Category: Criminal Justice

  • Lisa Smart – 2025 Speech on Counter Terrorism Policing Arrests

    Lisa Smart – 2025 Speech on Counter Terrorism Policing Arrests

    The speech made by Lisa Smart, the Liberal Democrat MP for Hazel Grove, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2025.

    I thank the Minister for updating the House and for advance sight of his statement. I also add my thanks to the security services and the police for all their work to keep us safe.

    Over recent years Members have been called to this Chamber to discuss plots to commit acts of terror on Britain’s streets at the hands of the Iranian regime—but consecutive Governments are yet to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. In opposition, the now Foreign Secretary said:

    “The IRGC is behaving like a terrorist organisation and must now be proscribed as such.”

    Earlier this year I asked the Minister precisely this question: does he not agree that now is surely the time? In his earlier remarks, he mentioned the review that has concluded. If now is not the time for proscription, when should the House expect a further update?

    The Liberal Democrats have welcomed previous sanctions against those linked to the Iranian regime. However, I urge the Government to go a step further and look closely at whether those individuals and others with links to the regime have assets here in the UK. Will the Minister commit to carrying out an audit, so that we know where those assets are, enabling the Government to freeze them as appropriate? The Minister is right to reference the long-standing pattern by the Iranian intelligence service of targeting people of the Jewish faith and of Israeli nationality. Could he update the House on any conversations he has had with the UK Jewish community leadership, specifically the Community Security Trust, about threats here in the UK?

    Dan Jarvis

    I thank the hon. Lady for, as is always the case, the very sensible and reasonable way in which she has phrased her questions. I am always available to discuss these matters in more detail should she wish to do so. To her question on proscription, I hope she will acknowledge the response I gave to the shadow Minister a few moments ago.

    We take these matters incredibly seriously. The Home Secretary and I looked at them very closely in opposition, and that is precisely why the Home Secretary commissioned Jonathan Hall. He is the right person to look carefully at our legislative framework and make recommendations about whether we can toughen and strengthen our laws in this particular area. Mr Hall has now concluded his report; we are looking very closely at it, and it will be published shortly. As I said to the shadow Minister, we will not hesitate to bring forward further measures as required.

    The hon. Lady made an important and helpful point about sanctions and assets, and I know it will have been heard by the Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), with whom we work incredibly closely. We work hard to ensure that our response is always as joined up across Government as it can be. The Home Secretary works very closely with the Foreign Secretary, and I work very closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln on these matters, and we will consider whether further measures need to be taken.

    The hon. Lady’s final point about the Jewish community is a very important one. I give her and the whole House an absolute commitment that we will work tirelessly to ensure the safety of the Jewish community in our country. The Home Secretary and I, and other Ministers, are in regular contact with members of that community, including the CST, which she referenced and which does an excellent job. I will be meeting them in the very near future, and the hon. Lady can be reassured that we will work very closely with them to ensure that they get the protection that they need and deserve, and the assurances that they rightly want.

    Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)

    I pay tribute to the bravery and professionalism of the counter-terrorist specialist firearms officers who took part in the arrest of an Iranian national in Rochdale over the weekend. It was a reminder of not only the constant threat that we face, but the intelligence and police services’ daily work to keep us all safe. Does the Minister agree that in this week of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, it is a reminder too that Britain is at war with a modern enemy: the fascism of Islamist extremism and state-sponsored terrorism? The message should go out loud and clear that my town, our country and this House will never surrender to such terrorism or to its ideology.

    Dan Jarvis

    My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. He is absolutely right that the Government will never drop their guard to the threats that we undoubtedly face in countering terrorism, whether the specific threat around Islamist extremism or state threats. We take these matters incredibly seriously, and we will work to ensure that all our security services and police forces have the resources and tools they need to address the threats we face.

  • Matt Vickers – 2025 Speech on Counter Terrorism Policing Arrests

    Matt Vickers – 2025 Speech on Counter Terrorism Policing Arrests

    The speech made by Matt Vickers, the Conservative MP for Stockton West, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2025.

    I thank the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement on this critical issue. People will have read the deeply concerning report suggesting that an attack may have been just hours away, and this will understandably be worrying to people across the country.

    This statement reminds us of the tragic incidents that have plagued our country in the past. This month marks 12 years since the death of Lee Rigby on our streets, as well as eight years since the horrific Manchester Arena bombing. Later this year, we will also mark the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 attacks, which brought to London a level of destruction that many of us never thought we would see in our lifetimes. These acts of terror, along with other cowardly acts, caused untold hurt to victims and their families.

    As we discuss the arrests over the past weekend, we must remember the importance of keeping the British public safe from those who seek to terrorise us, and I therefore pay tribute to the hard-working members of the police and intelligence services for their bravery in disrupting terrorist activities. In October, the head of MI5 said that the police and MI5 had together disrupted 43 late-stage attack plots since the Manchester bombing. We must remember that each of these cases is not merely a statistic, but represents someone’s life and someone’s future.

    I commend the Minister for recognising the work of the previous Government and for acknowledging the measures that were used effectively in this incident. In turn, we will support measures that enact the National Security Act and give the Government the powers needed to act against malign influences on our country.

    Turning to the incidents at hand, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify certain points. While I am thankful for today’s statement, I hope the Government will be as transparent as possible about the details to avoid the vacuum of information we have previously discussed in this place. While I appreciate that the Government do not want to provide a running commentary, like many other Members I would be grateful if the Government could be as open as possible, given the seriousness of the arrests.

    As the Minister has outlined, there were two separate arrests of Iranian nationals in relation to terror offences, which has raised serious questions about how their networks were formed and what their intentions were. Can the Minister provide any further information about the suspects? For example, while we know they were Iranian nationals, what is their immigration status? Was the state aware that these individuals were in the UK, and was there any prior indication of the risk they might pose?

    On the broader issue of Iran, while I understand that the Minister may not be able to comment on proscription directly, the Home Secretary did address this while in opposition.

    In July 2023, she told the Royal United Services Institute that

    “instead of trying and failing to use counter-terror legislation to proscribe organisations like Wagner or IRGC, we will introduce a bespoke proscribing mechanism to address state-sponsored threats.”

    She also said at the Dispatch Box in April 2024 that Labour wanted

    “appropriately targeted proscription-style restrictions on the operations of state-linked organisations such as the IRGC.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 19.]

    However, it was only in March of this year that the Minister for Security announced the review by Jonathan Hall. Does he share my concerns that these mixed signals and the delay suggest a lack of prioritisation by the Government? Ultimately, we must all work together to ensure that the UK adopts the strongest possible stance on national security. As cross-party co-operation is essential, I urge the Government to take every possible step to prevent these cowardly acts of terror.

    Dan Jarvis

    I thank the shadow Minister for the sensible, reasonable and constructive tone of his response. He is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the tragic death of Lee Rigby, the tragic bombing in Manchester and, of course, the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings that we will be commemorating in a couple of months’ time.

    Let me join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to all those who work tirelessly to keep our country safe. It is one of the greatest privileges of this particular role that we have the opportunity to serve in government, as Conservative Members will also have done, and to work closely alongside those incredibly committed members of the police and the intelligence services; we owe them a debt of gratitude.

    I am also grateful for the opportunity that the shadow Minister has afforded me to offer our thanks for the work that was done by the previous Government, both in introducing the National Security Act 2023, which has proved to be an incredibly valuable tool, and in creating CTOC, which is delivering very significant operational value. I can absolutely give an assurance that this Government, like the previous one, will continue to invest in that institution.

    The shadow Minister made an important point about transparency, and I can give him the reassurances that he seeks. He and the House will understand that we are just a couple of days on from those arrests that took place on Saturday. The Home Secretary will provide a further update as soon as we are operationally able to do so. I give the shadow Minister a commitment that we will be as transparent as possible while of course ensuring that we do not cut across live counter-terrorism operations.

    The shadow Minister mentioned proscription, and I understand why. I know that he will acknowledge—or at least I hope that he will—that on 4 March I announced a very strong suite of measures designed to most effectively address the nature of the threat that we face from Iran. Contained within those measures was a request from the Home Secretary for Jonathan Hall, who I know is held in very high regard because of the experience and credibility that he has in this area, to look very carefully at the legislative framework that might enable us to more effectively proscribe state-based entities. I can confirm that Mr Hall has completed his report and that the Home Secretary and I are considering it very carefully. It will be published shortly. I assure the shadow Minister that we will not hesitate to act if there is a requirement to bring forward further measures.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2025 Statement on Counter Terrorism Policing Arrests

    Dan Jarvis – 2025 Statement on Counter Terrorism Policing Arrests

    The statement made by Dan Jarvis, the Minister for Security, in the House of Commons on 6 May 2025.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the series of national security-related arrests that took place on Saturday 3 May. Protecting our national security is the first duty of Government, and it is a testament to our world-leading law enforcement and intelligence services that, through their tireless commitment, so many plots against the UK have been thwarted. I pay tribute to them again today for the work that they have done not just this weekend, but in recent weeks and months, on these important operations.

    The two operations that took place across multiple locations this weekend were significant and complex. They were some of the largest counter-state threats and counter-terrorism actions that we have seen in recent times, and I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking the police, the security services and other partner agencies across the country, who showed their professionalism and expertise in carrying out these operations to keep our country safe.

    Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that these are complex investigations. The police and the security services need time and space to be able to pursue their investigations, and our first priority must be to protect the integrity of that work so that we do not cut across those investigations and operations at a crucial time. However, these are serious matters, and the House will rightly want to remain informed. I will therefore outline as much detail as I am able, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that there is a strict limit to what I can say at this stage, given that investigations are now ongoing.

    I will first outline the facts around the events on Saturday 3 May. Throughout the day, counter-terrorism police undertook a series of arrests relating to two separate investigations. In total, eight men were arrested by the Metropolitan police’s Counter Terrorism Command. Five men were arrested on suspicion of preparation of a terrorist act, contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, as part of a proactive investigation in the areas of west London, Swindon, Rochdale, Stockport and Manchester. All five men are Iranian nationals. While four of the individuals remain in police custody, the fifth has now been bailed with strict conditions.

    As part of the investigation, police officers carried out searches at a number of addresses in the Greater Manchester, London and Swindon areas. Investigations continue, with searches and activity still under way at multiple addresses across the country. The investigation relates to a suspected plot to target specific premises. Police officers have been in contact with the affected site’s representatives to make them aware and provide relevant security advice and support. However, the police have also been clear that for reasons of operational security and public safety, they are not—and I am not—able to provide further information on the target at this time, and I urge Members not to speculate about the site.

