost an admission that there has been lawbreaking in this case?

    Yvette Cooper

    The important point here is that Ministers have a responsibility for public safety, security and meeting and upholding standards. Part of the reason we are seeking this information and these facts about the decisions that were made is to find out whether any of these issues and concerns that have been raised in the Home Office were raised with the Prime Minister at the time, or whether the way in which the Home Secretary had behaved was raising concerns within the Cabinet Office and with the Cabinet Secretary.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    On what occasions during the previous Labour Government did the Government release legal advice they were given? In particular, did Tony Blair release the advice given to him on the Iraq war?

    Yvette Cooper

    The right hon. Gentleman is rewinding 12 years. We have had 12 years with a Conservative Government in place, and we have been very clear that this is about exceptional circumstances. He will know that a similar motion was supported by this House about Members of the other place, similarly in exceptional circumstances. We have also been clear that if there are any security concerns around the advice or information given to the Prime Minister, that should be shared instead with the Intelligence and Security Committee—that is the responsible way to do it.

    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)

    As someone who spent a few years working as an official in the Home Office, I am all too aware of how important it is to protect our national security. Is it not the case that the Government failing to provide the report to the Intelligence and Security Committee indicates that this Government are not serious about national security?

    Yvette Cooper

    That is the problem. We have these reports in the papers and the allegations that have been made, and we must bear in mind that this is not simply about the security lapses that the Home Secretary herself has recognised and admitted to; it is also about reports of further leak investigations during her time as Attorney General. We are simply asking for factual information about whether or not these were raised as concerns and whether or not this was an issue of concern for the Cabinet Office and the Cabinet Secretary when the Prime Minister made his reappointment decision.

    This goes to a wider problem about the way in which the Prime Minister appears to have been taking his decisions. The Government have confirmed that the Prime Minister knew about the complaint from the former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), against the Cabinet Office Minister, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), which also involves very serious allegations, including about the use of language. We should remember, too, that that Cabinet Office Minister was previously sacked from the Government by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for leaking information from the National Security Council. He has now been reappointed to the Cabinet Office—the very office that is responsible for supporting the National Security Council and leading on cyber-security. This matters—maintaining standards, maintaining the ministerial code and showing leadership on security matters.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

    Is not the reason that we have to ask for these papers to be laid before the House and put in the public domain that, time and again, those on the Government Benches have shown that they lack any judgment on national security, probity and integrity? They had a Prime Minister who had to resign in scandal, and there have been numerous scandals and leaks and a dangerous lack of regard for national security. In normal times, the Prime Minister would be able to see these documents, and they would not need to be presented to the House because this would have been dealt with, but these are not normal times, because the Conservative party has shown that it does not regard national security in the same way that we do.

    Yvette Cooper

    My hon. Friend makes a really important point: national security matters for all of us. This is a time when the national security threats that our country faces have changed. We face new threats from hostile states who wish to do our democracy harm. We face cyber threats from those who want to undermine our national interest. Cabinet Ministers are the custodians of that national interest, and we need all of them to take that seriously and not be careless about the risks that we face and the impact of a lack of leadership on these kinds of issue.

    Sadly, the reality is that we have had a series of Conservative Prime Ministers who have not taken these issues seriously. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), at the height of the Skripal crisis, as I said earlier, wandered off to a Russian villa in Italy, met an ex-KGB agent, took an unknown guest, did not report it to officials and still cannot remember whether Government business was discussed. The right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) was accused of using her private phone for sensitive Government business, and the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) has defended them all, reappointing as his Home Secretary someone his own Back Benchers refer to as “leaky”.

    If this is all nonsense, then Government Members should support the motion and show us that there is not a problem—show us that the Prime Minister does take this incredibly seriously, has asked the right questions and has got the right reassurances. He has only been in post two weeks, and already we have this chaos. He said he wants to stand up for integrity, so enforce the ministerial code. He said he wants professionalism, so appoint people who can do the job. He said he wants accountability, so support this motion and show some accountability to the House.

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Speech at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and National Police Chiefs’ Council Partnership Summit

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Speech at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and National Police Chiefs’ Council Partnership Summit

    The speech made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, on 9 November 2022.

    Introduction

    Thank you.

    I want to start by congratulating you on the theme you’ve chosen for this summit. Cutting crime and building confidence is exactly what’s needed.

    The way to ensure public confidence in the police is to focus on getting the basics right. What I call ‘common sense policing’. The kind of policing the law-abiding patriotic majority deserves and expects.

    No politically correct distractions, just good old-fashioned policing – with a relentless focus on making our streets, homes, and transport networks safer…

    …responding to all burglaries; tackling antisocial behaviour and the horrendous trade in illegal drugs; and supporting victims.

    I know that if police officers are properly empowered to do the job for which they signed up, they can really drive down crime. The government wants to see reductions in homicide, other serious violence, and neighbourhood crime – and I know it’s possible.

    Our best police officers are simply put, the finest in the world. In my time in office, I’ve witnessed excellence from the policing of Her Majesty the Queen’s funeral to the response to disorder in Leicester. I want that excellence to come as standard.

    Achievements

    I know what good policing looks like because I’ve seen it in action.

    The County Lines and Project ADDER programmes are making huge inroads into defeating the scourge of illegal drugs – tackling supply and disrupting gangs.

    Almost three thousand county lines have been closed down since 2019, putting dealers out of business and helping huge numbers escape the clutches of drug addiction and exploitation.

    That’s work that you achieved and you led.

    The work of the Milton Keynes and Thames Valley Police is another great example. There, police are ensuring that those caught carrying knives face swift and certain consequences. That they are arrested, charged, and remanded in custody. More forces should follow this example to send the clear message that carrying weapons on our streets will not be tolerated.

    PCCs have played a major role by helping to co-ordinate local, multi-agency work in support of all these objectives.

    Performance and standards

    Things can be turned around for the better in a comparatively short period of time. Superb leadership from Chief Constable Stephen Watson has made a big difference to Greater Manchester Police.

    They are responding there far faster to emergency calls and the number of open investigations has halved since 2021.

    How did he do it? He put more bobbies on the beat, pursued every crime, made excellent use of stop and search, and insisted that officers were smartly turned out with polished boots. He rejects woke policing and embraced a back to basics approach. For me, that is excellence in policing.

    If we are to maintain a world-class reputation for policing, we need to be willing to learn from others, share best practice, and continuously look to improve.

    I am really grateful that Chief Constable Watson has offered to share what he has learned from turning Greater Manchester Police around. Everyone should pay close attention.

