Category: Criminal Justice

  • Oliver Letwin – 2003 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Oliver Letwin – 2003 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Oliver Letwin, the then Shadow Home Secretary, at the Conservative Party conference held in Blackpool on 7 October 2003.

    Our debate today has been about something that has a real effect on our lives, and on the lives of our fellow citizens up and down this land.

    It has been about millions of people who haven’t had a fair deal.

    It has been about the grandmother who was killed in her shop last week, when she was trying to save her daughter from being shot by armed robbers. That family didn’t get a fair deal.

    It has been about the seven year old girl shot dead a week before, the innocent victim of a vicious drugs war. She didn’t get a fair deal.

    It has been about the two young girls who were tragically murdered earlier this year in streets in Aston that are run by gangs, not the police. They didn’t get a fair deal.

    It has been about the shopkeeper I visited in North London, whose shop has regularly been pillaged by a gang of youths, but who can’t remember when he last saw a policeman on his street. He doesn’t get a fair deal.

    It has been about the estate I saw in Peterborough, where a group of young men leave cars burnt-out after joy-riding, buy and sell drugs with impunity, and laugh in the faces of people who complain. The decent, hard working people who are trying to live in peace on that estate haven’t had a fair deal.

    Today’s debate has been about the people held back and about the people left behind: the victims of crime left behind by a society that can no longer give its people freedom from fear; a society each of whose police officers contends with ten times as many crimes as fifty years ago; a society in which people have lost faith in the ability of the police to deal with crime; a society in which too often it is the law abiding citizen not the criminal who feels the full weight of regulation and authority.

    We have a story in Dorset that may or may not be true, but certainly tells an important truth about our society:

    A farmer sees someone entering his barn at night.

    He calls 999.

    The police say “sorry, no one available.”

    Inspiration comes to the farmer.

    He calls back: “I forgot to say, I’m about to shoot the intruder.”

    Minutes later, amidst the helicopters, police cars and searchlights, the Inspector says to the farmer, who is standing idly by, “I thought you said you were going to shoot the intruder.”

    The farmer replies, “I thought you said you had no one available.”

    Now if we believe in a fair deal for everyone, we have to mean everyone. And that includes…the Government.

    So let us be fair to the Government. Yes, it is true that they have failed. But it’s not because they don’t care. And it’s not because they haven’t tried. It’s because they are the only people in Britain who really believe in bureaucracy, who really think they can work it all out from Whitehall.

    I am going to tell you this afternoon one of the most extraordinary facts about modern Britain.

    For every one extra police officer recruited under Labour, the Home Office has hired more than one extra administrator in Whitehall.

    That’s 9,000 extra police officers… 10,000 extra bureaucrats. So far as I can ascertain it’s a world record. Congratulations, Mr Blunkett.

    The constables are in despair. They joined the police to do a job. They didn’t join to fill in forms for the Home Office. They didn’t join to tell crime victims ‘there’s nothing we can do’.

    That isn’t a fair deal for anyone – not for the police, and not for the people they’re meant to be protecting.

    ***

    To provide a fair deal, to rescue the neighbourhoods left behind, to pull young people off the conveyor belt to crime, to create a neighbourly society in Britain, we have to begin by reclaiming the streets.

    We need a quantum leap in treatment and rehabilitation of young hard drug addicts. We need a quantum shift to longer more constructive and rehabilitative sentences for persistent young offenders. We need more help to rescue troubled young children and to give excluded pupils the training and discipline they need to return to the mainstream.

    But all of these measures to lift young people off the conveyer belt to crime, all of these efforts to be tough on the causes of crime, won’t work unless we also get tough on crime and disorder by policing our neighbourhoods properly.

    Just as they have in Brixton town centre, where back in June, I saw Inspector Sean Wilson and his team reclaiming the streets for local people.

    Burglary is down, robbery is down, graffiti wiped away, abandoned cars towed away. Central Brixton is a safer, happier place than it was a couple of years ago.

    What made the difference?

    I’ll tell you: real and sustained neighbourhood policing, bobbies on the beat.

    Call it what you like, but it works. It worked in New York. And it can work over here.

    I’ve also seen policing that doesn’t work. Or rather I’ve not seen it, because there were no police to be seen. That was the case when I visited other parts of Brixton and when I visited the Clarence Way Estate in Camden.