    In a separate police investigation, two men were arrested at two different addresses in north-west London, and one man was arrested at an address in west London. All three were arrested under the National Security Act 2023. These three men are also Iranian nationals, and remain in police custody. I can confirm to the House that these are the first Iranian nationals arrested under the National Security Act.

    The operations to execute these eight arrests under both counter-terror and counter-state threat powers—in different parts of the country, and in the space of 24 hours—were intensive. They involved a range of different organisations, including different police forces, counter-terror police, the National Crime Agency, and our security and intelligence services. These operations were co-ordinated through the world-leading Counter Terrorism Operations Centre, which brings together and co-ordinates the UK’s agencies, alongside the agencies of our Five Eyes partners, to detect and tackle national security threats. I welcome the work of the previous Government to establish CTOC in 2021, and this Government have continued to support it and invest in it since taking office.

    The significant point about both counter-terrorism and counter-state threats powers is that they allow the police to intervene early to prevent and disrupt threats, not just respond after events have taken place. This is crucial for public safety, but it also makes the investigations more complex, and that is why the police need the time and space to pursue them now, so we will not be providing a running commentary on the work that they are doing. However, what now follows is an incredibly complex set of investigations, involving hundreds more officers carrying out forensic searches, collecting vital evidence across different sites across the country and securing witness statements, backed up by the continued efforts of our security and intelligence agencies. This is careful, painstaking work.

    At this stage in the operations and investigations, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on or comment further on the details of these two cases and the motivations behind any of the threats that were posed. However, the House will be aware that these operations come against a backdrop of complex, interconnected threats to the UK, where state threats and counter-terrorism as well as serious and organised crime are intertwined together.

    For 20 years, the greatest focus of our national security work was on terrorism—primarily from Islamist terrorism, with additional threats from Northern Ireland-related terrorism and other areas—and those threats have not gone away. Fifteen terrorist attacks have taken place since 2017, and there have been 43 late-stage disruptions of terrorism plots, but alongside that we have seen a serious, growing and complex challenge from state threats. Last year, Sir Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, said that MI5 state threat investigations had increased by 48% in the previous 12 months. He added that, since January 2022, the police and MI5 had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats.

    In March, I told Parliament that the UK is facing a growing and evolving threat from malign activity carried out by a number of states. My statement in March outlined the Government’s response to the unacceptable threat that we face from the Iranian state, and the steps we are taking to ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to disrupt and degrade Iran’s malign activity on UK soil. We have delivered on the commitments made. I announced that the whole of the Iranian state, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, would be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. I laid the regulations to make this happen in the House on 1 April and committed to bring the scheme into force on 1 July. I trust that all Members will vote in favour when those regulations are debated shortly.

    Let me be clear: anyone in the UK who works for the Iranian state must declare it or they will be committing a serious criminal offence. We will also go after the criminal networks and enablers that Iran uses to carry out its work. Last month, the Government sanctioned the Foxtrot network—a network involved in violence against Jewish and Israeli targets in Europe on behalf of the Iranian regime. Training and guidance on state threats activity is now being offered by Counter Terrorism Policing to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK.

    The independent reviewer of terrorism and state threats legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, was asked by the Home Secretary to review the parts of our counter-terrorism framework that could be applied to modern-day state threats such as those from Iran. The Home Secretary specifically asked the reviewer to look at a state threats proscription tool, so we are not held back by limitations in applying counter-terrorism legislation to state threats. Jonathan Hall has now completed his review and will publish it shortly, and the Government will not hesitate to take action in response to Mr Hall’s advice.

    As we continue to support the police and the security services in their investigations, I can also tell the House that the Home Secretary has instigated a series of security assessments that are being done or refreshed in the light of the cases this weekend and the further information surrounding them, which will ensure that the Government can respond robustly and comprehensively to any wider national security issues raised by these cases.

    Working alongside our international allies to counter state threats is central to our success. The Foreign Office is engaging with our closest allies to outline the disruptive action that has taken place and will be considering potential future response options as the investigation progresses. The Home Secretary remains in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is committed to doing everything necessary to protect the country from these threats and to bring to bear all the diplomatic tools at our disposal.

    The Home Secretary and Ministers will provide an update on the national security position when we are able to do so, following both these operations and investigations and the wider security assessments that are under way. The Government will not hesitate to act robustly to respond to these plots at the appropriate time, but first, we must allow the investigations to continue. Our police, security and intelligence agencies are the best in the world and stand ready at all times to take action to keep our country safe. I am sure they will have the support of the whole House as they continue this vital work. I commend this statement to the House.

  • James Timpson – 2025 Speech on Professional Standards in the Prison and Probation Service

    James Timpson – 2025 Speech on Professional Standards in the Prison and Probation Service

    The speech made by James Timpson, the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, on 6 May 2025.

    Thank you, Jennifer, for that introduction, it’s great to be here.

    Let me start by thanking Emily for hosting us today…

    And for everything you do to lead by example at High Down. A culture of high professional standards starts at the top – I know you take that incredibly seriously.

    Thanks to all the staff here today – for the absolutely critical work you do day in, and day out, to protect the public and turn lives around…

    And to everyone involved in putting this event together.

    Of course, I also want to thank you, Jennifer, and the people who supported you, for this important report, and for your work as a Non-Executive Director at the Ministry of Justice. I’m fortunate to have you as a colleague.

    This marks a watershed moment for every part of HMPPS – Prison, Probation and YCS.

    A wake-up call, and an opportunity to change things for the better, for more than 65,000 staff who work there.

    I want to start with two stories. Two real life stories, showing two very different faces of the same Service. The first is about a prison officer – I’ll call her Jane.

    It was a night shift like any other. Things seemed calm – the prison was under control. The kind of shift where officers carry out routine monitoring, and respond to any emergencies.

    Jane was doing exactly that, focusing on the checks she needed to make.

    Also on duty that night was a senior colleague. A man in a position of authority. He was a higher rank than Jane. And he had more years in the job than she did.

    Jane had heard things about him. That he had a reputation. It was, as she put it, “common knowledge” that he could be lecherous. But she’d never had a problem herself…

    Until that night.

    It started with the way he looked at her – lingering, unsettling. Then, out of nowhere, he asked: “What’s your bra size?”

    Jane was taken aback, unsure at first if she’d heard it right.

    She answered, firmly: “That’s none of your business.”

    And she walked out of the room. But the man followed her.

    Cornering her in a nearby kitchen, he grabbed hold of Jane, and forced his tongue into her mouth. Then he groped her.

    Jane felt trapped. Frightened and powerless.

    Like so many men in positions of authority who abuse their power like this, he told her that it needed to be their “secret”.

    Shocked, and shaken, Jane didn’t report what had happened at first.

    Because he was in charge.

    Because she didn’t want to rock the boat.

    Because she loved her job…

    And she didn’t want to lose it.

    Eventually, Jane did work up the courage to come forward. Her colleague was sacked, rightly. And he was brought to justice – prosecuted for sexually assaulting Jane, and another officer.

    He is due to be sentenced soon, and could very well go from patrolling the prison landings, to living on them. His actions were clearly despicable. But Jane’s story begs the question…

    Why did it take an assault for this man to finally be called out?

    Why, when he already had a reputation, was he not exposed sooner?

    Too often, in the Prison and Probation Service, unacceptable behaviour is laughed off as a joke, as lads being lads.

    The trouble is, when someone says, “it’s just banter”, it becomes harder and harder to call this behaviour out for what it really is:

    Abuse. Intimidation. And harassment.

    It’s unacceptable. And this Government will not tolerate it, at all.

    But I said there were two stories. The second takes us to HMP Frankland – one of our most secure, most challenging prisons.

    Just last month, three officers there were brutally attacked by an inmate. Stabbed and slashed. A lifechanging, traumatic experience.

    There’s an investigation underway, so I won’t go beyond what’s been reported publicly…

    But I can say this: Without the courage and quick thinking of those officers, and their colleagues, who responded, lives would have been lost.

    And it was a privilege to speak to some of the officers involved myself, when I visited Frankland recently.

    They ran towards danger, when others would run away. They are true heroes. And our thoughts are with the injured officers as they continue to recover.

    That kind of bravery isn’t rare in the Service.

    Our probation officers, too, manage risk constantly, working with dangerous offenders to keep the public safe.

    These are jobs where heroism happens daily, in environments more stressful, more pressurised, than people could possibly imagine.

    And I see the same spirit time and again when I visit a prison or a PDU:

    Dedication. Sacrifice. An unshakeable sense of duty.

    The question is, then: how do we make this a Service worthy of the heroes at Frankland? Worthy of every hero in the Service?

    Because behind high prison walls, in PDUs, and offices, away from public eyes, toxic behaviour can all too easily take root and grow – unless we weed it out.

    Unacceptable behaviour – language, attitudes, and actions – have become normalised, tolerated, and accepted over time.

    And, as Jennifer’s report shows, bullying, intimidation, and harassment in HMPPS has gone unchecked for far too long. Her findings are deeply sobering:

    There is a “vacuum of pastoral care” for victims of sexual harassment – too often left to raise concerns with a line manager, who may be well-meaning, but hasn’t been trained to handle the situation sensitively.

    Little is being done to track complaints, making it almost impossible to get a sense of the scale of the problem… In turn, making it much harder to take meaningful action.

    And the message is clear: there is a fundamental, devastating, lack of trust in how complaints of bullying, discrimination and harassment are dealt with.

    Too many staff feel unable to speak out, fearing they won’t be believed…

    That it will only make matters worse – because the hierarchy above them will close ranks…

    And that nothing will be done. This isn’t a culture that we should stand for.

    We must rebuild that trust. And to begin doing so, we need to face up to the realities of the situation as they exist today, and the effect this has on staff:

    Imagine making a complaint, knowing full well it will be investigated by a senior manager, who is friends with the person harassing you – and they socialise together outside of work, too.

    Imagine, plucking up the courage to come forward, only to have your complaint passed on to the perpetrator. Or to learn that paperwork about your grievance has been left in a public area, for all to see.

    Imagine seeing a colleague branded a ‘grass’, for speaking out.

    Would you want to come forward under those circumstances?

    Would you have confidence you’d be dealt with fairly?

    These are just some of the examples laid bare in Jennifer’s report.

    Last year, one in eight HMPPS staff said that they had been bullied or harassed, or that they’d experienced discrimination. Many said they didn’t feel as though they could come forward, or that they would be punished, if they did.