    Six police forces remain in “engage” – and I expect to see them make the necessary improvements quickly, working constructively with HMICFRS. They have my full support and I want to see them succeed.

    I am very concerned that more than half of the forces inspected by HMICFRS in their recent inspection cycle have received poor grades for how they respond to the public and nearly half for how well they investigate crime.

    This is fundamental – policing is a public service above all else.

    Just last week, HMICFRS released their sobering report into vetting and corruption.

    Far too often, standards have not been high enough and despicable people have been able to enter and remain in the police.

    Policing is a job that attracts the very best of us. The vast majority of Police officers are exemplary citizens. But anyone who might want to hurt others simply must not be able to join – and those who are otherwise ill-suited need to be weeded out, and quickly.

    The report finds that previous warnings have not been acted upon. That is unacceptable. I therefore welcome the fact that the NPCC has promised that Chiefs will do everything necessary to deliver on the recommendations of the report.

    It is essential that we get both vetting and recruitment right, which means chief officers must draw from the best and widest pool of talent possible, as well as ensuring consistent and high standards in the vetting processes.

    I also welcome the College of Policing’s proposals for change, which follow a full, independent review of progression and development to chief officer ranks. These measures, once implemented, will increase transparency, and open-up access to senior level development.

    The government has provided significant investment to the College of Policing to create a National Leadership Centre. It will develop standards and a leadership development framework for all ranks.

    The interim findings of Baroness Casey’s review set out unequivocal failures by the Metropolitan Police Service, who did not act effectively on allegations of serious misconduct, in particular instances of sexual misconduct and discrimination.

    I know that Sir Mark Rowley shares my view that this is utterly appalling and intolerable. That’s why he has created a new Anti-Corruption and Abuse Command, recognising that change must come from within the Metropolitan Police Service.

    But I will not hesitate to act either. I recently announced an internal review into the effectiveness of the police officer dismissals process, for example. And I’m very keen to get your views as we go through that process.

    Cutting crime

    We have some big challenges when it comes to fighting crime.

    I am deeply concerned about the levels of homicide. While the number of murders that took place in the first six months of 2022 suggests the numbers are falling, a reduction will only be possible if the whole policing system works closely together.

    The College of Policing’s Homicide Prevention Framework, which launched last month, was developed with the NPCC and HMICFRS, and is a great example of collaborative working and the sharing of expertise.

    Meanwhile, I am making £130 million available this financial year to tackle serious violence, including £64 million for our network of 20 Violence Reduction Units.

    From January, the Serious Violence Duty will place a duty on local partners to work together to tackle the root causes of violence.

    As I said at the Conservative Party conference, broken windows matter. There is no such thing as petty crime. Any tolerance of low-level disorder and crime will only beget more serious crime. You all know this, I am sure of it.

    It is absolutely correct that all forces have agreed to send an officer to the scene of every residential burglary. I thank you for that commitment. Every kind of neighbourhood crime needs to be tackled robustly if we are to ensure public confidence and trust.

    The Safer Streets Fund has supported interventions addressing local needs across England and Wales, which is why the government announced a further £50 million earlier this year to support 111 projects.

    I also want to see a major improvement in the way the whole of the criminal justice system deals with rape. It is promising that more victims of sexual offences are coming forward to report crimes to the police and that more suspects are being charged.

    But we still have a very long way to go. As a society, too often, we have failed the victims of sexual violence. That cannot continue.

    Operation Soteria is an innovative and ambitious programme, supported by the Home Office, which is bringing together frontline policing, the CPS, and academic expertise to transform the response to rape.

    The new national operating models being developed by the programme will, from June 2023, support your police forces in delivering a sustainable shift in the way rape is investigated.

    Officers need to be and will be better equipped to build strong cases and to focus on the behaviour of the suspect, rather than subjective assessments of a victim’s credibility.

    Avon and Somerset, the pioneering force in Operation Soteria, have reported that charge rates have tripled since they began the pilot, and arrests are twice as high.

    Policing must seize the opportunities presented by Operation Soteria to further improve your response to rape.

    The final report by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published last month shows how endemic these unspeakable crimes are.

    The first-hand accounts of the terrible abuse endured by children and how badly they were let down by those who should have protected them are truly shocking. This report has redoubled my determination to do all in my power to end the scourge of child sexual abuse.

    Along with the overwhelming majority of the public, I am disgusted that misplaced cultural and political sensitives in places like Manchester, Rotherham, and Telford got in the way of tackling wicked grooming gangs preying on vulnerable children.

    We will drive radical change.

    The Home Office will take whatever action is available to us to make our communities safer. In Rochdale, the two foreign nationals who were members of that terrible grooming gang were deported. Other members of the group were deprived of their British nationality and the Home Office remains absolutely committed to deporting these individuals where the law allows it.

    This is not just a matter for the police – it is a matter for all of us – the law-abiding majority, but it is right that HMICFRS is inspecting the police response to grooming gangs.

    As Home Secretary, I’ll ensure that here are no safe spaces for rapists, paedophiles, domestic abusers, grooming gangs, burglars, or criminals of any kind. Those convicted – particularly repeat and sexual offenders – should expect longer sentences. And I will talk honestly and unapologetically about crime – which is never justified and which needs to be investigated and rooted out fearlessly.

    Our police officers’ time is precious, and the public want the police to be tackling crime, not debating genders on Twitter. I have asked my officials to revisit the issue of non-crime hate incidents as a first step, as I want to be sure that we are allowing you to prioritise your time to deal with threats to people and their property.

    Underpinning all of this is transparency and accountability – we must not shy away from being open and honest with the public about performance.

    Strip search is one of the most intrusive powers you have at your disposal. There is a grim reality that many of you in this room will recognise. Many criminals will stop at nothing to evade detection. Sometimes, people may carry items that pose a danger to themselves, or others, concealed on them. Strip search is therefore a necessary and essential power and one that this government supports the police to use to protect the public and fight crime.

    However, any strip search must be carried out professionally, respectfully, and lawfully, with full consideration for the welfare and dignity of the person being searched, particularly when they are a child.

    What the government is doing to support policing

    I am on your side.

    I want us all to pull in the same direction. And I will do everything in my power to support you and to back you.

    Officers and staff show remarkable commitment to keeping the public safe in the face of danger.

    Detectives do extraordinary work to ensure we can put criminals behind bars.