    They had their police patrols too, of course. Present on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and every other Saturday. Unfortunately I was there after they had gone home. And so were the drug dealers I saw…and the junkies and the pimps and the vandals.

    The police are so overstretched that they have become part-time. The criminals are full-time. In fact they do over-time, blighting the lives of local people every day of the week, every hour of the day.

    I spoke earlier about the tragic killing of the grandmother last week. Her husband said:

    “The law has vanished…the police are completely demoralised. Thirty years ago, there were always two officers walking up and down the street and the crime rate was nil. Now there are hardly any. People know they can walk into a shop with a gun and no one will stop them”

    A National Newspaper noted that he was speaking for millions of people up and down the land. The Newspaper asked: “is anybody listening?”

    There is at least one person listening. I am.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we must put the police back on our streets.

    That is why the Conservative Party is committed to having 40,000 more police officers than there were at the beginning of this year.

    We’ll fund a great part of this by sorting out the shambles of Labour’s asylum and immigration system which costs the country £1,800 million a year – over a thousand million pounds more than it cost in 1997. We will replace the present asylum system – in its entirety – with a system of quotas for genuine refugees and the offshore processing of all claims, to deter all but genuine claims for protection from persecution.

    Of course, we won’t be able to do this if the new EU Constitution comes in, but that is just one more reason why we have to have a referendum, one way or another, and throw that Constitution out.

    Once we’ve thrown out the Constitution, and totally replaced the current asylum system, the savings made will pay for the recruitment of 5,000 extra police a year in each of the years of the next parliament.

    As I said a moment ago, over the years from 1997 to 2003, the Labour Government has provided an average of 1,500 extra policemen a year. We will provide 5,000 extra policemen each year until we reach our 40,000.

    But we have to do more than just provide the extra police officers. We have to make sure that instead of being stuck behind desks, they are put onto the streets and into the neighbourhoods. If they are properly deployed, our 40,000 new police officers can triple the number of officers actually on the beat.

    This is our pledge to the nation, our challenge in Government.

    Your police.

    On your streets.

    Reclaiming your streets for the honest citizen.

    And by your police, I mean just that. Your police force under your control.
    Mr Blunkett believes that local policing needs central control. From West Dorset to West Yorkshire, he wants to run the lot from Westminster. I want him to be the last Home Secretary who does that.

    I want to be the first Home Secretary who doesn’t run any part of local policing in Britain. The age of interference at an end. The web of bureaucracy swept away.

    No more so called National Policing Plans. No more centrally imposed targets. No more Whitehall-based units and initiatives and performance-monitoring.

    Central government off the back of local police officers.

    ***
    The worst thing about the so-called low-level crime and disorder that wreck so many neighbourhoods, is that law-abiding people feel powerless to do anything about it.

    Everyone in this hall, and all our fellow-citizens know what I am talking about: the small town, powerless to stop the police station closing at night; the old lady at the police community group, powerless to get a bobby to patrol her staircase where the addicts leave the needles; the owner of the local curry house, powerless to stop yobs jumping on his roof.

    Why should honest citizens be powerless in these ways? It just isn’t fair.

    They don’t need to be. And if I am the next Home Secretary, they won’t be.

    We are going to give people a real say on the policing of their neighbourhoods.

    Today, I’m publishing – and publishing for public consultation on the web – radical proposals to hand power over neighbourhood policing back to local communities. It works in other countries. Why can’t we have it working here?

    We will remove, by law, the Home Secretary’s power over local policing.

    We will give every Chief Constable a cast-iron legal guarantee of operational independence.

    And we will put each local police force under the direct, democratic control of local people.

    That means wherever you live, your Chief Constable will answer to someone you elected.

    If you don’t like the way your neighbourhood is policed, with a Conservative Government, you will be able to vote for change.

    Giving people a fair deal means trusting people. Trusting people means giving people power over their own lives, their own communities. Giving people power means giving you the power to change. It means giving the police the resources they need and giving people the power to ensure that those resources are used to reclaim our streets for the honest citizen.

    ***

    Edmund Burke once said:

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

    What could be more apposite, more relevant to our predicament as a nation, today?

    If there is one thing in the man made world I believe in, that thing is Britain’s liberal democracy.