    All of this is against a backdrop of damaging newspaper headlines. Stories of inappropriate relationships between staff and inmates, and officers smuggling in contraband and drugs. I know this doesn’t represent the majority of staff in our prisons, but the fact remains: it happens.

    And unacceptable behaviour isn’t just confined to our prisons. The Inspectorates continue to highlight problems, including racism and discrimination, across the Service. They do a crucial job in highlighting these issues, even if they are, at times, difficult to read.

    Some of these stories may not make the front pages in the same way, but they are no less devastating.

    Disabled staff, still struggling to get the basic adjustments they need to do their jobs.

    Colleagues who have been repeatedly subjected to racist remarks, but keep quiet, because they think nothing will change.

    And the cost of this isn’t just reputational. It’s human.

    Unacceptable behaviour breaks people. It drives out good staff, the kind we want to keep in the service. It creates a toxic culture.

    And it makes it much harder for you to do your jobs – the vital work that turns lives around, cuts crime, and makes our streets safer.

    That’s why professional standards matter. They cannot simply be words on paper. They must be reflected in how we treat each other, every day. In every team – on every shift.

    And where those standards aren’t met – our staff – and the public – must know that we’ll take swift and decisive action.

    To its credit, HMPPS recognised that something needed to be done. That’s why Jennifer was asked to carry out her independent Review in the first place. And I’m delighted both that she agreed to do it, and that we’ve accepted her recommendations in full.

    But most of all, I’m grateful to all the staff who spoke up – who shared their stories so honestly, openly, and bravely. You are the reason we can move forward. And you are the reason we must.

    And we have to be honest about the problem: this is about more than just a few bad apples.

    These are deep rooted cultural issues, and they have been allowed to go on for too long.

    But this Government takes its duty seriously, and it is acting.

    So, we will fundamentally change how complaints of bullying, harassment and discrimination are dealt with in our Prison and Probation Service.

    As Jennifer recommends, and in line with other public services like the Armed Forces, we will create a new unit, sitting jointly between the MoJ and HMPPS, to handle allegations of unacceptable behaviour. And we will fund it in full.

    Crucially, this unit will be entirely independent, taking complaints away from the line management hierarchy.

    It means staff can have confidence that their concerns will be dealt with properly, fairly, and in absolute confidence. Not by a manager, who may even be complicit in the behaviour, but by a dedicated team of experts.

    No more conflicts of interest. No more ‘boys club’ networks.

    HMPPS is now working closely with the Trade Unions to develop a model for how the unit will work, including how cases will be triaged, investigated, and resolved. And I appreciate their continued engagement, and challenge.

    And we’re going further. This new unit will be overseen by an independent Commissioner, who will report publicly each year on the unit’s work and how bullying, harassment, and discrimination policies are being applied.

    This will bring both accountability and progress, as we transform how bullying, harassment and discrimination are dealt with across the Service.

    It marks a seismic shift, a major departure from what has gone before.

    But it is only the beginning of how we rebuild the trust that has been lost.

    As Jennifer recommends, we will introduce new guidance on sexual harassment, which sets out what managers must do in response, and where they can get advice if they are unsure. It makes clear that suspected crimes like sexual assault or rape should be reported to the police, and, crucially, that there is support for victims, and where they can get it.

    Moving forward, these sensitive cases will be handled by the new specialist joint unit, so victims know they’ll be listened to in confidence, and supported by people who are properly trained to help.

    We will make better use of data, publishing complaints statistics, and outcomes, to bring greater transparency, while protecting staff confidentiality. The goal is simple: to give more people the confidence to speak up, and that their concerns will lead to action.

    And we are bringing together the wider professional standards and counter corruption work already underway, so we can spot patterns of unacceptable behaviour earlier…

    So we can investigate them properly…

    And so we can dismiss those responsible – the people who tarnish your reputation, and damage public trust.

    We’re also bolstering the existing Tackling Unacceptable Behaviour Unit. Their work is important, but, as Jennifer sets out in her report, their ‘Climate Assessments’ into the experiences of prison staff haven’t had the intended impact. Too often, staff feel that what they say isn’t acted on.

    So, last Autumn, we introduced a new, streamlined approach. Reports now happen faster, with a sharper focus on issues and areas for improvement. And a new team is now in place to support prison leaders directly, helping them to turn those insights into real change on the ground.

    But if we want to build a stronger, safer Prison and Probation Service, we also need to change its culture. Getting that right really matters.

    Positive culture is the bedrock of every great organisation. The difference between a place where people just work – and a place where they feel proud to belong.

    And in any good organisation – any resilient, high performing team – that culture is built on trust, fairness, and mutual respect.

    My own approach as CEO of the Timpson Group was always rooted in a culture of kindness. That meant knowing our people. Looking after them when they had a problem. And treating everyone with dignity – as equals.

    At Timpson, we won awards for being a great company to work for. And my goal now is just as clear: to make HMPPS a world class organisation – an employer of choice.

    The kind of place where anyone would want to work. Where staff bring their best, and achieve their best. Where they can come to work every day, knowing their friends and family would be proud.

    That’s about much more than policy and HR processes. Alone, they won’t fix the problem. What we need is a shift in mindset. Fundamentally changing how we think, and respond, when things go wrong.

    That brings us back to culture.

    We need a culture where everyone feels safe to come to work. Where they know – without a doubt – that if they raise a concern, they’ll be heard. Taken seriously. And that action will follow.

    A culture where high professional standards are modelled throughout the Service. Where we don’t just walk by when behaviour falls short – we step up and challenge it.

    And a culture where the boundaries are crystal clear. Where there is no doubt about what constitutes unacceptable behaviour. And where there are swift, clear consequences for those who don’t play by the rules.

    But culture can’t be imposed from above. It doesn’t come from a mission statement, or sit in a strategy. It lives in our day-to-day actions. It’s what we say. What we do. And it has to be lived, and led, by every member of staff, at every level. A shared journey.

    If people aren’t on board with that – this isn’t the job for them.

    There is a long road ahead. But we are laying the groundwork for this culture change, and for a safer, more professional workplace.

    And let me just emphasise – this work is deeply important to me. I see it as a defining part of my job.

    That starts with improving how we recruit our staff.

    All good organisations need good people. People who can drive that culture change forward, and become leaders of the future.

    As Jennifer outlines, that means raising the bar. It means making sure the staff we bring in don’t just have the right skills, but that they share our values – that they bring the integrity and resilience essential for the role.

    So, we are reviewing recruitment across the whole Service. And, following a successful pilot of ‘values-based’ recruitment in Probation, we’re now looking at how we can roll this approach out across the Prison Service, too.

    And we are also working with occupational psychologists to study the highest performing Prison officers, identifying what excellence really looks like – to bring more people like them into the Service.

    Bringing the right people in is vital. But we also need to keep the wrong people out.

    I’m clear – people who don’t reflect HMPPS values, who don’t have the integrity this job demands, shouldn’t be anywhere near a prison or PDU. Or anywhere else in the Service, for that matter.

    That’s why we are strengthening vetting. Making it harder for the wrong people to get in, and easier to remove those who breach our high standards.

    This year, we introduced online digital vetting checks, to flag people who pose a risk – whether that’s through criminal associations, so crime can’t continue behind prison walls, or through views and behaviours that go against everything we stand for, like racism, misogyny or homophobia.

    We’re also taking the fight to corruption, through our Counter Corruption Unit.

    Its mission is simple: to detect and prevent corruption right across the Service, and support staff to do the right thing.

    The Unit works shoulder-to-shoulder with the police and National Crime Agency, taking a more sophisticated, joined up approach to corruption for the minority who cross the line.

    And HMPPS has funded 20 specialist police investigators, focused on rooting out criminal behaviour. In 2024 alone, the Unit prosecuted 37 staff for involvement in corruption.

    Finally, we are improving how we train our people.

    Before I became a Minister, I led an Independent Review of Prison Officer Training. And while there was good work happening, it was clear that the standard seven-week basic training simply wasn’t doing enough to prepare new recruits for the reality of this incredibly tough job.

    A more structured, longer-term approach, with higher standards might mean that we lose more people along the way. But those who stay will be better equipped – and more likely to thrive.

    So, I’m pleased (perhaps unsurprisingly, now I’m the Minister!) –  that the review’s recommendations are now being taken forward.

    The Enable Programme is transforming initial training, so that officers don’t just have the practical skills they need for the job – but the ethical foundations. And more subtle skills too – how to work well together, and be a great colleague. Because by investing in our people, we are investing in the future of the whole Service.

    Taken together, these changes are a solid first step towards a safer, more professional Service.

    And I’m grateful to Jennifer, who has agreed to continue working with us as an independent reviewer – to make sure her report is a roadmap for real, lasting change.

    But let me finish where I started.

    We should all be very angry that people like Jane – hardworking prison officers who we want to join and remain in the Service – have been subject to the most appalling abuse.

    And we should all be proud to have officers like those at Frankland – who showed extraordinary courage in the face of great danger.

    Both of these stories are part of our reality.

    But it’s the bravery and dedication of the Frankland officers, and many like them across the Service, that should define our future.

    I want to thank Jennifer again for her thoughtful report, the team that worked with her, and all the staff who bravely shared their experiences.

    Professionalism is more than a policy. It’s a commitment to a culture of integrity, respect, and accountability.

    High standards are not optional…

    For years, others have talked the talk on zero tolerance.

    Now this Government will walk the walk.

    This is our moment to set a new standard for the future.

    To build a culture we can be proud of, and a Prison and Probation Service where anybody would be proud to work.

    Let’s get it right, and let’s do it together.

    Thank you.

  • Laurence Turner – 2025 Statement on Criminal Injuries Compensation

    Laurence Turner – 2025 Statement on Criminal Injuries Compensation

    The statement made by Laurence Turner, the Labour MP for Birmingham Northfield, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 29 April 2025.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Murrison. At the outset, I thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to allocate this debate and all hon. Members, across parties, who supported the application. I also thank those constituents and members of the public who have been in touch in advance of the debate. Criminal injuries are, by their nature, not easy matters to discuss, so I am grateful to all the people who took the time to recount their experiences.

    I am also grateful to all the Members present today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who has already done much in this and the previous Parliament to highlight some of the problems that we will talk about in this debate. It is also good to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I should make it clear that, I will be talking about the criminal injuries compensation scheme as it operates in Great Britain, but I am aware that different arrangements apply in Northern Ireland, and I am glad that that perspective will be represented today.