    So I cannot help but feel a deep sense of gratitude and pride when officers and staff have their bravery and commitment formally recognised through medals, honours, and awards.

    However, I recognise that this only represents a fraction of the outstanding actions taken every day by our police across the country. I want to ensure that the amazing job you do is recognised in full, and we are committed, through the Police Covenant, to ensuring that this is done correctly.

    I am committed to supporting you in using your powers without fear or favour to keep our streets, and keep our people safe. Under my watch you have my full backing to use stop and search, which is a vital tool in the fight against crime.

    Since 2019, the government has been making it easier for you to use stop and search, by relaxing restrictions on Section 60 powers, used in anticipation of violence, and empowering you to stop and challenge known knife carriers through Serious Violence Reduction Orders.

    Every knife seized through stop and search is a potential life saved. In the 12 months to March this year, you removed around 14,900 weapons and firearms from our streets through stop and search and made almost 67,000 arrests following a stop.

    To those who try to undermine your use of stop and search, or question your legitimate use of investigatory powers, or the use of force which leads to the prevention of crime, I say this: our police are working to keep you safe. To keep your children safe. To save lives. Let them do their work.

    It is only right that you can stand firm against criminals, rather than listening to those who would denigrate your work or use data selectively to undermine your credibility.

    On a daily basis, our police officers put themselves in harm’s way to protect us.

    Taser is a vital tactical option. I saw how vital a tool this can be when I visited Thames Valley police to observe firearms training.

    In March 2020, the government gave more than £6 million to forces to purchase over 7,000 devices, increasing the number of officers who are trained in and have a Taser.

    In August 2020, we approved the use of the Taser 7, a more accurate and effective device, for policing.

    In March we approved the use of Taser by specially trained special constables.

    I am committed to ensuring that the police have access to Tasers wherever appropriate.

    Of course it’s not just violent criminals on our streets that we are determined to stop. I also want to see more fraudsters caught and brought to justice. I am sure that is an ambition we all share.

    The government is allocating a further £400 million over the next three years for tackling economic crime including fraud.

    By March 2025, over 330 new officers dedicated to this work will have been recruited into City of London Police, Regional Organised Crime Units and the National Crime Agency. We will replace the current Action Fraud system with a new and improved service, and we will increase intelligence capabilities in the NCA and the national security community to identify and disrupt the most harmful criminals and serious organised criminal gangs.

    And we are making sure that the biggest tech companies are doing everything they can to prevent online fraud through our world-leading Online Safety Bill.

    The latest figures from the Police Uplift Programme show we have recruited more than 15,000 additional officers – so we are well on the way to 20,000. I have met some of these new officers, and it is great to see their enthusiasm for their new careers; some not far from here, in a Safer Neighbourhood Team within the Met.

    The College of Policing has been working hard to raise the standards of initial entry and ensure officers are equipped to meet the challenges of policing today. And we know that to build public confidence, we must draw from the widest possible pool of talent across all sections of society.

    To deliver this, forces must increase efforts to implement the new entry routes successfully. Whilst I have heard some good things about the new entry routes, such as better retention of officers who feel better equipped to do the job, I have also heard from many of you that there is a need for more flexibility to ensure broad access to a policing career.

    So, I have asked the College to build on their work by considering options for a new non-degree entry route, to deliver officers of the highest calibre, which will complement the existing framework. In the meantime, the current transitional non degree entry route will be kept open.

    Our police force must be open to those who do not have a degree or want one.

    And I will take the scissors to any red tape that gets in your way. Sir Stephen House’s Operational Productivity Review will be particularly useful in this endeavour.

    I am concerned that crime recording requirements can be seen as too complex and burdensome. I am committed to working with the police to see how recording can be simplified without compromising on putting victims first.

    I also want to see policing and the National Health Service work better together to support individuals experiencing acute mental health distress so that people in need of medical help get the right care at the right time, while also reducing inappropriate demand on policing.

    New public order legislation will improve your ability to pre-emptively tackle unlawful protests and tackle repeat offenders, and new criminal offences will allow for punitive outcomes that reflect the harm caused by the selfish, criminal minority.

    Past decisions by the courts have made your job more challenging. My reference to the Court of Appeal has proven that the Ziegler ruling has been misinterpreted and has only a limited scope.

    Although most police officers do an excellent job, sadly, in recent months and years we have seen an erosion of confidence in the police to take action against the radicals, the road-blockers, the vandals, the militants and the extremists.

    But we have also seen the police appear to lose confidence in themselves; in yourselves. In your authority, in your power. An institutional reluctance. This has to change.

    Criminal damage, obstructing the highway, public nuisance – none of it should be humoured. It is not a human right to vandalise a work of art. It is not a civil liberty to stop ambulances getting to the sick and injured.

    Such disruption is a threat to our way of life. It does not ‘further a cause’. It is not ‘freedom of expression’ and I want to reassure you that you have my – and this government’s – full backing in taking a firmer line to safeguard public order. Indeed, that is your duty.

    Scenes of members of the public taking the law into their own hands are a sign of a loss of confidence and I urge you all to step up to your public duties in policing protests. The law-abiding patriotic majority is on your side. This is what common-sense policing means.

    Too often, a restricted interpretation of legislation is taken. A lack of certainty on the meaning of serious disruption to the life of the community and how the cumulative impact of repeated protests should be considered has led to a limited use of existing powers. I hope to see improved guidance on these matters so that public order commanders and officers can make full use of the powers available to them with confidence.

    The public order act will give you more tools but too often, the rights of protesters are placed above the rights of others. Criminal activists cannot be allowed to bring misery and chaos to the law-abiding majority. Free speech and the right to protest do not entitle people in a democracy like ours to break the law. And importantly, the legitimate use of your force safeguards freedoms for all of us to enjoy.

    My thoughts and wishes go to the Essex Police officer who was injured this morning on the M25 while responding to the guerrilla tactics of Just Stop Oil protesters.

    Building confidence

    Policing is a very difficult job with a simple mission: to keep the law-abiding majority safe. And to keep the criminals off our streets.

    That means that the public have a set of basic expectations of policing. They expect to be able to contact their local police, they expect to see police in their neighbourhood confronting crime and making their streets safer. They expect the police to get the basics right.

    It has been almost 10 years since the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners – elected by the public to be their voice and to hold chief constables to account.

    I am very grateful for the work you have done since 2012, bringing the system together to deliver local priorities and advocating for victims across the criminal justice system.

