Category: Criminal Justice

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.

April 30, 2025
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.

April 30, 2025
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.

April 25, 2025
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.

March 31, 2025
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.

March 31, 2025
Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Speech on the Probation Service

The speech made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor, at Southwark in London on 12 February 2025.

Today, we are in Southwark, the home of London’s probation service, one of the busiest in the country.

Here in London, the Service supervises more than 36,000 offenders.

And, every day, in this building, there are a thousand untold stories of how our probation service protects the public and makes our streets safer.

I want to talk about the future of our probation service today.

But to look to that future, I think we must first look to the past.

Because it was here, in Southwark, that the probation service first took root.

Over 150 years ago, the Church of England’s temperance movement posted a man called George Nelson to Southwark’s police court.

Nelson was the first of a band of missionaries, driven by their faith and strict teetotalism, who gave up their time to help offenders give up the drink.

Addiction then, as addiction now, drove much criminal behaviour…

And the approach worked.

In fact, it worked so well that the courts came to rely on missionaries like Nelson.

A system soon developed where offenders would be released on the condition that they kept in touch with these volunteers.

Because what began as a moral cause proved to have a practical purpose:

These missionaries led to less crime and fewer victims.

As this Government might say: they made our streets safer.

By the early twentieth century, this voluntary service was so greatly valued that it was placed on a statutory footing.

The 1907 Probation of Offenders Act established the first formal structure for probation…

And the volunteers became professionals.

In the years that followed, the service grew:

The 1925 Criminal Justice Act paid probation officers a regular wage.

By the 1950s, probation’s work expanded to offenders on parole.

And by the 1980s, the service was focused increasingly on prison releases.

Over time, the role developed.

Where the early missionaries were focused on crimes driven by addiction…

In time, they took responsibility for the management of ever more, and ever more complex, offenders.

Too often overlooked, with our focus invariably falling on the police or on prisons…

Probation became an indispensable part of a criminal justice system that keeps us safe.

It remains so today, now a service that is more than 20,000 strong…

And probation officers supervise almost a quarter of a million offenders – around three times the number currently serving time in our prisons.

Each year, they oversee more than 4 million hours of community payback.

They monitor around 9,000 offenders on a tag at any given moment.

They provide sentencing advice to hundreds of courts every single day.

And they also provide a vital link to tens of thousands of victims, through the Victim Contact and the Victim Notification schemes.

But while there have been bright moments in the service’s past, we must acknowledge the dark days too.

In 2014 the service was split:

Part remained in the public sector, managing the highest-risk offenders.

The rest was hived off, to be run by the private sector, who would supervise those of low and medium risk.

Community Rehabilitation Companies would bring the ingenuity of the private sector to solve the problem of reoffending.

The rhetoric was of a revolution in how we manage offenders.

The reality was far different.

Workloads increased, as new offenders were brought under supervision for the first time…

The number of people on probation increased between December 2014 and December 2016, with almost 50,000 offenders newly under its remit.

Scarce resources were stretched further than ever…

Morale plummeted.

And worrying numbers voted with their feet, leaving the service altogether…

With the Inspector of Probation declaring a “national shortage” of probation professionals in 2019.

The new companies woefully underperformed.

Between 2017 and 2018, just 5 of 37 audits carried out by HMPPS demonstrated that expected standards were being met.

In 2019, 8 out of 10 companies inspected received the lowest possible rating – “inadequate” – for supervising offenders.

The Chief Inspector called them “irredeemably flawed”.

And the service was labelled ‘inadequate’.

In 2021, it was finally, rightly, re-unified and re-nationalised.

Now, make no mistake…

Every day, across the country, probation staff make this country safer.

This was clearly evident in the service’s response to the prison capacity crisis.

With prisons just days from collapse, this Government was forced to introduce an emergency release programme, which saw some offenders leave prison a few weeks or months early.

The alternative, as I said at the time, did not bear thinking about:

We would have been forced to shut the front door of our prisons…

An act that would have sent dominoes tumbling through our justice system:

Courts unable to hold trials…

Police forced to halt arrests…

And the eventual path to a total breakdown of law and order.

In making that decision, I knew the probation service would have to carry an even heavier load.

They would have to put in place plans for the safe release of prisoners in just a few weeks.

I tried to give them as much time as I possibly could to prepare:

An eight-week implementation period.

It wasn’t long to prepare, but the probation service used it with great skill.

But now is also a moment to be honest about the challenges the service faces.

And the simple fact is this:

The service was burdened with a workload that was, quite simply, impossible.

When we took office, we discovered that orders handed out by courts were not taking place.