    It is also important at this early stage to pay tribute to the staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Nothing in the opening of this debate is intended as a criticism of them. They work within parameters that are broadly set by us in Parliament, and with staffing numbers that have fallen by 19% since the current iteration of the scheme was introduced in 2012. The civil service people survey reveals that they take pride and find purpose in their jobs, and I am grateful to them.

    The question of how the victims of serious physical and mental criminal injury may be fairly compensated has occupied this House for many decades. We are, to the month, at the 60th anniversary of the introduction for the first full year of the original, non-statutory scheme, which was introduced in recognition of the fact that there will always be cases in which the perpetrators of serious violence cannot be identified or awards cannot be recovered from their assets or incomes.

    In preparation for this debate, I was delighted to learn of a local connection: the guiding and determined force behind the original scheme was the Birmingham magistrate and first secretary of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Margery Fry, who up to her death was a tireless campaigner for better support for the victims of crime and for the principle that perpetrators must, wherever possible, pay the cost of restitution. Those are principles that I am sure Members on both sides of the House will endorse today.

    However, there is another, unhappy point of emerging agreement on the criminal injuries compensation scheme: it does not adequately serve the people it is meant to aid. As the Victims’ Commissioner put it in 2019, victims of violent crime reported

    “delays, uncertainty about next steps and poor communication. To many, fairly or unfairly, the Scheme seemed calculated to frustrate and alienate.”

    Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling an incredibly important debate. I came upon this issue recently in dealing with the case of a 10-year-old boy in my constituency who was shot in a quiet residential street. It has taken five years to get him compensated for the injuries that he suffered, which will be lifelong. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the sheer length of time that it takes to get victims compensated, the bureaucratic and sometimes impersonal approach, and the inadequacy of the sums being received by people, particularly children, who have received lifelong injury?

    Laurence Turner

    The hon. Member raises what sounds like a truly shocking case. All my sympathies are with that child and his family. I agree wholeheartedly with the point she makes about timelines and the nature of communication through the scheme, which I—and, I am sure, other Members—will come on to in the course of this debate.

    At the time, the Victims’ Commissioner further recommended that the Ministry of Justice

    “examine the Scheme with a view to making it simpler and accessible to victims wishing to apply on their own behalf, reducing the reliance on legal representatives.”

    Also in the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group for adult survivors of child sexual abuse reported that “almost all survivors” who contributed to its inquiry

    “had a negative experience of applying to CICA for compensation.”

    I recognise that some progress has been made in the last six years, which must be welcomed. The last Government retrospectively removed the “under the same roof” rule for crimes committed between 1964 and 1979. It had long been recognised that the rule prevented the awarding of fair compensation to victims of historical domestic abuse and childhood sexual abuse during that period. Progress has also been made more recently on reducing the paper-bound nature of the scheme.

    However, we cannot reassure ourselves that the scheme is in good health. As has been said, victims of violent crime can face long delays before they access compensation. For residents in Birmingham, the average time between application and award is still more than a year. That average can be dragged upwards by the most complex cases, but even apparently simple cases can take many months to resolve. Applicants to the scheme are not effectively signposted to wider support or assisted to navigate the processes for accessing services, such as the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder through the NHS.

    The reasoning that underpins the tariff system is hard to understand, and the apparently arbitrary limits to the scheme can produce outcomes that are, to the layperson’s eye, perverse. The two-year normal claim limit is out of line with the three-year limit for civil claims for injury.

    Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally inconsistent to have a time limit of three years for ordinary personal injury claims, but a time limit of only two years for Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority claims? There is a reason why there are time limits—memories fade and evidence becomes less reliable—but does he agree that there should be consistency here?

    Laurence Turner

    My hon. Friend is very learned and experienced in these matters, and I wholeheartedly agree. The discrepancy is hard to explain, especially as the pre-1996 non-statutory scheme explicitly aligned the criminal injuries time limit with that for civil claims.

    There is some evidence that victims who have legal representation often receive greater compensation than they would have done had they acted alone. That is not a desirable outcome, especially when people with more limited means are more likely to become the victims of crime. The scheme’s tariff has not been updated since 2012, and its upper and lower bounds had been frozen for many years before that, despite inflation. Indeed, the lowest tariff of £1,000 has remained frozen since 1992—a real-terms erosion of 54%.

    The process can feel cold and impersonal. As one member of the public with recent experience of the scheme who wrote to me in advance of this debate put it, the lack of “timelines or guidelines” means that

    “victims are continually left in limbo and retraumatised by a process that is meant to help.”

    Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way he is setting out the problems with the scheme, which is something of a Cinderella service. As he said, the tariffs have not changed, and the upper limit has not changed for almost 30 years. What gives away the situation even more is the fact that, although the average sum awarded in the last year is about £8,000, the amount increased sixfold on appeal. That, and the fact that only 3% of injured victims of crime actually receive compensation, suggests that there are things wrong with the scheme.

    Laurence Turner

    My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, makes an important point. We must also consider the number of victims of crime who are so exhausted by the process that they choose not to appeal, even though they may have grounds to do so. His scrutiny in this area is very welcome.

    Changes made to the scheme have an unhappy history in this House. Some Members may recall the very contentious changes made to it in 2012, with the express intent of reducing expenditure by between £40 million and £60 million a year. At the time, in the face of sustained scrutiny, including from Members on the then Government Benches, the Minister of the day, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), announced:

    “a hardship fund of £500,000 per year which will provide relief from hardship for very low-paid workers in England and Wales who are temporarily unable to work as a result of being a victim of a crime of violence.” —[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. , c. 14WS.]

    That concession secured support for the relevant secondary legislation. The fund is still in existence, but its criteria are too tightly drawn. An applicant must be paid no more than £5,700 a year, the equivalent of statutory sick pay, and they must apply to seek it not within two years of an injury, but within two months of an injury, in order to qualify.

    Far from the fund supporting low-paid victims of crime by £500,000 a year, the Ministry of Justice told me recently that only £4,100 has ever been paid out of it, and no payments at all were made in the seven years to 2023-24. I suspect that the very few workers who were eligible to apply were unaware that it exists. The hardship fund is a dead letter; it would be better to scrap it than to claim that special support is available to low-paid workers when, in practice, it is not.

    Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)

    My hon. Friend refers to low-paid workers; we know that retail staff are among the victims who experience a really shocking amount of violent crime within the workplace. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for the work it is doing to ensure that its members who are victims of violent crime in the workplace can access the CICA scheme?

    Laurence Turner

    I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree with her. USDAW’s Freedom From Fear campaign, which has been running for many years and covers a number of important issues, including the importance of fair access to compensation, is to be welcomed, and USDAW should be congratulated on the changes that it has already secured in this House.

    Another high-profile change was the tightening of the criteria, so that the scheme only applied to injuries caused by deliberate violence inflicted by a person. That change excluded most dangerous dog attacks, and in practice compensation for such attacks can only be secured if it can be shown that a dog was directed to attack by its owner. It seems to me a serious flaw that a child or postal worker might be mauled by a dog and left with life-changing injuries, and the keeping of that dog may itself be an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but there would be no route for the victim to claim compensation, especially if the owner of the dog cannot be identified.

    The Communication Workers Union continues to campaign on this issue; ahead of this debate, it drew attention to figures showing that each year 200 Royal Mail workers lose a finger or part of a finger after a dog attack. I encourage Ministers to look again at this issue, especially in light of the growing number of animals belonging to new, and now-banned, breeds such as the XL bully since 2012.

    As has already been said, compensation for criminal injuries is an important issue for workers in public-facing roles more generally, and I am grateful to USDAW, GMB and Unison, as well as the CWU, for their work to draw attention to the risk of violent assault to their members. And for the avoidance of doubt, I draw attention to the support provided to my constituency party by GMB and Unison.

    The changes to the scheme that I have referred to were made under the previous Government, but I wish to press the Minister on two further and more recent points. First, shortly before Easter the Ministry of Justice published its response to the consultations undertaken between 2020 and 2023. In that response, the MOJ said that there would be no immediate changes to the scheme, in part because of resource constraints.

    The decision not to accept recommendation 18 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has understandably caused disappointment and reignited wider criticism of the scheme. The Government cited two factors: protection of universality, which means treating all applicants in the same way, and cost. If the scheme is not to be amended to provide different criteria for victims of childhood sexual abuse, what other steps will the Ministry now take, such as the provision of enhanced guidelines on the circumstances under which an out-of-time application would be accepted, taking into account our modern understanding of the lifelong effects of this horrendous crime?

    On resourcing, will the Minister accept that although the nature of the scheme means that expenditure varies year on year, the cost of compensation has actually fallen on average—that is the trend—after inflation is taken into account. Although the number of applications has risen, that appears to have been driven by an increased number of ineligible claimants. The scheme overall costs less than it did before 2012—less in cash terms, I believe, than under the pre-statutory scheme—and, as mentioned, CICA’s headcount has fallen.

    Reforms are needed, but I am concerned that we seem to be talking again about protecting the sustainability of the scheme. I know the Minister has a strong personal commitment to this issue and to enhancing support for victims of crime more generally. I hope she will be able to reassure us that any future reforms of CICA will seek to improve victim support, including in its compensation elements.

    Our constituents expect us to bring our knowledge, our judgment and the benefit of our experiences to this place. Like some other Members of this House, my interest in this matter arises partly through my direct experience of the scheme. By their nature, such matters are difficult to talk about; if I stumble, I ask for Members’ patience.

    Some six years ago I was on the wrong end of an attempted robbery. I was left concussed, my arm was dislocated and one of the joints in my right hand was shattered. I was physically unable to leave the house for a month, and I had a frozen shoulder for a year. There are long-term physical effects: I have premature arthritis and permanent loss of movement on my right-hand side. By any common-sense judgment they are serious and blameless injuries, arising from violence, but with one minor exception: annex E of the scheme does not recognise them as such.

    There was—and is—also a psychological effect. An event of that kind changes a person. I am changed in ways that I still find difficult to talk about. I have learned that recovery is not some happy state that is one day achieved: it is a process that follows its own timetable at an uneven pace, towards a destination that can never be fully reached. In my case, the perpetrators were never identified. I incurred substantial costs because the assault happened almost on my doorstep. Although I would be unlikely to recognise the perpetrators, they would have recognised me.

    At the conclusion of the investigation, the police referred me to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. My experience of the scheme is typical of the delays and impersonal contact that have already been described, and does not require repeating. What I will say is that when a person is compelled to relive their experiences, within a system that they feel they have to fight against, the original injustice is continually visited anew.