    In Devon and Cornwall, for example, the PCC has commissioned a strategic delivery partnership with Victim Support to put victim’s needs at the centre of service commissioning. And in Northumbria they have developed and championed the Multi-Agency Tasking and Coordination approach for improving partnership working in domestic abuse, providing a model that others have since adopted.

    But I want you to go further. I am committed to delivering the recommendations from the PCC Review so that you have the tools you need to be strong and visible leaders in the fight against crime.

    It will give you a more defined role in relation to offender management and local partnerships, including strengthening the arrangements of Local Criminal Justice Boards.

    I also want to see better and more consistent data, which underpins a joined-up approach to local crime fighting activity.

    I am overseeing new central guidance on data-sharing, as well as bringing together local level examples of good practice, to help build a more data-confident culture. I also want to see more data transparency to drive up standards across policing.

    And I want to say how much I admire Chief Constables – and indeed officers of all ranks. It is precisely because I believe in the police that I have such high expectations – expectations which I know the best among you desperately want all officers to meet.

    I want to hear from you, I want to have a meaningful dialogue with all of you. I want our senior police officers to understand better what is happening on the ground, and how you are making innovative operational decisions to stop crime and apprehend perpetrators – I will be asking for regular correspondence from all of you on your crucially important efforts.

    Conclusion

    British policing is respected throughout the world.

    I feel very optimistic about the years ahead. Brilliant people keep coming forward to serve. Inspired and inspiring leaders are driving change in their force and their community.

    And we already have a template that works.

    It dates back to the days of Robert Peel.

    Technology may change and new challenges will come along – yet the basics remain the same.

    If we all stay true to that tradition of public service, we will succeed and we will succeed together.

    Thank you.

  • Hertfordshire Police – 2022 Statement on Arrest of a Journalist

    Hertfordshire Police – 2022 Statement on Arrest of a Journalist

    The statement made by Hertfordshire Police on 8 November 2022 after the arrest of a journalist.

    As always, our priority remains to ensure public safety – we have a responsibility for the health and safety of all those involved and everyone at the scene, including emergency services, members of the public, members of the press and the protestors themselves.

    These operations are very fluid and fast moving, with the potential to cause widespread and sustained disruption, that not only affects Hertfordshire’s stretch of the M25 but also the wider road networks.

    Our officers have been instructed to act as quickly as they can, using their professional judgement, to clear any possible protestors in order to get roads up and running and to prevent anyone from coming to harm.

    Seven people were arrested yesterday. Of these seven, two were subsequently charged and two were released on police bail with conditions. Three of them were released with no further action following extensive enquiries.

    Though as a matter of course we do not comment on the circumstances surrounding individual arrests, these circumstances did give us grounds to hold them in custody for questioning in order to verify their credentials and progress our investigation.

  • Charlotte Lynch – 2022 Comments on her Arrest as a Journalist

    Charlotte Lynch – 2022 Comments on her Arrest as a Journalist

    The comments made by the journalist Charlotte Lynch on Twitter on 9 November 2022.

    Yesterday I was arrested by @HertsPolice whilst covering a protest on the M25. I showed my press card, and I was handcuffed almost immediately. My phone was snatched out of my hand. I was searched twice, held in a cell for 5 hours, and I wasn’t questioned whilst in custody.

  • Kerry McCarthy – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    Kerry McCarthy – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    The speech made by Kerry McCarthy, the Labour MP for Bristol East, in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair as always, Mr Hollobone. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) made some interesting points; the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care has done a lot of work on these issues, which chimes with some of the points she made.

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and for sharing the experiences of Jade Ward’s family. There are no words to describe the pain that those close to Jade have been through, but my right hon. Friend did an excellent job of articulating their calls for action. It cannot be easy for those of them present here to have to listen to this debate, but I hope they feel some reassurance. People who have been through difficult experiences often get some strength from the idea that something good may come of the pain they have been through.

    It is often assumed that when one parent is sentenced for a serious offence, a legal mechanism is automatically triggered to assure the safety and wellbeing of their children and those looking after them. As we have heard, that just does not happen. When a parent goes to prison and they have parental responsibility, they retain it by default. Care givers must consult them ahead of key decisions concerning the children’s names, where they go to school, their religious upbringing and any medical procedures they undergo before their 18th birthday. Where parental responsibility is concerned, the law does not differentiate between parents who commit non-violent offences and those guilty of serious offences, including murder, rape, sexual offences against children, gang-related violence and so on. As we have heard, that is even the case where one parent has killed the other, or where the parent in prison has killed another family member.

    Understandably, the petition is focused on parental or interparental homicide, which is where we should start in terms of reviewing the law, but there are many other cases that involve similar scenarios. Far too many parents have to keep in contact with their abusers for their children’s sake. I say “for their children’s sake”, but that is based on a default presumption that it must always be in the child’s interest for the parent in prison to retain contact, and quite often that presumption is wrong.

    The only mechanism a child’s primary care givers currently have to challenge the perpetrator’s right to parental responsibility is through the legal system. A court can terminate a father’s parental responsibility on the grounds of their behaviour, but that happens only in exceptional circumstances, where there is proof that the father’s retention of that responsibility—I say “father” as a shorthand—would be detrimental to the child’s welfare. As I understand it, that has only ever happened four times in England and Wales.

    Families are not always willing to put themselves through the extra trauma of attending a court hearing and having to relive the worst time of their lives, with their version of events placed under the microscope yet again. Facing the person who killed or abused their loved one—or abused them—and looking that person in the eye is often very difficult. They might also be fearful that the perpetrator will retaliate in whatever way they can if the court removes the rights, especially if they will be released from prison before the child turns 18. It takes a lot of courage to take a violent perpetrator to court while knowing the risks, and it is easy to see why many would be put off attending court at all. As we have heard, spiralling court backlogs and cuts to legal aid make the process more agonising for the families.

    The main thing I want to talk about today is the work of the charity Children Heard and Seen, which supports children with a parent in prison. The primary focus—this is what differentiates it from other charities—is on the interests of the child. A lot of the organisations that work with prisoners’ families focus very much on the rights of the prisoner, and there is an assumption that contact with the family is in the prisoner’s interests; because we know, for example, that such contact means far less risk of reoffending.

    It often shocks people to learn that there is no system for recording when a child’s parent goes into prison. Sometimes it is picked up in pre-sentence reports, although the parent will not always admit that they have a child because they worry about them being taken into care. Social services might already be involved with the family, or they might become involved if they suspect that the children are the direct victims of the parent’s crime, such as child sexual abuse, but we often find that social services—once they realise the children were not the victims and perhaps other children were—just disappear from the scene.