    But we cannot and must not take the continuity of that precious liberty for granted.

    I remind you:

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

    If we do nothing; if we fail to address the fears and concerns of our fellow citizens in hard-pressed neighbourhoods who are despondent about the social and physical decay that surrounds them, who are appalled by the drugs and the crime on their estates, and who are terrified of the gangs that roam their streets; if we leave these people behind; if we hold back the police through lack of resources and a suffocating blanket of central bureaucracy; if we do not trust the people enough to give them the power to bring about change; if we leave them with a justified sense of unfairness, then we foster by omission an evil extremism that imperils our peace, our prosperity and our liberty.

    Today, as we go out from this hall and work together towards the re-election of a Conservative Government, we take to the inhabitants of the hard pressed estates, we take to the victims of crime who have been left behind, we take to the hard-working police officers who have been held back by stifling bureaucracy, we take to the people of this country a single, simple message: We are on your side.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Keeping Young Londoners Away from Gangs

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Keeping Young Londoners Away from Gangs

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 17 August 2022.

    I know that one-to-one support can make a huge difference in a young person’s life and mean the difference between them fulfilling their potential or being lured into the trap of violence and criminality.

    I’m proud that our London Gang Exit programme is making a real difference and has already helped hundreds of young people leave or significantly reduce their involvement in criminal gangs. That’s why I am investing even more in this programme to help tackle violence and support young Londoners at risk of exploitation as they turn their lives around.

    But gang violence still accounts for too much of the most serious violence in London and I am concerned about a potential increase in violence this summer as the cost of living crisis deepens and threatens to reverse the progress we have made in tackling violent crime. Violence, like poverty, is not inevitable and the Government must now do much more to show it shares my commitment to building a fairer, safer London for all.

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Comments on Football Fans

    Priti Patel – 2022 Comments on Football Fans

    The comments made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, on 20 August 2022.

    There is no place for the ugly scenes we saw at some matches in England and Wales last season and it is good to see the positive work being done by clubs like Brentford to ensure our stadia are safe places for families and children to enjoy the beautiful game.

    I am determined not to let a small minority ruin matches for true fans as the football season gets under way and we are working closely with the police and the football authorities to tackle antisocial and criminal behaviour.

    I wholeheartedly support the extra measures all football bodies and clubs are bringing to keep fans safe and would encourage police and the courts to make full use of Football Banning Order legislation which we have recently extended to online abuse and will be shortly bringing in to root out class A drugs at matches.

  • Paul Stephenson – 2011 Resignation Statement from the Met Police

    Paul Stephenson – 2011 Resignation Statement from the Met Police

    The statement made by Sir Paul Stephenson, the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, on 17 July 2011.

    I have this afternoon informed the Palace, Home Secretary and the Mayor of my intention to resign as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service.

    I have taken this decision as a consequence of the ongoing speculation and accusations relating to the Met’s links with News International at a senior level and in particular in relation to Mr Neil Wallis who as you know was arrested in connection with Operation Weeting last week.

    Firstly, I want to say what an enormous privilege it has been for me to lead this great organisation that is the Met. The recent example of the heroism and bravery of Met officers in chasing armed suspects, involving the shooting of one of my officers, is typical; but is in danger of being eclipsed by the ongoing debate about relationships between senior officers and the media. This can never be right.

    Crime levels in the Met are at a ten year low. You have seen the Met at its glorious and unobtrusive best on the occasion of the royal wedding; the professional and restrained approach to unexpected levels of violence in recent student demonstrations; the vital ongoing work to secure the safety of the capital from terrorism; the reductions in homicide; and continuing increased levels of confidence as the jewel in our crown of Safer Neighbourhoods Teams serve the needs of Londoners.

    I am deeply proud of the achievements of the Met since I became Commissioner.

    Let me turn to phone hacking and my relationship with Neil Wallis. I want to put the record straight.

    I met Mr Wallis in 2006. The purpose of that meeting was, as with other journalists, to represent the context of policing and to better inform the public debate carried out through the media on policing issues.

    I had no knowledge of, or involvement in, the original investigation into phone hacking in 2006 that successfully led to the conviction and imprisonment of two men. I had no reason to believe this was anything other than a successful investigation. I was unaware that there were any other documents in our possession of the nature that have now emerged.