    At the conclusion of the process I received the lowest tariff award of £1,000. That was given because there was some post-surgical scarring—the only injury that qualified under the scheme. In truth, that aspect was the least consequential effect of the assault. The criteria felt—and still feel—arbitrary. I received an apologetic letter from one of the administrators of the scheme, and I remain grateful for that human touch. The award did not, as it does not for many, cover the costs of travel and accommodation for surgery or physiotherapy—but, three years on from the assault, I was just glad to have some official recognition and did not pursue an appeal.

    I do not say any of this to attract attention or sympathy, or to suggest that my experience was in any way exceptional. The point is that it was not. Like many victims of crime, my hope now is that some good might come from adverse experience. In that respect, I agree with the Minister when she wrote:

    “The clear message to me is that we need change, and I will be considering how Government can best provide the support that victims need and deserve.”

    I hope we will hear more about those plans today.

    I am encouraged by the Prime Minister’s clear and personal statement of support for victims of crime in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North last week. I am glad to have the opportunity next Tuesday to introduce to the House a ten-minute rule Bill that aims to secure the wholesale review of CICA and the scheme that the Victims’ Commissioner called for in 2019. The victims of violent crime deserve better, and I hope the Bill will secure cross-party support.

  • Harriet Cross – 2025 Speech on Licences and Licensing

    Harriet Cross – 2025 Speech on Licences and Licensing

    The speech made by Harriet Cross, the Conservative MP for Gordon and Buchan, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

    I hope it will be apparent that all Members of the House strongly support this motion. Certainly those of us on the Opposition Benches welcome the opportunity for pubs and other licensed venues across the country to stay open late to commemorate VE day without incurring any cost to extend their licences.

    As time passes and those with direct memories of this momentous day grow older, it is critical that we continue to commemorate and remember the experiences of those who sacrificed so much and who in so many cases gave everything for our nation and for others’ freedom. We must celebrate the fact that their sacrifice was not in vain, but led to a great achievement, and recognise the efforts and endurance that overcame immense struggle. I hope I speak for all Members when I say that we are incredibly honoured to represent those who served in world war two and their family, friends and loved ones who survive to this day.

    VE day is rightly a day for us all to share in celebration. As Churchill said on 8 May 1945,

    “My dear friends, this is your hour. This is not a victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory for the great British nation as a whole.”

    It is only appropriate that we continue to reflect the evergreen truth and celebrate VE day as we should: unified as a country, proud of our history of determination and of sacrifice.

    The motion to extend licensing hours appears exceptionally appropriate. Not only was a national holiday declared in Britain on 8 May 1945, but it is said that on that morning, Churchill—with his focus very much on the real priorities—gained assurances from the Ministry of Food that there would be sufficient beer available in the capital. Meanwhile, the Board of Trade announced that people could purchase red, white and blue bunting without using ration coupons. We share that same spirit today by approving this motion, which I hope will allow people to fully and memorably commemorate this truly historic day.

  • Diana Johnson – 2025 Speech on Licences and Licensing

    Diana Johnson – 2025 Speech on Licences and Licensing

    The speeches made by Diana Johnson, the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

    I beg to move,

    That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.

    Next week marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, which was of course a hugely significant and consequential moment in our country’s history. After more than five long years, during the first of which we stood alone, on 8 May 1945 Prime Minister Churchill proclaimed to cheering crowds in Whitehall, just a few hundred yards from this Chamber:

    “This is your victory. It is the victory of the cause of freedom in every land.”

    As the 75th anniversary commemorations involving public gatherings were, sadly, cancelled in 2020 due to the covid outbreak, the upcoming milestone is a precious chance to pay tribute to that greatest generation and hear the stories of those who lived through the war. At this point, I want to refer to my father, Eric Johnson, who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, and my mother, Ruth Johnson, who worked in munitions factories.

    Many people will want to come together with friends and family to mark the occasion, and to raise a glass to those who fought for our freedoms—the soldiers, sailors and airmen from the United Kingdom and across the Commonwealth, as well as our allies in Europe, and also those who contributed to the war effort at home, including civilians working in the emergency services, transport, the home guard, the wardens and those working in factories and on the land. Twenty three Members of this House and 20 Members of the other place gave their lives in world war two, and I know that Mr Speaker is working to mark that. We should celebrate the role of this place and our wartime coalition in saving democracy beyond our shores from what Winston Churchill called

    “the abyss of a new dark age”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]

    Commemorative events will be held in many locations during the anniversary week, including: a military procession from Whitehall to Buckingham Palace; street parties across the country on the bank holiday; evensong at Manchester cathedral, followed by a celebratory ringing of bells; a celebratory picnic at Cardiff castle; a living history event at Sterling castle in Scotland; a series of commemoration events at Belfast city hall; and a service at Westminster Abbey, which will serve as both an act of shared remembrance and a celebration of the end of the war.

    VE Day falls within the annual Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s War Graves Week, and the commission is marking the 80th anniversary of VE Day with the “For Evermore” tour, a mobile exhibition travelling the UK sharing stories of those who died in world war two. The commission is also holding a special VE Day concert on 2 May at the historic Coventry cathedral, which was rebuilt after being destroyed by bombing in 1940. A concert will also take place at Horse Guards Parade to mark the end of commemorations on 8 May.

    As a Member of Parliament who represents Kingston upon Hull, a city that was routinely referred to anonymously in the second world war as a “north-east coastal town” despite bombing comparable to the east end of London, Hull’s celebrations for VE Day will be accompanied by a desire to see greater national recognition of the effects of the blitz on my city than we have had over the course of the past 80 years. Hull will have a memorial service at Hull cenotaph; the Hull History Centre will show free screenings of archive footage from VE Day in 1945 of the celebrations that took place in Hull; and in Cottingham there will be a 1940s music singalong at Cottingham civic hall.

    It promises to be a special atmosphere in many communities and the order will allow people to celebrate for longer, should they so wish. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing hours order to allow licensed premises to open for specified, extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. By way of background, past occasions where the then Home Secretary has exercised this power to extend licensing hours have included: the King’s coronation; Her late Majesty the Queen’s platinum and diamond jubilee celebrations; the royal weddings in 2011 and 2018; and, most recently, the semi-final and final of the men’s UEFA European championship last year. The Government consider the 80th anniversary of VE Day to be an occasion of national significance and, as such, worthy of the proposed extension before the House today.

    Turning to the practical details, the order makes provision to relax licensing arrangements in England and Wales, and allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Thursday the 8 May for a further two hours, from 11pm until 1am the following morning. A truncated consultation was conducted with key stakeholders who were supportive of the extension, and we take the view that the order will not bring about any significant crime and disorder due to the nature of the events. However, we recognise that there may be implications for police resourcing, and we will continue to work with stakeholders to mitigate any concerns around the impact.

    As well as enabling celebrations, the extension has the added potential benefit of providing a welcome boost to the hospitality sector. I hope that Members across the House will agree that this order represents an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003.

    To conclude, this extension reflects our commitment to remembering what was a truly momentous event—our finest hour—and to celebrating those who defended our country, liberated Europe and secured peace. With that, I commend this order to the House.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2025.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    When I spoke in this House on 1 April, I set out the Government’s intention to introduce emergency legislation, because I believe that our justice system must be above all else fair, and that, standing before a judge, we are all equal, no matter the colour of our skin or the question of our faith. Given the existential nature of this matter for our justice system, I was clear that we would move at pace to change the law. The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill was introduced that same day. With Second Reading taking place just three weeks later, we are forging ahead with plans to legislate as quickly as possible.

    Before I set out the contents of the Bill, it bears repeating how we came to be in the current situation and why expedited legislation is necessary. In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council put forward revised guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. I should note that during a statutory consultation they were welcomed by the last Conservative Government in no uncertain terms. The shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who was a Justice Minister at the time, should be able to furnish his colleagues with the details, but as he is absent today, I will do so.

    Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

    Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether the guidelines proposed under the previous Government were the same as those with which she is dealing now, or did they differ—and if they differed, how did they differ?

    Shabana Mahmood

    They did not differ in any substantial way. All the guidelines, in so far as they concern issues relating to race, religion, culture or belief, are exactly the same as those to which the Justice Minister responded under the Conservative Administration. Hiding behind that, I am afraid, shows a failure to reckon with the Opposition’s own track record, which has become quite a hallmark of theirs in recent weeks and months.

    These guidelines help judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence, providing guidance on the thresholds for disposals of this type. In the process of deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where they consider such a report to be unnecessary. The reports are used to give the courts more context of the offending behaviour in a given case, and set out any factors that should be considered as part of the sentencing process. As I said to the House on 1 April, generally speaking I am in favour of the use of pre-sentence reports, and in fact I have recently freed up capacity in the Probation Service precisely so that it has more time to produce reports of this type.

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    The chairman of the Sentencing Council has argued that the sentence should be tailored to the offender, but my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the Secretary of State—think that the sentence should be tailored to the offence and its effect on the victim. That is what counts, not the background, circumstances, history or origins of the offender.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The purpose of the pre-sentence reports, used properly, is to provide the court with the full context of the offending behaviour. That enables the court to ensure that when it imposes a custodial sentence it will be successful and capable of being delivered in respect of that offender, or else a community sentence should be imposed instead. It is a useful mechanism that judges have at their disposal. We would expect it to be used in all cases except when the courts consider it unnecessary because they have all the information. Because I consider pre-sentence reports to be so important in giving the courts all the information that they need to pass the right sentence for the offender who is before them, I have specifically freed up capacity in the Probation Service so that it can do more work of this type. However, the updated guidelines specifically encourage judges to request them for some offenders and not others, stipulating circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. That is the bit that I am seeking to change.

    Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

    The right hon. Lady has just said something very important: namely, that she would normally expect a pre-sentence report to be given in all, or at least almost all, cases. I hope that is her position, because what seems unfair to me is that a pre-sentence report, which presumably enables people to present arguments in mitigation, should be available to some people who have been convicted of a crime but not to others. Surely it should be available either to everyone or to no one, because everyone’s individual circumstances deserve the same degree of consideration.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, we fully support section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020—the sentencing code—which makes it clear that a court must obtain a pre-sentence report unless it considers it unnecessary to do so. That would be in cases where judges consider that they already have at their disposal the facts that will enable them to make a determination of the correct sentence for any particular offender. I think that the Sentencing Council got things right in the paragraph of the current guidelines that comes before the one that is the subject of the debate and the Bill, which states:

    “PSRs are necessary in all cases that would benefit from an assessment of one or more of the following: the offender’s dangerousness and risk of harm, the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the offender’s personal circumstances and any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements.”