    There is no system for routinely informing children’s services at the council or the children’s school, or for monitoring the children’s wellbeing during a parent’s imprisonment. The data is also hard to come by. One figure is used quite a lot—that 312,000 children are affected from year to year. I think that is probably on the high side, but it is impossible to tell. Many children are off the radar, despite potentially being at risk, or very vulnerable and needing support.

    Children Heard and Seen runs a support group for carers who look after children affected by interparental homicide. It also supports families who continue to experience harassment or coercive control, despite the perpetrator being in prison. That includes domestic violence cases. I have heard from the charity about the strategies that domestic abusers use to manipulate their ex-partners while in prison, from using illicit burner phones to breach restraining orders, to refusing divorce papers and getting friends or neighbours to harass and intimidate them.

    Services supporting victims might tell them they are safe once their former partner is in prison, but that is not always the case. Children Heard and Seen says that allowing a violent offender parental responsibility gives them the opportunity to control their child, ex-partner or family from within the prison walls. On the Children Heard and Seen website, there are quite a few blog posts by people who have been affected by a parent or a partner going into prison.

    To cite one case, a mother applied for passports to take her children on holiday after a difficult few years that led up to the father’s imprisonment. Because both parents had parental responsibility, she needed his signature to complete the application. He was given the paperwork by the prison officers, but refused to sign it, which meant the family could not travel and the mother lost every penny she had paid towards the holiday. Of course, the father would not have been able to join them on holiday, but it was not about the children at all; it was just another way to pull the strings in his family’s life and exercise control over his former partner, despite the physical distance between them.

    A perpetrator of domestic abuse might be restricted from contacting their actual victim—such as the mother, in this case—if there is a restraining order in place. However, if they have children together, it is easy for the perpetrator to use that child as a way to stay present in the abused partner’s life. Little can be done to stop them calling or writing to their children. As has been said, family services often encourage prisoners to stay in touch in such situations, as it is seen as being in the prisoner’s interest. There is also a belief that a child must want to see their parent who is in prison and must be missing them dreadfully, despite having witnessed a lot of abuse at home, and actually being fearful of the parent, and, in some ways, relieved that they have been removed from the household.

    The perpetrator can use this contact to say that they will only see the children if the mother brings them to the prison, which, if the child wants to see the parent, is a way of exercising control. They can also make veiled threats through written letters. I cannot imagine how chilling it must be for an ex-partner to have to read out letters from their abuser to their children, in which the abuser may say he is getting stronger in prison and counting down the days until he sees their mum again, or which contain drawings of the children’s favourite film characters holding knives. We need a case-by-case approach, where services work with families to take a more active role in determining when contact is appropriate.

    As of 2019, men made up 95% of the prison population. A far higher proportion of men are in prison for serious offences, so it is fair to assume that far more fathers are in prison than mothers. The flipside of that is the extra layer of complexity if a mother is arrested for a serious offence. Societal expectations about a mother’s natural role as a primary care giver can lead to the assumption that they should automatically keep parental responsibility. As I understand it, courts cannot legally terminate a mother’s parental responsibility, although it can, in rare cases, be limited.

    It is important to remember the key principle of the Children Act 1989, which is that the welfare of the child is paramount. A child’s right to safety and protection from harm overrides all other legal considerations. How can the welfare of the child be paramount if their imprisoned parent can use contact with them to manipulate or control other family members?

    Mark Tami

    My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Although she is talking about people in prison, we have probably all seen instances in our casework—thankfully at a much lower level—where relationships have broken down and children are weaponised by one or both partners. I have always found it very strange that a father might not pay towards the children’s upkeep but still has the same rights as someone who does pay. I do not understand that, although I know why it is the case: the two are not seen to be connected. However, I have always had the view that if someone does not support their children, they should not automatically think they should have exactly the same rights as somebody who does.

    Kerry McCarthy

    I entirely agree. I think we have all seen cases where contact with the children will be supervised and the family will have to go to a centre due to the relationship between the ex-partners, because the mother is fearful of being alone in the same room as the father. I have seen so many examples where that has been manipulated and the father does not actually want to see the children, but instead wants to use the visit as a way of putting fear into the heart of the mother, who is bringing the children along.

    Until the laws around parental responsibility change, families will continue to suffer. As we have outlined today, suspending parental responsibility for those who commit serious, violent crimes—at least on a temporary basis—would certainly be a start. The right to parental responsibility could then be reviewed and re-established if the families consent and new evidence indicates it would be appropriate.

    It is important to re-emphasise that this is not a matter of removing a prisoner’s right to parental responsibility in all instances; it is about protecting children and families caught up in the most extreme circumstances. We need to consider it on a case-by-case basis. Care givers need more input into the process of determining parental responsibility from the start. The police and other authorities need more training in spotting the signs of coercive control within families. Above all, children’s best interests and safety must be put first.

    It is difficult to keep up with personnel changes in this Government, but I have had meetings with Justice Ministers and the Minister for Children and Families, and I have raised this issue in various debates. We need data on how many children have a parent in prison. Anecdotally, I know that there is a huge number out there, and unless we can identify how many there are and find a way of recording them, we will never be able to give them the help and support they need.

    I again congratulate Jade Ward’s family for fighting for this change. I hope today’s discussion takes us a step further in resolving these issues.

  • Sarah Atherton – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    Sarah Atherton – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    The speech made by Sarah Atherton, the Conservative MP for Wrexham, in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the petitioners for bringing us this important debate. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Jade’s family, and thank them for their bravery in advocating for change at such a tragic time.

    Looking at the list of petition signatories by parliamentary constituency, there is clearly a strong geographical centre of support in north Wales and just across the border, with strong pockets of support in Delyn, Vale of Clwyd, Ellesmere Port, Chester and, of course, Wrexham. Some 878 people in Wrexham signed the petition, but I have no doubt that support for its aims extends right across the country, across parties and borders.

    Let me touch on a few points. The Government’s initial response states that, under the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility can already be lifted by the court. There is a mechanism in the Act that allows for a member of a child’s family to care for that child if there is no parent to do so on a day-to-day basis. I am pleased that that safeguard and option is already in law, as it should be, but the law could go further.

    My concern is that the process of obtaining that legal status is lengthy and expensive, and that, as a direct result of that lengthy process, parental responsibility remains with the perpetrator of a crime until the process is complete. If the process of obtaining what I understand is called a special guardianship order was less time consuming, less expensive and less onerous for family members who honourably try to do the right thing in difficult circumstances, we might not be seeking the automatic removal of parental responsibility.