    I have acknowledged the statement by John Yates that if he had known then what he knows now he would have made different decisions.

    My relationship with Mr Wallis continued over the following years and the frequency of our meetings is a matter of public record. The record clearly accords with my description of the relationship as one maintained for professional purposes and an acquaintance.

    In 2009 the Met entered into a contractual arrangement with Neil Wallis, terminating in 2010. I played no role in the letting or management of that contract.

    I have heard suggestions that we must have suspected the alleged involvement of Mr Wallis in phone hacking. Let me say unequivocally that I did not and had no reason to have done so. I do not occupy a position in the world of journalism; I had no knowledge of the extent of this disgraceful practice and the repugnant nature of the selection of victims that is now emerging; nor of its apparent reach into senior levels. I saw senior figures from News International providing evidence that the misbehaviour was confined to a rogue few and not known about at the top.

    One can only wonder about the motives of those within the newspaper industry or beyond, who now claim that they did know but kept quiet. Though mine and the Met’s current severe discomfort is a consequence of those few that did speak out, I am grateful to them for doing so, giving us the opportunity to right the wrong done to victims – and here I think most of those especially vulnerable people who deserved so much better from us all.

    Now let me turn to the suspicion that the contractual relationship with Mr Wallis was somehow kept secret. The contracting of Mr Wallis only became of relevance when his name became linked with the new investigation into phone hacking. I recognise that the interests of transparency might have made earlier disclosure of this information desirable. However my priority, despite the embarrassment it might cause, has been to maintain the integrity of Operation Weeting. To make it public would have immediately tainted him and potentially compromised any future Operation Weeting action.

    Now let me turn to the reported displeasure of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary of the relationship with Mr Wallis.

    The reasons for not having told them are two fold. Firstly, I repeat my earlier comments of having at the time no reason for considering the contractual relationship to be a matter of concern. Unlike Mr Coulson, Mr Wallis had not resigned from News of the World or, to the best of my knowledge been in any way associated with the original phone hacking investigation.

    Secondly, once Mr Wallis’s name did become associated with Operation Weeting, I did not want to compromise the Prime Minister in any way by revealing or discussing a potential suspect who clearly had a close relationship with Mr Coulson. I am aware of the many political exchanges in relation to Mr Coulson’s previous employment – I believe it would have been extraordinarily clumsy of me to have exposed the Prime Minister, or by association the Home Secretary, to any accusation, however unfair, as a consequence of them being in possession of operational information in this regard. Similarly, the Mayor. Because of the individuals involved, their positions and relationships, these were I believe unique circumstances.

    Consequently, we informed the Chair of the MPA, Mr Malthouse, of the Met’s contractual arrangements with Mr Wallis on the morning of the latter’s arrest. It is our practice not to release the names of suspects under arrest, making it difficult to make public details of the arrangements prior to Mr Wallis’s release the same day. The timing of the MPA Committee that I appeared before at 2pm that day was most unfortunate.

    Now let me briefly deal with the recent story in relation to my use of Champney’s facilities. There has been no impropriety and I am extremely happy with what I did and the reasons for it – to do everything possible to return to running the Met full time, significantly ahead of medical, family and friends’ advice. The attempt to represent this in a negative way is both cynical and disappointing.

    I thought it necessary to provide this lengthy and detailed account of my position on aspects of the current media questions and speculation concerning my conduct. I do this to provide the backcloth to the main purpose of this statement.

    There are a great number of things I value as part of my professional life – very high in this list are my reputation for judgement and integrity.

    On judgement: running a large and overwhelmingly successful organisation like the Met must be dependent to a great extent on others providing the right information and assurances. I could reiterate that I had no reason to doubt the original investigation into phone hacking or be aware of the documents and information in our possession and only recently provided by News International. I could point to the many other successes of the Met. I could point to the long history of how and why the relationship between the Met and media has developed a way of doing business that has brought real benefits but perhaps runs the risk of misinterpretation or worse. In this particular regard it is clear to me that the current furore marks a point in time, a need to learn and change.

    However, as Commissioner I carry ultimate responsibility for the position we find ourselves in. With hindsight, I wish we had judged some matters involved in this affair differently. I didn’t and that’s it.