    That covers all the areas in which we would normally consider PSRs to be necessary, and I would like them to be used more extensively. Indeed, I would like them to be the norm in all cases, because I think they offer important information to people who are passing sentence—unless, of course, it is unnecessary because judges have already been furnished with all the details, having heard the whole of the case that has been taking place before them.

    Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)

    The Lord Chancellor has just given us, very helpfully, the list of matters that might be relevantly considered in a pre-sentence report. As she has said, however, one of the items on that list is “personal circumstances”, and that is what the Bill will remove from the Sentencing Council’s discretion. May I ask her why she has not used in the Bill the language that is included in the explanatory notes? Paragraph 8 states that the Bill will

    “prevent differential treatment… It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort”.

    That strikes me as a much narrower exclusion, and perhaps one better targeted at the problem that the Lord Chancellor has, in my view, rightly identified.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. That is why we have offered the additional context in the explanatory notes. Personal characteristics and personal circumstances have, over the years, been elided in different court judgments, and the different definitions of the two have sometimes slipped. I wanted to make it clear in the Bill that we are constraining the Sentencing Council’s ability to create guidance for PSRs in relation to personal characteristics. We refer in the Bill to race, religion, culture and belief, specifically to ensure that the Sentencing Council understands that we are targeting this part of the offending section of the imposition guideline. It will then have its own interpretation of how personal circumstances and personal characteristics should apply. I would expect this to be analogous to protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, in terms of the way in which the courts are likely to approach the question of what a personal characteristic is for the purpose of the Bill.

    However, I wanted to make the intention behind the Bill very clear to the Sentencing Council, and to everyone else. It is tightly focused on the offending section of the imposition guideline and leaves the wider question of personal circumstances untouched. As I will explain later in my speech, there is helpful Court of Appeal guidance on circumstances and on other occasions on which a PSR should normally be required, and nothing in the Bill will affect the Court of Appeal precedents that have already been set.

    Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)

    Is the Lord Chancellor aware that the Sentencing Council guidelines, and indeed the Bill, turn on issues that some of us have campaigned on for decades? I think that there would be concern if the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary.

    Shabana Mahmood

    It certainly does not undermine the independence of the judiciary. There is a long tradition of campaigners, including my right hon. Friend, who have a lengthy track record of campaigning on issues relating to disparities within the criminal justice system and, indeed, across wider society. In so far as those disparities relate to the criminal justice system, my strong view is that they are matters of policy.

    Parliament is the proper place for that policy to be debated, and Parliament is the proper place for us to agree on what is the best mechanism to deal with those problems. It is not within the purview of the Sentencing Council, because this is a matter of policy. Judges apply the laws that are passed by this House; that is their correct and proper function. I will always uphold their independence in that regard and will never interfere with it, but this turns on a matter of policy. It is right for the Government of the day to seek a policy response to this issue, and it is right for it to be debated and, ultimately, legislated for in the House.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the Lord Chancellor for opening the debate, and for her answers to the questions so far. I think every one of us believes that the foundational principle that justice is blind must be adhered to in every way, but we live in an age of ever-changing political correctness, which, regardless of whether we like it or not, invades Parliament and our lives.

    I am very much in favour of what the Lord Chancellor has said about race and faith. As a person of faith, I want to make sure that race and faith can never be mitigating or aggravating factors when it comes to justice. Given the lives that we live, the world that we live in, and all the things that impact on us daily and in this House as MPs, can the Lord Chancellor confirm that faith, justice and religion will always be preserved in the way that they should be?

    Shabana Mahmood

    For me, one of the most moving parts of the parliamentary day is when the day starts with prayers. Those are Christian prayers, and I am of the Muslim faith, but I always find it moving to be part of them and to hear them. They remind us that we all belong to a country with a long heritage, which is steeped in faith. The source code for much of the law of England and Wales is the Bible. The hon. Gentleman makes some broader points on the issue of faith and how important it is, and I suspect that he and I have a lot in common in that regard. There must never be differential treatment before the law of our land, and before any court, on the basis of faith.

    Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)

    I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s point about parliamentary sovereignty and that fact that policy must be determined by this place. I think many Members from across the House will have been quite shocked by the response of the Sentencing Council to her letter when she asked it to consider the guidelines again. Does she agree that if this place continues to butt heads with the Sentencing Council over guidelines like these, maybe the best thing to do is abolish the Sentencing Council?

    Shabana Mahmood

    I have had constructive conversations with the Sentencing Council, and I have made it very clear that I do not really do personal. I certainly would not do it in relation to the judiciary, whose independence I uphold and whose security I am ultimately responsible for. I take those responsibilities very seriously. I swore an oath on my holy book, and that means a huge amount to me. There is a clear difference here about where the line is drawn between matters of policy and matters that are correctly within the purview of the judiciary, which is how the law should be applied in the cases that they hear. I am simply making it very clear that this is policy and is for this place to determine, but as I will come to later in my speech, this situation has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. That is why I am reviewing the wider roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and will legislate in upcoming legislation if necessary. I will now make more progress with my speech and give way to other colleagues later if people wish to intervene again.

    The updated guidelines specifically encouraged judges to request pre-sentence reports for some offenders and not for others, stipulating the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. This included cases involving offenders from ethnic, cultural or faith minorities. In other words, a pre-sentence report would normally be considered necessary for a black offender or a Muslim one, but not necessarily if an offender is Christian or white, and we must be clear about what that means. By singling out one group over another, all may be equal but some are more equal than others. We must also be honest about the impact that this could have. Equipped with more information about one offender than another, the court may be less likely to send that offender to prison. I therefore consider the guidance to be a clear example of differential treatment. As such, it risks undermining public confidence in a justice system that is built on the idea of equality before the law.

    Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)

    Given that the Sentencing Council refused the Lord Chancellor’s first invitation to rewrite its guidance, is she confident that the limited nature of this Bill is sufficient? Would she not be wiser to take a broader power to ensure that in future all sentencing guidance has an affirmative vote in this place?

    Shabana Mahmood

    It is right that, moving at pace, I have sought to have a targeted Bill that deals with this particular imposition guideline. I have made it very clear that I am conducting a wider review of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council. If we need to legislate further—maybe in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, although other mechanisms are also potentially available—I will do so. I am not ruling out further legislation—in fact, it is very much on the table—but it is right that we are moving quickly in order to deal with the problems that could be caused by the guidelines coming into force, and that I have taken targeted action in this short but focused Bill.

    As I told the House a few weeks ago, I had several discussions with the Sentencing Council in the time leading up to 1 April, when the updated guidelines were due to come into force. I reiterate my gratitude to the council’s chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for engaging with me on this issue and for ultimately making the right call by pausing the guidelines while Parliament has its say. I should say again that I have no doubt whatsoever about the noble intentions behind the proposed changes, because I understand the problem that the Sentencing Council was attempting to address. Racial inequalities exist in our justice system and are evident in the sentencing disparities between offenders from different backgrounds, but as the Sentencing Council acknowledges, the reasons for this are unclear. Addressing inequalities in the justice system is something that this Government take very seriously, and we are determined to increase confidence in its outcomes, which is why we are working with the judiciary to make the system more representative of the public it serves.

    I have also commissioned a review of the data that my Department holds on disparities in the justice system in order to better understand the drivers of the problem, but although I agree with the Sentencing Council’s diagnosis, I believe it has prescribed the wrong cure. Going ahead with the new guidelines would have been an extraordinary step to take. It would have been extraordinary because of what it puts at risk: the very foundations of our justice system, which was built on equality before the law. The unintended consequences would have been considerable, because the idea that we improve things for people in this country who look like me by telling the public that we will be given favourable treatment is not just wrong, but dangerous. We are all safer in this country when everyone knows we are treated the same. If we sacrifice that, even in pursuit of a noble ideal such as equality, we risk bringing the whole edifice crashing to the ground.

    I know there are disagreements in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue, not least between the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, who opposes the guidelines, and the shadow Transport Secretary, whose support for them I have noted already—though I suppose that does assume that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice really is who he shows himself to be today. I must admit that I have begun to question whether his principles are set or really of no fixed abode. After all, he did pose as a Cameroon centrist for so many years, and only recently became his party’s populist flag bearer. It is enough to make me wonder whether he is, in fact, a Marxist—but one of the Groucho variety. “These are my principles,” he says, and if you do not like them, he has others.

    Regardless of our positions on this question of policy, one thing is clear: this is a question of policy. How the state addresses an issue that is systemic, complex and of unclear origin is a question of what the law should be, not how the law should be applied. Let me be clear about that distinction: Parliament sets the laws and the judiciary determine how they are applied, and they must be defended as they do so. I will always defend judicial independence, and as I said earlier, I swore an oath to do so when I became the Lord Chancellor. Given the shadow Lord Chancellor’s recent diatribes, including just hours ago in this place, he may want to acquaint himself with that oath, if he intends ever succeeding me in this position, although I am assuming that it is my job he wants, not that of the Leader of the Opposition.

    James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)

    I think the Lord Chancellor just said that the approach to the guidelines taken by the Sentencing Council puts the foundation of the justice system at risk. Given that, how can she have confidence in a Sentencing Council that takes such an approach?

    Shabana Mahmood

    I have engaged constructively with the Sentencing Council and will continue to do so, and I am in the process of legislating to prevent this imposition guideline from ever coming into force. It has currently been paused, and I think that was the right step for the Sentencing Council to take. I am conducting a wider review of the roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and it is right that I take a bit more time to think carefully about that, about what we may or may not want it to do, and about how we may right the democratic deficit that has been uncovered. I think my approach to the Sentencing Council is very clear from the action I am taking.

    Sir Julian Lewis

    I do not think anyone is questioning the firm action the Lord Chancellor is taking. The point my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made is: why should it be necessary for her to take that action? Surely, if the Sentencing Council cannot see the distinction she makes between its proper role and Parliament’s proper role, it is not fit to do the job.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The Sentencing Council might argue, rightly, that given the guideline was welcomed by the former Government, it probably thought it was on safer ground than I consider it to be. However, there is clearly a confusion, a change in practice, or a development in ways I disagree with about the proper line between what is practice or the application of the law and what is properly in the realm of policy. That is what I am absolutely not going to give any ground on and that I will be setting right.

    Sir John Hayes

    The right hon. Lady is right about the moving process or trend that she has described, but the trouble is that it is part of a bigger problem, is it not? It is the problem of judicial activism, and it is not new. For some time, judicial activists have sought to do exactly what she has said, and it is they, not people in this House, who endanger the separation of powers.