    Although it is different from Jade’s law, I do have some experience with the case of constituent who is trying to obtain an order to take over parental responsibility for their grandchildren in the absence of parents who are present and able to parent. My constituent’s case constituent highlighted to me how difficult and expensive it is to obtain the guardianship of grandchildren.

    Obtaining a special guardianship order can cost thousands and thousands of pounds, and that is assuming that the parent gives consent in the first place. That is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to achieve; where a family member is willing and able to take care of children, we should support them to do so, not put barriers in their way. We should not be making it more difficult for children to be looked after by their family rather than the state. First, being cared for by their family is the best and safest option for children, as they already know them and their routines. Secondly, a child being looked after by the state should never be the preferred first option. The process currently makes it easier for children to be looked after by the state, at significant cost, than by members of their family. In my view and that of the constituents of Wrexham, that is wrong.

    The safety and wellbeing of a child are always paramount. I was a nurse and social worker for 27 years, so I have first-hand experience of children being removed from their homes and placed in temporary accommodation that lasts year after year. From many years of seeing this, I know that there is no substitute for a child being raised by their family in a safe and loving home. If all necessary safeguards and checks have been done, and this arrangement can be accommodated, it absolutely should be. Of course, there should be a presumption that if one parent murders another, parental responsibility is removed.

    My concern with automatically removing parental responsibility is that we need to have processes in place to deal with the gap in care and decision making. At the moment, the process for handing parental responsibility to family members is too laborious, costly and stressful. We need to make allowances for that or make the process easier, so that children are not automatically cared for by the state when they do not need to be. Local authorities need to be more supportive of families applying for a special guardianship order. However, where the state is needed—remembering that health and social care is devolved in Wales—the Welsh Government need to ensure that councils are adequately funded, so that children always have timely and appropriate care and do not fall between the gaps. Where there are family members who are fit, willing and able to make decisions for the children, that option should always be the priority.

  • Mark Tami – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    Mark Tami – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

    The speech made by Mark Tami, the Labour MP for Alyn and Deeside, in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered e-petition 614893, relating to suspension of parental responsibility for people convicted of serious offences.

    Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. The petition calls for the automatic suspension of parental responsibility for any parent found guilty of murdering the other during their period of imprisonment. I want to place on record my thanks to Jade Ward’s family and friends and, in particular, Edwin Duggan for their dedication and work in putting together this petition, which has received more than 130,000 signatures. That is a remarkable achievement.

    At the heart of this debate is the life and memory of Jade Ward. Jade was an enormously loved mother, daughter and friend. She has been described as the sunshine in the lives of all who knew her. She was bubbly, kind and caring, and truly devoted to her four sons. The last days of Jade’s life were spent caring for her grandmother as she recovered from surgery, laughing with her friends in her garden and providing for her children. These final moments typify the life that Jade led and the kind person she was.

    On 26 August 2021, Jade was brutally murdered by her estranged husband, Russell Marsh, in a premeditated attack. On 12 April 2022, Marsh was given a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years in prison. After Jade ended their relationship a week before her murder, Marsh had reportedly told friends that if he could not have Jade, no one could. Marsh was a controlling figure throughout their relationship, who would tell Jade who she could see and speak to, and what she could wear and do. When Jade stood up to him, she was killed as punishment.

    Jade was just 27 and lived in Shotton. She had four children with Marsh, who were sleeping nearby as their mother’s life was taken away from her. Jade’s family were horrified to learn that, despite these utterly distressing circumstances, they face the prospect of continued contact with the man who murdered their daughter. Although Marsh will obviously not have custody over the children while he serves his time in prison, despite all his appalling actions, under law, he retains parental responsibility. Jade’s mother, Karen, said that she was “absolutely gobsmacked” to hear that her daughter’s killer could still have a say in the boys’ lives. If you walked down any street today, Mr Hollobone, and told people how the law works on this matter, I think they would be gobsmacked too.

    What exactly does the law say about this matter? When a child does not have a parent to care for them, local authorities have a duty to safeguard the child and find an interim or permanent care arrangement. The child’s relatives can seek a court order to care for them, local authorities can initiate proceedings with a view to providing for the child’s upbringing and carers can achieve parental rights through a special guardianship order.

    Importantly, where two parties have parental responsibility, one party cannot make decisions unilaterally; they must seek the other party’s agreement. Responsibility is automatically equal so, in law, neither party’s parental responsibility is considered more important than the other’s. That stretches to even the most extreme cases, in which one parent has been convicted of murdering the other.

    I understand that Jade’s parents have been told that if they want to take their grandsons on holiday abroad, they need permission from the father. A convicted parent must also be consulted on issues such as where the children go to school and the medical treatment they receive. Effectively, Marsh has the right to veto decisions made by Jade’s parents and pursue a family court hearing.

    We can only imagine how traumatic that must be for Jade’s parents. They have already suffered the terrible pain of losing their daughter in that way, yet the process as it stands compels them to interact with their daughter’s killer. It acts as a constant reminder of surely the darkest moment in their lives. As with Jade’s boys, the children are often in the care of the family of the deceased parent. The current process effectively grants the convicted parent the means to continue the control and coercion of the family in the way they did prior to the murder of the victim.

    Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his powerful speech. Does he agree that “re-victimisation” is not too strong a word to describe what would happen to the family in such circumstances?

    Mark Tami

    I agree, because it just does not stop and there is no chance to move on—not that it would ever be easy to move on. It gives the convicted person even more weapons to use against the family of the deceased.

    It must be extremely traumatic for the children to know that the person who killed their mother or father knows so much about their lives, particularly if they witnessed the murder. The law surrounding parental responsibility is clearly not fit for purpose and facilitates further unnecessary emotional trauma. It helps perpetrators with a history of domestic abuse to practise their controlling and psychological abuse from inside their prison cell. We often think of domestic abuse as physical violence, which it is in many cases, but at its root is control. It is about the perpetrator controlling their so-called partner, and having control from their prison cell must give them a real buzz.

    If parental rights are by default retained, even in the most horrific of circumstances, when can they be restricted? The Children Act 1989 allows the guardian or holders of a residence order to go to a family court to bring a prohibited steps order against a person with parental responsibility, but the onus is still on the family to prove that parental rights should be revoked. It is expensive and time-consuming, and is an emotionally draining process for the families, who have to come to terms with the tragic loss they have just experienced. That is why Jade’s family—Karen, Paul and Pip—and their friends are campaigning to have the parental responsibility of a parent who is found guilty of murdering the other parent automatically suspended.

    Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)

    I am very moved by the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. As someone who brought up a child on my own, I often worried about what would happen if something happened to me. Does he agree that the current system fails to put the child at the centre of the legislation?

    Mark Tami

    I agree with the hon. Lady. I will go on to talk about family courts, including some of their problems and the lack of connection between what happens there and in other courts. In this case, and indeed in many other cases, children can be effectively weaponised by the person who has committed the offence, who can carry on their control and abuse.

    Currently, the onus is on the family to prove why Marsh’s parental responsibility should be revoked or restricted, whereas Jade’s law calls for parental responsibility to be automatically suspended in circumstances such as these, putting the onus on the killer to go through the legal hoops of proving they deserve parental responsibility, freeing the victim’s family of the traumatic burden they currently carry. As Jade’s mother said:

    “We are going through enough without having him looming over our heads.”

    That really sums up the situation we find in the law today.

    Unfortunately, Jade’s family are not the only ones. Ahead of the debate, the Chair of the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), spoke to survivors of domestic abuse who are experiencing ongoing issues relating to the retention of parental responsibility by ex-partners. Their experiences highlighted just how far our laws on parental responsibilities and the family court system are failing children and victims of domestic violence.

    One issue that came out strongly from the discussions was that violence committed against a parent is not distinct from violence against a child. Indeed, allowing a child to witness or be surrounded by violent behaviour is inherently abusive in itself. A parent’s willingness to subject their child to that surely calls into question their ability to act in that child’s best interests.

    Yet women who spoke to the Committee felt that family courts do not recognise that. Despite all the convictions for traumatic sexual, physical and emotional abuse, the threat those men pose to their own children’s welfare does not seem to be acknowledged. Over and over again, the Committee heard that the abuser’s right to be a parent was prioritised over the children’s right to safety. A woman whose former partner was convicted of sexual abuse offences asked what I think is a perfectly reasonable question: why should he be allowed to access their children when he was considered too dangerous to work with or be around other people’s children?

    For victims of domestic violence and for families who have lost loved ones to an abusive partner, the criminal justice process is often just too traumatic. Not only are they forced to relive harrowing experiences, but they have to come back into contact with the person responsible for them. One might think that once proceedings have ended and a criminal charge has been made and proven, they could begin to move on, but since family and criminal courts are distinct from each other, victims are forced to restart the emotional and burdensome process to restrict parental rights.

    One of the women who spoke to the Chair of the Petitions Committee found the family court system itself to be abusive. With renewed contact with her ex-partner, it became a new avenue through which he continued his controlling behaviour. A common opinion was that family courts are not equipped to deal with traumatic cases of murder and domestic abuse.

    Both Jade’s family and the women who spoke to the Committee also emphasised the financial pressure imposed on them by the current system. Pursuing a case in the family court is expensive, and the lack of funding for legal aid is a longstanding issue, as we all know. Victims and their families are forced into thousands of pounds of debt to restrict parental responsibility, or they face compromising on the safety of their children.

    Since the beginning of the family’s campaign, the Government have stated that there is already scope for courts to exercise powers

    “to effectively remove all parental powers and authority in appropriate cases.”

    However, the Government are missing the point. Jade’s family and friends are already aware of the law as it stands and the current process of restricting parental responsibility, but they, and we, are saying that the process is wrong. The onus should be on the convicted murderer to prove they should have parental responsibility, rather than the family having to make the case for why that person should not. Jade’s law would be a simple, common-sense way of shifting the burden away from a victim’s family and friends, who have already suffered the anguish of the murder of their loved one. Jade’s law would put an end to the endless cycle of psychological torment, lengthy and costly court processes and the constant harrowing reminders that the current system puts on a victim’s family and friends.

    Let us be clear: Jade’s law does not demand the automatic removal of parental responsibility for cases such as these; it demands an automatic suspension, giving the perpetrator the opportunity to go through the legal hoops themselves to prove that they should be entitled to those parental powers. The perpetrator will have to prove they have changed their ways and admitted to their crimes, and that they have gone on a long journey to have the right to be involved in their children’s lives, not the other way round.

    The petitioners recognise that there are nuances. For instance, they recognise that there are specific circumstances where it would be right to exempt someone convicted of killing the other parent from an automatic suspension of parental responsibilities. These would include where a convicted person could prove that there was a history of domestic abuse in their relationship and that, although the murder cannot be condoned, the murder trial concluded that provocation was a mitigating factor. However, the principle of shifting the burden of proof is the key message that we are sending the Government today.

    Rob Roberts

    The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. To expand on this interesting idea, does he envisage this measure being akin to a parole board, where somebody fights their case for early release, or would there be some kind of additional legal process, such as requiring them to go back to court and fight for their rights?

    Mark Tami

    As I said, I believe the process should be turned round, so that it puts the onus on the convicted person, and they would have to go through the same process that the victim’s family are effectively forced to go through now.

    I am delighted that Labour supports this change, but I do not want it to be a party political matter because it is not. I do not think that anyone in this room, regardless of their party, would stand up and defend the current system or say: “It’s absolutely fine. I don’t know what the fuss is about.” As I have said, if we went out on the streets, almost everybody would say, “That seems to be the correct thing to do”. I hope we can move forward across the House and add a mechanism to existing legislation, such as the Children Act 1989, whereby one parent found guilty of murdering the other parent would have their responsibility rights automatically suspended throughout their term of imprisonment—which, again, would impose the burden on the convicted person.

    I am not prejudging what the Minister will say, but I am sure his officials will say, as they always do: “This is very difficult. It’s going to take a long time. We can’t do this; we can’t do that”. I have always believed that where there is a will, there is a way, and I am sure that the appropriate legislation can be amended to ensure that this change actually happens. The implementation of Jade’s law would not add additional costs to the public purse. In fact, it might save local authorities money, because they would no longer have to send social workers to visit convicted parents to obtain permission for things. It is a cost-free or even money-saving reform that would relieve the traumatic burden that the families of victims currently carry, and it is the morally right thing to do. To me, it is simple and common sense.

    Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)

    I had a similar, horrific case in my constituency that related to the parental rights of someone who was convicted of sexual offences against my constituent’s children. This is a cross-party issue, and I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who at that time made change happen and was very supportive. I urge the Minister to make change happen today for Jade.