    I do not believe this on its own would be a matter for me to consider my position as Commissioner.

    However, the issue of my integrity is different. Let me state clearly, I and the people who know me know that my integrity is completely intact. I may wish we had done some things differently, but I will not lose sleep over my personal integrity.

    Nevertheless, I must accept that the intense media coverage, questions, commentary and indeed allegations, as demonstrated by this weekend’s attempt to misrepresent my arrangements for my recovery from illness, not only provide excessive distraction both for myself and colleagues, but are likely to continue for some time. In particular the Public Inquiry must take time, with even the first part scheduled not to report within a year. A year in which the Met must face not only the enormous challenges that are the staple diet of this incredible organisation, but also the Olympics.

    This is not a 12 months that can afford any doubts about the Commissioner of the Met, I have seen at first hand the distractions for this organisation when the story becomes about the leaders as opposed to what we do as a service. I was always clear that I would never allow that. We the Met cannot afford this – not this year.

    If I stayed I know that the Inquiry outcomes would reaffirm my personal integrity. But time is short before we face the enormous challenge of policing the Olympics – this is not the time for ongoing speculation about the security of the position of the Commissioner. Even a small chance that that there could be a change of leadership must be avoided.

    Therefore, although I have received continued personal support from both the Home Secretary and the Mayor, I have with great sadness informed both of my intention to resign. This will allow time for the appointment of my successor and for that person to take a firm hold of the helm of this great organisation and steer it through the great challenges and necessary change ahead, unencumbered by the current controversy. I will miss many things, but most of all it will be the overwhelming majority of honest, hard working professionals who it has been such a great pleasure to lead.

  • Ed Balls – 2010 Comments on Proposed Cuts to the Met Police

    Ed Balls – 2010 Comments on Proposed Cuts to the Met Police

    The comments made by Ed Balls, the then Shadow Home Secretary, on 22 December 2010.

    Sir Paul [Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Commissioner] is absolutely right to air his concerns about the funding cuts and unprecedented challenges the Metropolitan Police faces. Like police chiefs across the country Sir Paul has been put in an impossible position by a Conservative Home Secretary who failed to fight the corner of the police in the spending review.

    House of Commons Library figures show that the Met faces a real terms cut in government funding of over £330m in just two years. That’s a cut of over 15 per cent – most of which is in the year of the Olympics – and with more cuts to come in the two years after that.

    Ramming through cuts to policing of this speed and scale at a time of rising public protest on our streets, an ongoing terror threat and the security challenge of the 2012 Olympics is a reckless and dangerous gamble by this Conservative led government. It will undermine the fight against crime across the capital and take unnecessary risks with national security and the safety of our communities.

    It’s time the Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May and the Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson started standing up for our police.

  • Dominic Raab – 2022 Comments on Construction of First Secure School

    Dominic Raab – 2022 Comments on Construction of First Secure School

    The comments made by Dominic Raab, the Deputy Prime Minister, on 29 July 2022.

    This secure school is a first. It’s effectively a school with prison walls around it that will give the stubborn hard core of young offenders, who need to be in custody, the tailored curriculum and mental health support they need to turn away from crime and get into training and work.

    It’s the right thing to do for them and the public, driving down reoffending, and making our streets safer.

  • Stuart Andrew – 2022 Comments on Full Sutton Prison

    Stuart Andrew – 2022 Comments on Full Sutton Prison

    The comments made by Stuart Andrew, the Prisons Minister, on 3 August 2022.

    I am delighted work can begin on yet another modern, innovative prison that will skill-up untold numbers of offenders to live a crime-free life while making our streets safer.

    The new prison at Full Sutton will also support hundreds of jobs, in construction and afterwards, representing a major boost to Yorkshire’s economy.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on County Lines Gangs

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on County Lines Gangs

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 27 July 2022.

    It’s vital that we support young people and keep them safe from exploitation by criminal gangs.

    I am determined to ensure we provide an escape route for young Londoners who feel trapped and I’m pleased the Rescue and Response programme is working to break the chain of criminality that holds some of our most vulnerable young men, women, girls and boys hostage.

    Thanks to this programme, more than 450 young people have benefited from positive opportunities to help change their lives for the better and divert them away from exploitation by criminal gangs.

