UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Criminal Justice

  • 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.

  • Roger Gale – 2022 Interview on Situation at Manston Asylum Processing Centre

    Roger Gale – 2022 Interview on Situation at Manston Asylum Processing Centre

    The interview broadcast by Sky News with Sir Roger Gale, the Conservative MP for North Thanet, on 31 October 2022.

    INTERVIEWER

    [Mentioned Sir Roger Gale visited Manston yesterday and asked him what the situation was like]

    SIR ROGER GALE

    It’s much worse than it was on my visit last Thursday when there were 2,500 people there. The increase is because of the transfers from Dover, partly as a result of the fire bombing yesterday. There are now 4,000 people in a facility that was designed to hold 1,500 and that is wholly unacceptable. The staff are doing a fantastic job, the home office staff, the civilian staff, the catering staff, the medics are all showing compassion and doing the best they can under very difficult circumstances. But these circumstances I believe now were a problem made in the Home Office.

    INTERVIEWER

    [Asked Sir Roger Gale why he had put down an urgent question in the House of Commons]

    SIR ROGER GALE

    Well, because I think this is something that has to be aired on the floor of the House. The Home Office Minister of State, Robert Jenrick, took the trouble to come and spend three hours with me with Home Office staff going around the facility yesterday, I’ve been before of course. I’m delighted that Robert did take the trouble to come because I think he understands now what really the problem is and I got the impression that he is determined to go away and deal at least with the immediate problem, because there are two issues. There is of course the longer term problem, and very real issue, of cross channel migrants which also has to be addressed in a grown up fashion and not by dog whistle politics.

    INTERVIEWER

    [Asked if Robert Jenrick would have spoken to Home Secretary]

    SIR ROGER GALE

    I am absolutely certain that Robert Jenrick would have spoken to the Home Secretary last night.

    INTERVIEWER

    [What would he have said?]

    SIR ROGER GALE

    Without breaking confidences, I think that Robert will be probably going back and saying not to book hotel accommodation as a matter of policy. Whether that policy was instigated by the previous Home Secretary or this one I’m not clear, but it clearly was a matter of Home Office policy. I think Robert will be saying that was a mistake, we’ve now got to get people out of Manston. So the job that it was doing very efficiently indeed of processing and moving people on can be done again. Until about five weeks ago probably the system was working as it was intended to very well indeed. It’s now broken and it’s got to be mended fast.

    INTERVIEWER

    [Asked if Suella Braverman the right Home Secretary to tackle the issue?]

    SIR ROGER GALE

    I’m not seeking to point fingers at the moment, but I do believe that whoever is responsible, and that is either the previous Home Secretary or this one, has to be held to account because a bad decision was taken. And it’s led to what I would regard as a breach of humane conditions.

    INTERVIEWER

    [Asked Sir Roger Gale if this might end up in the courts?]

    SIR ROGER GALE

    That’s a matter for the courts and not for me. I am concerned obviously with the people that I represent locally, who are concerned about what’s happening in Manston. I’m also concerned for the staff who are trying to do a good job under impossible circumstances and for the human beings including women and children. I saw a kid there yesterday who was younger than my youngest granddaughter who crossed the Channel in a rubber dinghy. It is appalling what has happened at that level, trafficking is appalling and that has got to be dealt with as well. But that’s got to be done on a Pan European basis and in bilateral cooperation with the French. That’s the only way we’re going to solve it. Not by dog whistle knee jerk policies that will not work.

  • Gerry Kelly – 2022 Comments on Loyalist Paramilitaries

    Gerry Kelly – 2022 Comments on Loyalist Paramilitaries

    The comments made by Gerry Kelly, Sinn Fein’s policing spokesperson in Northern Ireland, on 28 October 2022.

    Threats issued to Irish government ministers by loyalist paramilitary gangs under the cover of the Loyalist Communities Council are outrageous.

    Threatening further loyalist violence to the public at large with reference to the ceasefires of 1994 in the words ‘dire consequences for the progress made from 1994 onwards’ is a dangerous and despicable development.

    This is just the latest threat to our democratic process by these loyalist gangs who are intent on dragging society backwards.

    They must desist from these reckless threats and disband now.

    It is a matter of disgrace that almost 25 years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, that loyalist paramilitary gangs are still involved in murder, intimidation, extortion and threats.

    There is an onus on political leaders to call out this intimidation and the continued existence of armed criminal gangs in our society.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2022 Speech on the Departure of the Home Secretary

    Yvette Cooper – 2022 Speech on the Departure of the Home Secretary

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 20 October 2022.

    I notice that the Home Secretary is not in his place this morning, unless the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), has been appointed Home Secretary in the last few hours. To be honest, nothing would surprise us at the moment, because this is total chaos. We have a third Home Secretary in seven weeks. The Cabinet was appointed only six weeks ago, but the Home Secretary was sacked, the Chancellor was sacked and the Chief Whip was sacked and then unsacked. We then had the unedifying scenes last night of Conservative MPs fighting like rats in a sack. This is a disgrace.