    Mark Tami

    I share in those words.

    To conclude, I read a statement issued by Jade’s parents after their daughter’s killer was sentenced:

    “Jade was the sunshine in our lives, she was the glue that held us all together. She was also a devoted mum who would do anything for her children, a much-loved friend, daughter, sister, aunty, niece and granddaughter. Jade’s whole life was ahead of her, and her death has left a void in all our lives.”

    Sadly, it is now too late for Jade. But her children, and others in the same situation, still have their whole lives before them. We owe it to them to ensure that the system is on the side of the victims.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Gang Violence in London

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Gang Violence in London

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 1 November 2022.

    The fact Black Londoners have less trust in the Met should concern us all. That is why the comprehensive overhaul of the Gang Violence Matrix is so important – increased scrutiny and transparency will help increase the degree of confidence all of London’s diverse communities can have in the Met.

    As a direct result of the police acting on the recommendations, the Matrix database is now more effective and more evidence-based than ever before.

    We know that gang-related violence still accounts for a significant proportion of the most serious crime in London and the Matrix is a necessary enforcement tool as well as a means to support and intervention, but it’s vitally important that the police continue to evaluate how it is used. It’s something the new Met Commissioner and I have committed to improving together in order to build a fairer and safer London for everyone.

  • Chris Philp – 2022 Speech on the HMI Report into the Police Service

    Chris Philp – 2022 Speech on the HMI Report into the Police Service

    The speech made by Chris Philp, the Minister of State at the Home Department, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2022.

    I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), the shadow Minister, for her question on this extremely important topic. The report published yesterday by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services makes for deeply troubling reading. The inspection was commissioned by the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), following the horrific murder of Sarah Everard by a then serving officer, as well as the emergence of wider concerns about policing culture.

    The report concludes that it has been far

    “too easy for the wrong people both to join and to stay in the police.”

    The inspectorate found that on too many occasions vetting was not thorough enough and that in some cases it was inadequate. The Government take the view, as I am sure Members from across the House do, that that is unacceptable. It is particularly unacceptable and disappointing to hear about these vetting failures given that the Government have provided very substantial additional funding to fund the extra 20,000 police officers and additional resources for the police more widely.

    The inspectorate concluded that, although the culture has improved in recent years, misogyny, sexism and predatory behaviour towards female officers and staff members “still exists” and is too high in many forces. That is shameful and must act as a wake-up call. That sort of disgraceful conduct undermines the work of the thousands—the vast majority—of decent, hard-working police officers who perform their duties with the utmost professionalism. More damagingly, it undermines public trust. This matters a great deal to all of us, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that things must change.

    Since the report was published yesterday, we have been studying it carefully; this has been my first week in this position, but I have been studying it carefully. It contains 43 recommendations: three for the National Police Chiefs’ Council; nine for the College of Policing; 28 for chief constables and three for the Home Office. The Home Office will most certainly be implementing those three recommendations. The NPCC said in a statement yesterday that it expects police to act on their recommendations urgently. That is most certainly my expectation as well: all of these recommendations will be acted on as a matter of urgency.

    We should keep it in mind that the vast majority of police officers are hard-working and dedicated. They put themselves at risk to keep us safe, and we should pay tribute to the work that the vast majority of officers do on our behalf. The report has uncovered obviously unacceptable behaviour and we expect the recommendations to be implemented urgently.

    Sarah Jones

    I welcome the Minister to his place. However, I have to say that I am disappointed that the Government are not taking more responsibility and leading from the front following such a grim report.

    Yesterday’s report is 160 pages of failure—failure to bar the wrong people from joining the police; failure to get rid of them; failure to protect female staff and officers, and failure to protect the public. A lack of proper action to root out racism, misogyny and serious misconduct means that some communities do not trust the police.

    This is by no means the first time that serious failings and horrific examples of unacceptable behaviour have been exposed. After the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving officer, the Opposition came to this place and called for change. After the horrific murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, we came to this place and called for leadership. After the shameful case of Child Q, we came to this place and called for reform. After the shocking Charing Cross station report, we came to this place and demanded action. After the Stephen Port inquiry, we came to this place and called for reform. If the Government had acted and led from the front, we could have stopped people being harmed. Leadership must come from the top.

    Yesterday, we learned that Metropolitan police officers had been sentenced to prison after sharing racist, homo- phobic and misogynistic WhatsApp messages. For years, there had been warnings—for example, from the independent inspectorate—about serious problems in the police misconduct system, including long delays, lack of disciplinary action, disturbing and systematic racial disparities and lack of monitoring.

    We have heard anecdotal evidence of forces expediting the vetting process to meet the Government’s recruitment targets. What does the Minister know about that? What is he doing to ensure that it does not happen? Will the Minister confirm that the roles of police staff, who do a lot of the vetting work and have been subject to cuts, will be protected so that forces can introduce the right systems? Will the Minister follow Labour’s lead and introduce mandatory safeguards and professional standards, led from the top, into every police force in the country to keep everybody safe?

    Chris Philp

    I thank the hon. Lady for her initial remarks and for her questions.

    The Government have taken action. Indeed, the report we are debating was commissioned by the former Home Secretary directly in response to the issues that were raised. The fact that those issues have seen the light of day is thanks to that Government response. The Angiolini inquiry is also under way for exactly the same reason. We work closely with operational policing colleagues to ensure that the issues are properly addressed. I discussed the issues with Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, a few days ago, before the report was published.

    As for ensuring that there are adequate resources for vetting and related purposes, the spending review settlement that the police currently receive has meant an additional £3.5 billion since 2019 over the three years of the police uplift programme, not just to pay the salaries of extra police officers but to provide the support and resources required to ensure that they are properly trained and integrated.

    The hon. Lady was right to ask about professional standards, which are extremely important. In 2017, national vetting standards were set out in statutory guidance, which the College of Policing published. The report recommends updating some elements of that. Misconduct procedures are set out in statute. We expect the recommendations about improving those areas to be implemented, and we expect police forces around the country to ensure that the report’s recommendations are fully implemented.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2022 Statement on Disorder on Greenwich Peninsula

    Matthew Pennycook – 2022 Statement on Disorder on Greenwich Peninsula

    The statement made by Matthew Pennycook, the Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich, on Twitter on 1 November 2022.

    Yesterday evening saw significant disorder on the Greenwich Peninsula involving a large group of youths discharging fireworks. This was deeply distressing for residents and I will be having further discussions with the police, council and others about how we tackle the problem.