    Shabana Mahmood

    However, it is always up to the people in this House, if they feel that a law is being applied in ways that were not intended, to put that law right. I am afraid the right hon. Member’s comment is a rather damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative Government, with 14 years of sitting back and allowing other people to do the policy work that Ministers in the previous Government perhaps did not have the time or inclination to do themselves.

    I do not think that judges, in applying the law, are doing anything wrong; they are doing their job. They are public servants, and they do their job independently. It is right that we have an independent judiciary in this country. We are very lucky to have a judiciary that is world class and highly regarded. One of the reasons why so many businesses from all over the world want to do business in this country is that they know they can trust our courts system and the independence of our judges. I think it is incumbent on the whole of this House to defend the independence of the judiciary, because that independence was hard won. It is one of our absolute USPs as a rule of law jurisdiction in this country, and none of us must ever do anything that puts it at risk.

    If there are issues about the way in which the law is applied—if Parliament or Ministers ever consider that it has strayed too far from the original intention—we can always legislate, and I am doing just that today. I hope this is an example that others, if they have issues in their areas, may consider taking as well. It is a question of policy, and that should be decided and debated here in this place, in this House, and the public must be able to hold us to account for the decisions we take, rewarding or punishing us at the ballot box as they see fit. This is the domain of government, politics and Parliament, and today we reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.

    Dr Caroline Johnson

    The right hon. Lady is making a point about the wider justice system and the importance of equality before the law. What has she done to assure herself and the House that, in all aspects of her Department’s work, people are being treated equally under the law—whether in relation to parole, how they are treated in prison, bail conditions and so on?

    Shabana Mahmood

    I have ordered a wider review of all guidance across all the MOJ’s work in so far as it relates to equality before the law to make sure that the problems we have uncovered here are not replicated elsewhere. There is the issue of bail guidance, which was discussed in the House earlier. I have already ordered a review, and that guidance is being redrafted as we speak. That particular guidance has been something like 20 years in the making—it has been added to over many years—so the redraft has to be careful and we must make sure it does not have any unintended consequences. However, we are cracking on with that work at pace, and I will make sure that, by the time I am done, we can all be absolutely clear that this sweep towards allowing potential differential treatment is sorted out once and for all.

    Dr Johnson rose—

    Shabana Mahmood

    If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.

    That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.

    Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.

    It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, for example those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.

    Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.

    As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.

    The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2025 Speech at the Organised Immigration Crime Summit

    Yvette Cooper – 2025 Speech at the Organised Immigration Crime Summit

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, on 31 March 2025.

    Thank you very much. Thank you Prime Minister, thank you to the Italian Prime Minister and good morning everyone.

    Can I thank everyone for travelling here from all over the world. Interior ministers, senior law enforcement, delegations from over 40 countries and organisations, we are so pleased to welcome you to London and here to Lancaster House for this, the first summit of its kind on organised immigration crime and border security, and to have so many people come from across the world, shows the seriousness with which all our countries are taking these issues, but also, bluntly, how much more together we need to do.

    Of course, we are not the first generation to grapple with international migration, the societal, economic security consequences that flow through the centuries.

    Of course, people have travelled across borders to work, to study, join family, to flee war or persecution, to escape poverty, to seek a better life for a different future, to chase new resources, or to forge new nations.

    But in recent years, we have seen new and serious patterns and scales of irregular and illegal migration causing major challenges for border security, for national security, for the rule of law, for countries and the economy across so many of our countries, in source, in transit and in destination, countries alike.

    And 2 facts have accelerated and changed some of the challenges our countries face.

    Firstly, technology. The physical distances between nations and continents may not have changed, but technology has made the world feel a lot smaller.

    Organising journeys can be faster and easier than ever, and the details of a different future is suddenly right there on a smartphone in the palm of your hand.

    And the second factor is the emergence of a vast and ruthless criminal industry that stretches across borders and across continents worth billions of pounds.

    The criminal smuggler and trafficking gangs who profit from undermining our border security, our national security and the rule of law and from putting lives at risk, have grown and stretched across the globe.

    And every country here will have different stories to tell and insights to share, but across all of our countries, we’ve seen that organised immigration crime posing a significant and growing global threat with far reaching consequences for us all – breaking our laws, undermining our security and our cohesion.

    From the source countries where gangs prey on the vulnerable, to transit countries where people and equipment pass through towns and borders unchecked, to destination countries managing the financial, the social and the criminal fallout, no part of the journey is untouched.

    And those gangs profiting from what is a vile trade in human beings are exploiting more people than ever before.

    You have heard from our Prime Minister what that means for us here in the UK, and in just 6 years, we’ve seen a criminal industry organising the small boat crossings take hold along our borders.

    Three hundred people crossed the channel on flimsy, dangerous small boats 6, 7 years ago, but 4 years later, that rose to over 30,000, an increase, a 100 fold increase, powered by smuggler and trafficking gangs.

    The gangs who advertise on social media false promise of illegal jobs, gangs who organise the logistics, the fake papers, the illegal finance networks to take everyone’s money, have thousands of pounds, the supply chains, the flimsy rubber boats, the engines.

    And perhaps for us, one of the most disturbing things of all, for us and for France, for the Calais Group, to see some of the fake life jackets, including fake life jackets for children that would not keep anyone afloat in the cold sea.

    And then the organisation along the beaches of France, the violence, the increasing and outrageous violence, against law enforcement.

    And to give you the example of how they run some of those organisations, we’ve seen the small boats, the flimsy rubber boats, take off as taxi boats and make people wait in the freezing water, in the freezing sea, so they then wait to be picked up, to climb onto the boats and then they overcrowd the boats with women and children put in the centre of the boat, the boat can then fold in. There’s the women and children who get crushed and then if the fuel in flimsy containers then leaks and mixes with salt water that can cause terrible, terrible burns.

    And then we’ve seen children crushed to death, and yet the boat carries on and that shameful, disgraceful crime where people, criminal gangs have profited from those lives being lost.

    And that’s why we cannot let that carry on.

    All of your countries will have the different stories of the way in which the gangs are exploiting people into sexual exploitation, into slave labour, into crime.

    The way in which the gangs are using new technology, not just the phones, the social media to organise, but even the drones to spot where the border patrols are, the operations along the land borders, across continents.

    But it is governments, not gangs, who should be deciding who enters our country, and those gangs are operating and profiting across borders.

    So we and our law enforcement need to co-operate across borders now to take them down.

    That’s why, as you heard from our Prime Minister, we are strengthening our laws here in the UK, bringing in new counter-terror powers so we can seize phones, investigate preparatory acts, so we can crack down on the illegal working of modern slavery and establishing our new Border Security Command.

    But we know that strengthening our border security means working with all the countries on the other sides of our borders, not just standing on our shoreline, shouting at the sea.

    We know too that no country can do this alone, and that is why the partnerships and everyone gathering here is so important.

    So today we will talk about what to do to tackle this vile trade in human beings.

    How we choke off the supply chains, the false papers, how we go after the money, how we take down the advertising.

    And how we disrupt, how we pursue, how we prosecute, how we pursue this global battle against a trade in people.

    It is our determination to do this together, the alliances that we build across our borders can be stronger than the criminal gangs who seek to undermine us.

    Thank you all for joining with us in this event today, this first summit. We have so much work to do during the course of the day, so many conversations to have, but thank you so much for being part of it, and I look forward to hearing everyone’s views during the conference today.

    Thank you very much.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2025 Speech at the Community Security Trust

    Yvette Cooper – 2025 Speech at the Community Security Trust

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, in London on 26 March 2025.

    Thank you, Sir Lloyd for those kind words, good evening everyone.

    And let me start by thanking everyone involved in CST for the remarkable, tireless and crucial work you have done not just this year, but day-in, day-out for the past 3 decades to keep our Jewish communities safe and secure. The work CST does makes the difference every single day between confidence and fear, between safety and danger, between life and death, and we owe you all a huge debt of thanks.

    For the research and analysis they undertake to expose the scourge of antisemitism. The critical security they provide for hundreds of Jewish communal buildings and events every year. The fact that every week, thousands of British Jews go to school, or to synagogue, more confident in the knowledge that CST are providing protection and support.

    And I particularly want to thank all the volunteers keeping us safe here tonight.

    It is a real honour for me to be here as Home Secretary and I want to talk tonight about why CST plays such a remarkable and important role not just in the security of Jewish families and communities across Britain, but also in the security of our entire nation. And why defending our national security – the first and foremost task of any government – means defending the security and safety of Britain’s Jews.

    But there is no way to pay tribute to this extraordinary organisation, without first paying tribute to its extraordinary founder and chairman, Sir Gerald Ronson. Gerald you have been the most formidable champion for CST and for the wider Jewish community, but also whose philanthropic work on causes from protecting children to older care has had such a profoundly positive impact on society.

    Since I came to Parliament in 1997, I have watched Gerald build CST into the pioneering and world-leading organisation that it is today. So Gerald thank you for being such an astonishing advocate – because without your determination and dedication, CST would not be what it is today.

    And on a personal note, Gerald and Gail, let me thank you for being such good friends to Ed and I over these last 25 years.

    Ed and I have come many times to CST dinners through the years in different roles. I think the first time we came was before 2010 government ministers, as shadow ministers. More recently for me as Home Affairs Select Committee Chair and for Ed as co-chair of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation. But we come not because of our jobs but because of what tonight is about – strongly supporting Britain’s Jewish communities and strongly supporting the remarkable work of CST.

    Many of you have asked where Ed is tonight. He does send his apologies tonight – and this is a sentence I never thought I would hear myself say, certainly not 10 years ago – he is in Hong Kong with George Osborne recording a special edition of their podcast. Such is the life of the former politician turned dancer turned glamorous media star.

    Although I did have a moment at a recent reception like this, when I introduced myself to a table of guests and started talking about my husband co-chairing the work on the memorial. Only for one of the older guests to nod wisely and tell her friends: “I knew I recognised her from somewhere – she’s married to Eric Pickles!”.

    But I do want to commend the work that the Holocaust Memorial Foundation is doing – chaired by Ed and Eric and backed by so many of you – to ensure that the Memorial and Learning Centre are built according to plan, next to the Palace of Westminster and the seat of our democracy, to ensure that future generations of young people in our country will learn about the evil of antisemitism and the horror of where it leads.

    This government will continue the work of our predecessors ensuring that the Holocaust Memorial is built for future generations. Just as we will continue our steadfast support for the CST and for the security of Jewish communities across the UK.