    The former Home Secretary circulated a letter, and that seems to contradict what the Minister said. She said that the document was

    “a draft Written Ministerial Statement…due for publication imminently”

    that had already been briefed to MPs. Is that not true? Will he explain the answer to that? At what time did the former Home Secretary inform the Cabinet Secretary of the breach? Has a check been made of whether she sent other documents through personal emails, putting security at risk? Was there a 90-minute row about policy between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary? Given the huge disagreements we have seen in the last few weeks between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary on drugs policy, Rwanda, the India trade deal, seasonal agriculture, small boats—and with a bit of tofu thrown in over the lettuce for good measure—is anything about home affairs agreed on in the Cabinet?

    What we know is that the former Home Secretary has been running her ongoing leadership campaign while the current one is too busy to come to the House because he is doing his spreadsheets on the numbers for whoever he is backing to come next. But who is taking decisions on our national security? It is not the Prime Minister, nor the past or current Home Secretaries. Borders, security and policing are too important for that instability, just as people’s livelihoods are too important for the economic instability that the Conservative party has created. It is not fair on people. To quote the former Home Secretary, this is indeed a total “coalition of chaos”. Why should the country have to put up with this for a single extra day?

    Brendan Clarke-Smith

    I am sure that the right hon. Member is aware that breaches of the ministerial code are a matter for the Cabinet Office, not the Home Office, and that is why I, not the Home Secretary, am here to answer the urgent question. The Prime Minister took advice from the Cabinet Secretary, as we saw from her letter, and she is clear that it is important that the ministerial code is upheld and Cabinet responsibility is respected. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to uphold the highest standards. We have seen her act consistently in that regard.

    These were breaches of the code. The Prime Minister expects her Ministers to uphold the ministerial code, as the public also rightly expect, and she took the requisite advice from the Cabinet Secretary before taking the decision.

    I am mindful that it is not usual policy to comment in detail on such matters, but, if some background would be helpful—I appreciate that much of this is already in the public domain—the documents in question contained draft Government policy, which remained subject to Cabinet Committee agreement. Having such documents on a personal email account and sharing them outside of Government constituted clear breaches of the code—under sections 2.14 and 2.3, if that is helpful to look at. The Prime Minister is clear that the security of Government business is paramount, as is Cabinet responsibility, and Ministers must be held to the highest standards.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Statement on the Casey Report

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Statement on the Casey Report

    The statement made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 17 October 2022.

    When I asked the Met to establish this independent review a year ago following a series of shocking scandals involving serving police officers, I was concerned that a serious cultural problem had developed within the Met which was allowing racist, sexist and homophobic behaviour to be downplayed or left unchallenged. The interim findings of this review not only confirm my concerns, but reveal a situation even worse than feared.

    It’s clear the Met’s misconduct system is simply not fit for purpose. I now expect nothing less than every single recommendation of this review to be implemented in full, and quickly. All misconduct allegations must be acted upon, cases must be resolved much faster and the disproportionality in the way allegations are dealt with must be eliminated. The majority of those serving in the Met will be appalled by these latest findings and the decent officers who want to speak out – who have clearly been let down for far too long – must be properly supported.

    As Mayor, I’ve ensured the Met is now set on a path of far-reaching systematic and cultural reform, with the appointment of a new Commissioner who acknowledges the scale of the problems within the Met. I want to assure Londoners that I will continue to hold the Met to account as I support Sir Mark in taking urgent action to reform the culture and systems of the Met and to root out all police officers found to be responsible for sexism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, bullying or harassment.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2022 Statement on the Casey Review

    Jeremy Quin – 2022 Statement on the Casey Review

    The statement made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister of State at the Home Office on 18 October 2022.

    In September we saw the very best of British policing, in the planning, handling and delivery of the operation following the death of Her late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. It showed that, at the top of its game, British policing is world-class and I commend all of the thousands of officers and staff who made that happen. But in recent years there have been several high-profile failings. These failings substantially diminished public trust in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), and undermine the incredible work of the overwhelming majority of decent, hard-working, and professional, frontline police officers.

    The Metropolitan Police Service commissioned a review by Baroness Louise Casey into the culture and standards of the Metropolitan Police Service. Interim findings have now been reported to the MPS and are highly concerning. They set out a failure of the MPS to operate within the existing misconduct framework, and failures to adequately tackle instances of sexual misconduct and discrimination.

    The impetus and action to deliver change must come from within the MPS first and foremost—and the Government welcome Sir Mark Rowley’s determination to take a systematic approach to act on the findings through both robust enforcement and long-term prevention. Where there is a role for Government to support this, we will not hesitate to act. That is why I am announcing an internal review into the process of police dismissals to raise standards and confidence in policing across England and Wales.

    The Government will work closely with key policing stakeholders to examine evidence of the effectiveness of the system to remove those who are not fit to serve the public. As well as examining the overall effectiveness of dismissal arrangements, I expect the review to consider:

    the impact of the introduction of legally qualified chairs to decide misconduct cases;

    whether decisions made by misconduct panels are consistent across all 43 forces in England and Wales;

    and whether forces are making effective use of their powers to dismiss officers on probation.

    This focused review will be launched shortly and will be conducted swiftly. It will focus on key issues and will support those in policing who act with utmost professionalism, giving them confidence that their hard work and commitment will not be undone by those who bring their profession into disrepute.