    I know we’re only scratching the surface of a major national issue that is still driving violence in London and across the country, but that is why I will continue to invest record amounts in programmes that intervene in the key moments in a person’s life, to divert them away from crime and build a safer London for everyone.

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on the Serious Fraud Office and the Unaoil Case

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on the Serious Fraud Office and the Unaoil Case

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Attorney General, in the House of Commons on 21 July 2022.

    I wish to provide details of the findings of an independent review I commissioned into the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) failings identified by the Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Akle and Anor (2021). I committed to this in my written statement of 9 February 2022.

    The objectives of the review were to consider and provide recommendations in relation to the following matters:

    1. What happened in this case and why? In particular, assessing the two key failings identified in the judgment: a) What occurred as regards SFO contact with third-parties and why; and b) Why did the SFO disclosure failures identified in the Court of Appeal judgment occur?

    2. What implications, if any, do the failings highlighted by this case have for the policies, practices, procedures and related culture of the SFO?

    3. What changes are necessary to address the failings highlighted by the judgment and any wider issues of SFO policies, practices, procedures or related culture identified by the reviewer?

    I am grateful for Sir David Calvert-Smith’s work on leading this review. His findings fall into two categories: thematic failings and events. Sir David found five recurrent themes that were fundamental to the Court’s judgment, some of which indicate general organisational issues within the SFO’s control and where failures occurred. These themes are: record-keeping; compliance with casework assurance processes; resourcing; understanding about priorities; and distrust between the case team and senior management resulting from the latter’s contact with David Tinsley. Sir David highlights a sequence of 17 events or mistakes that led to the Court’s judgment.

    Following these conclusions, Sir David makes eleven recommendations which the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and SFO accept. They broadly cover:

    1. Case assurance—all cases should have sufficient resources, all members of case teams should comply fully with case assurance processes and all contact with defendants, suspects and their representatives should be recorded as necessary. Superintendence should be revised and considered further.

    2. Disclosure—all cases should have effective disclosure strategies and management, and the Attorney General’s Office and SFO should work together to identify any necessary changes to the Attorney General’s disclosure guidelines.

    3. Personnel—all staff should be able to raise concerns about cases, the relationships between investigators and prosecutors should function as envisaged under the Roskill model, and there should not be “interregnum periods” between Directors or General Counsel.

    Building on work already undertaken by the SFO a clear plan of action to respond to the review recommendations has been developed. I will be closely monitoring the SFO’s progress and delivery of that plan and will provide an update to Parliament in November 2022 and February 2023.

    I will place a copy of the review and the response in the Libraries of both Houses so that they are accessible to Members. Junior officials’ names have been redacted from the published review in line with standard Government practice. The SFO has waived legal privilege in relation to legal advice referred to in the review only for the purposes of this review.

    The documents will also be available on gov.uk.

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Statement on Immigration and Border Control

    Priti Patel – 2022 Statement on Immigration and Border Control

    The statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 20 July 2022.

    Today will see the publication of two documents supporting the Home Office’s strategy for the future border: “An Independent review of Border Force” (CP 700) and the “New Plan for Immigration: Legal Migration and Border Control” strategy statement (CP 706). These documents have been laid before both Houses today and will be made available on gov.uk.

    The strategy statement sets out our ambition for transformational change for everyone using our systems and crossing the UK border. We will deliver a fully end-to-end digital customer experience which will bring benefits to all.

    This is an ambitious plan in which we will continue to deliver a world-leading legal migration and border system. The plans we have set out in this strategy statement are essential for a streamlined, digital system which responds to customer needs and enhances the security of the UK. Our flagship permission to travel scheme will mean that it is easier for our friends to come to and contribute to the UK, but harder for those not using legal means to come here. We will be more easily able to tackle problems upstream and know more about those who use the system to come here.

    I would like to thank Alexander Downer for his work in conducting the BF review and all those who have been involved. The recommendations in this report are our commitment to a package of reforms for Border Force so it can continue to respond to emerging threats, keep our border secure, and ease the passage of legitimate travellers and goods across our border in a world that is very different from when Border Force was formed a decade ago.

    The publication of the strategy and report on the BF review is a pivotal step in achieving the vision for the future of the border which will increase public confidence that we are improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the UK border and making it more secure to tackle future challenges.