    And just as the Prime Minister was unrelenting in his mission to root out the stain of antisemitism from the Labour Party after that truly shameful period in our party’s history. Now in government, we will be equally unrelenting in our crackdown on those who spread the poison of antisemitism on our streets or online.

    We may have disagreed with the previous government on many things. And we may have inherited difficult decisions on the economy and spending. But when it comes to our support for CST and keeping our communities safe, there will be absolute continuity and certainty.

    I have spoken to 2 of my predecessors here tonight, Grant Schapps and James Cleverly here tonight and we have committed to maintaining the multi-year funding for CST that Rishi Sunak announced here last year. And why we will always seek to build the broadest cross-party consensus on public protection, so that no matter who has the keys to number 10 Downing Street, our Jewish communities know that the government is on their side.

    And I know that for the community this has been another extremely difficult year. In the short months I have been in the Home Office, I and other ministers in my department have met with many of you – just as we did many times when we were on the opposition benches.

    With the CST, the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Union of Jewish Students and many more. We’ve talked about the 3,500 incidents of anti-Jewish hate that were recorded by CST last year.

    The second highest total ever reported in a single calendar year. Threats to kill sent to synagogues. Individuals spat on or assaulted in the street. Graffiti daubed on religious sites. Antisemitic bullying in schools.

    And we’ve talked not just about the disgraceful crimes and the action needed, but about the real impact they have – for you and your families.

    I have heard some of your personal experiences of what recent years have felt like. Holding your child’s hand that bit more tightly on the way to school, the extra worry about your teenagers away at university. And the sickening jolt in the stomach from the antisemitic hatred posted online, waved on placards, worn on t-shirts, or shouted openly in the streets.

    It is those painful, personal experiences that lie behind the figures.

    And make no mistake – these horrific incidents are a stain on our society that simply will not be tolerated. Not now and not ever. Because there is no place for antisemitism in Britain.

    We all know that fear has grown since the barbaric terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023. The single deadliest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust. And the past 16 months have seen intense anguish. The living nightmare of hostages and their families. The appalling devastation and destruction we have seen in Gaza.

    The ceasefire deal agreed in January provided a glimmer of hope. I know the joy every one of us in this room will have felt seeing Emily Damari reunited with her mother Mandy, and the relief of so many hostage families, as well as the desperately needed aid flowed back into Gaza.

    But the breakdown of the ceasefire and resumption of airstrikes has devastating consequences – both for the remaining hostage families and for innocent civilians in Gaza, as this cycle of suffering continues.

    That’s why the Foreign Secretary has been clear that all parties must re-engage with negotiations, because diplomacy, not more bloodshed, is how we will achieve security for Israelis and for Palestinians. And that’s why the UK government will continue to strive for a return to a path of peace and the goal of a two-state solution.

    But as Home Secretary, I am clear that we must never allow conflict happening elsewhere to lead to greater tension or hatred here on our streets, and we will never allow antisemites to use this or any conflict as an opportunity or as an excuse to spread poisonous hatred against our Jewish community here at home.

    But let me be clear what zero tolerance means, because I know how wary you are of warm words that mean nothing in practice. Zero tolerance means that we cannot and will not accept people being abused, attacked or threatened because of who they are or what they believe.

    It means where antisemitic hate crimes are committed – whether in a local community, on a national protest or on the internet – we will back the police in the action they need to take. Arrests, charges and convictions. Whenever and wherever it takes place. But zero-tolerance also means ensuring that Jewish people in this country can take part in communal life free from intimidation and fear.

    Just as all communities are entitled to that right, but particularly when they attend their place of worship. Whether it’s going to synagogue for a Shabbat service; for a bar or bat mitzvah; for a wedding; to celebrate a festival or for any other community event. We know how sacred and special those moments are in the week, in the month and in the year for the family.

    And there is no shying away from the fact that over the last 18 months – for congregants of Central Synagogue, Western Marble Arch and Westminster – those sacred and special moments have been hugely disrupted by protest activity.

    On too many occasions, Shabbat services have been cancelled and people have stayed at home – worried to travel and attend shul as they normally would. We always say, and I say it again, so nobody is in any doubt. Protest and freedom of expression are cornerstones of our democracy, and of course that must always be protected.

    People have made use of that right to peaceful protest through generations, and they will do so for many more to come. But the right to protest is not the right to intimidate.

    And the right to protest must always be balanced against the freedom for everybody else to go about their daily lives. The police already have powers to place conditions on protests. And just as we supported officers last summer taking every possible action to defend mosques from appalling attacks violent disorder on Britain’s streets.

    I have strongly supported action taken by the Metropolitan Police in recent weeks and months to divert protest routes away from synagogues on Saturday mornings. But I know how hard the community has had to fight for those conditions – each and every time. And I have listened to your calls for change.

    So tonight I can announce that we will legislate in the Crime and Policing Bill currently going through Parliament to strengthen the law. And to give the police an explicit new power to prevent intimidating protests outside places of worship. To give the police total clarity – that where a protest has an intimidating effect, such that it prevents people from accessing or attending their place of worship – the full range of public order conditions will be available for the police to use.

    Because the right to protest must not undermine a person’s right to worship. And everybody has a right to live in freedom from fear.

    We will also never stand for the desecration of memorials and gravestones, or the vandalism and graffiti inflicted on synagogues, schools, shops and community centres. These are not minor acts of criminal damage, they are hateful acts of antisemitism and they will continue to be punished as such.

    And we will make a further amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill.

    We have carried over from the previous government an important new proposal to make it a criminal offence to climb the most significant memorials in our country, such as the Cenotaph, with a maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment and a £1,000 fine. So I can tell you tonight that I plan to extend the proposed list of protected memorials to include the new Holocaust Memorial in Westminster, to demonstrate our commitment to ensure it is valued as a place of reflection and respect.

    And I don’t need to tell this audience why that matters so much. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

    And I had the enormous privilege of attending the special service at the Guildhall on Holocaust Memorial Day, to hear first-hand from those who witnessed those unimaginable horrors and still tell their stories.

    When you hear the testimony of survivors – they so often start with a description of a happy childhood. Going to the park, enjoying school, playing with friends. The joy of being children – free from worry and from fear.

    And they describe how quickly things changed. How almost overnight – peace became war; communities became ghettos; life became death.

    There are only a couple of generations separating those brave survivors from our children today. So when students feel compelled to remove their kippahs or their star of David necklaces, when organisations like CST say their workload has doubled, I understand why – for this community – freedom feels so fragile and safety does not feel guaranteed.

    But that is why understanding the history of antisemitism and where it can lead is so important. Not just for us to talk about tonight, but right across government and public services, and right across society.

    And certainly, for us in the Home Office where our core responsibility is to keep the country and communities safe.

    So I have agreed with the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, that we will roll out antisemitism awareness training across the Home Office, and when Home Office staff seek to visit Auschwitz or other concentration camps with the Holocaust Educational Trust, March of the Living, and other organisations, that will not count towards their annual leave, because we will treat that experience as a crucial part and asset for their employment.

    I want to thank the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Anne Frank Trust and other brilliant organisations for the work they do to educate new generations about the horrors of the past, just as we thank the CST for its work to challenge antisemitism and keep our communities safe today.

    But there must be no doubt. CST’s work and the work of the police and the government is not just about public safety, it is about our national security.

    Because in the last few years we have seen the threats to UK national security change and become more complex.

    Not just here, but across the world, we face a series of rapidly evolving and overlapping threats, from terrorism to malign state actors.

    Just as we are updating our counter terrorism response to deal with the greatest threat from Islamist extremism, followed by far right extremism, including reforming Prevent and our counter terror laws.

    And we are also upgrading our response to state threats here on our shores. As our Security Minister, Dan Jarvis set out in the House of Commons earlier this month, it is no secret that there is a long-standing pattern of the Iranian intelligence services targeting Jewish and Israeli people across the world.

    And we are not prepared to stand for the increasingly brazen Iranian activity on British shores in recent years, with our security services thwarting an increasing number of direct plots.

    This month we have announced that the whole of the Iranian State – including Iran’s intelligence services, like the IRGC – will be placed on to the enhanced tier of our new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. This is a critical disruptive tool that will mean those who are being directed by Iran to conduct activities in the UK must register that activity, whatever it is, or face 5 years in prison.

    And we will not hesitate to go further when we need to – to protect our communities and protect our communities and democracy from the malign influence of the Iranian state.

    And this government will continue to work in lockstep with the police, the security services, our partners overseas, we work too with partners in this country. And I speak on behalf of both the government and law enforcement when I say how important a partner CST is in that work.

    Be it the response to different extremist ideologies or the interaction with state threats, CST’s work identifies how antisemitism is the poison that pollutes so many of our wider national security challenges.

    And no one should be in any doubt about the unparalleled professionalism and extraordinary expertise with which Mark Gardner and all the teams and volunteers carry it out. The information and intelligence-sharing with police forces and government, which has contributed to the arrests and convictions of the removal of so many individuals intent on causing harm.

    And the SAFE programme, through which CST shares expertise with other minority groups who want to keep their communities safe and secure – building the bonds and bridges across different faiths that help to keep our society as a whole cohesive and strong.

    Through all of this work, CST play a pivotal role not just in securing the safety of the Jewish community but our country as a whole.

    And for that, again, to Sir Gerald, to Mark, to Sir Lloyd and everyone at CST, I want to say a heartfelt and enduring thank you. In a few short weeks, I know many people here will be gathering with family and friends to mark Passover. Gathering around the Seder (say-der) table to recount the story of the Jews’ liberation from Egypt.

    A story of hardship, of resilience and ultimately one of freedom. These are undoubtedly difficult and unstable times, we keep sight of the light in the darkness. And the light of the Jewish community continues to shine so brightly in our country.

    Just look at the thousands of volunteers who work with CST every day.

    The synagogues who, throughout the winter, have hosted homeless shelters or drop-in centres for refugees.

    The life-saving humanitarian work of World Jewish Relief in Ukraine and across the world.  The brilliance of Mitzvah Day, inspiring thousands of people to contribute to their communities. The fantastic and essential work of Jewish Women’s Aid, who support survivors of domestic abuse.

    And all of the other countless ways that our Jewish communities enrich and enhance communal life here in Britain.

    As Home Secretary, I know that security and safety are the bedrock on which all of these other opportunities in our lives are built.

    A Jewish community that feels secure means a Jewish community that can flourish. And a successful, vibrant, confident Jewish community means a better future for Britain.

    Thank you very much.