In the 3 years to March 2024 around 13,000 Accredited Programmes, a type of rehabilitative course, did not happen.

This wasn’t because an offender had failed to do what was expected of them…

But instead because the Probation Service had been unable to deliver these courses.

As I have shown already in this job, I believe in confronting problems, not pretending they are not there.

And so, we will ensure only those offenders who pose a higher risk, and who need to receive these courses, will do so.

This isn’t a decision I take lightly.

But it is a decision to confront the reality of the challenges facing the probation service.

I should be clear:

For those who will not complete an accredited programme, they remain under the supervision of a probation officer…

And all the other requirements placed upon them will remain in place.

Any breach of a community sentence could see them hauled back into court.

Any breach of a licence condition could see them back behind bars.

Addressing individual issues like these, however, is no long-term solution to the challenges the probation service faces.

Today, across the country, probation officers are spread too thin – responsible for caseloads and workloads that exceed what they should be expected to handle.

Probation officers are drawn to the profession not because it is just another job.

This job is a vocation, even a calling…

They are, after all, the inheritors of those missionaries of 150 years ago.

They are experts in their discipline…

Who want to know that their work is protecting the public…

And keeping offenders on the straight and narrow.

Over-stretched, they can’t work with offenders in the way they need to.

And the burden placed on probation officers’ shoulders grow heavier and heavier.

It has driven people away from the job…

It has made the public less safe…

And it has to change.

It is clear we need to bring more people into the probation service.

In July, I committed to bringing on 1,000 trainee probation officers by March of this year.

But we must go further.

Today, I can announce that, next year, we will bring on at least 1,300 new, trainee probation officers.

New probation officers are the lifeblood of the service, and they will guarantee its future.

But they are not enough alone.

It is also clear we must remove the administrative burden that weighs probation officers down…

And makes them less effective in their roles.

Today, too many hours of probation officer time are wasted each day.

They are drowning in paperwork.

And I don’t mean metaphorical paperwork.

I mean literal pen and paperwork.

This takes up valuable time, that would be better spent working with offenders…

And it also introduces the risk of error – the failure to identify the critical piece of information that might shape a professional’s judgement of the risk that an offender poses.

Where digital processes do exist in the probation service, they can be difficult to navigate.

Information is stored in multiple different systems that do not speak to each other.

And probation officers are forced, laboriously, to type the same information time and again.

We will soon pilot a digital tool that will put all the information a probation officer needs to know into one place.

Over time, this will include information from other agencies, like the police as we need to make sure data is more readily shared, so that probation can make better decisions.

We’re also trialling a new system for risk assessing offenders, to make it more straightforward for probation officers to make robust decisions.

A group of officers in Brighton started using this in December last year…

And we estimate it will cut up to 20 percent of the time it takes to do this crucial activity.

It might sound simple, but the impact could be considerable.

Every minute saved is more time probation officers can spend working with offenders.

Less simple, but even more transformational, there’s the potential of artificial intelligence.

We are currently looking into voice transcription.

This would automatically record and transcribe supervision conversations by taking notes in real time…

Allowing probation officers to focus on building relationships, while also removing the need for them to enter handwritten notes into a computer afterwards.

In time, we believe that AI could play a more active role in supporting staff to supervise offenders – for example, drawing on the data we have on an offender to suggest a supervision plan tailored to them.

This new technology will ensure probation officers provide what only they can:

The human factor.

The ability to work with an offender, one-to-one, to understand the risk they pose…

To develop a plan for how to manage it…

Ultimately, to turn them away from a life of crime – and so protect the public.

That is what remains true about the probation officer’s job now, just as it was 150 years ago.

The courts didn’t turn to the temperance movement’s missionaries because they were great at paperwork.

They did so because of how they worked with offenders.

They knew – in the words of the Government Minister who brought in the 1907 Probation Act – how “to guide and admonish” an offender to make the public safer.

But while new staff and better technology are necessary to the future of our probation service…

They are not sufficient.

With a caseload of nearly a quarter of a million offenders…

We must also look at the work that probation officers are doing…

And we must ask:

Where should their time be spent…

And, more specifically, who should their time be spent with to have the greatest impact?

In this, it is clear there are two types of offender.

On the one hand, we have those who pose a higher risk to society.

In this group, we have those who are dangerous – posing a real risk of harm to the public.

We also have those whose offending is prolific – the one in every ten offenders who is guilty of nearly half of all sentenced crime.

On the other hand, we have offenders who pose a lower risk.

They are not serial offenders, with a high risk of reoffending.

Their crimes are instead often fuelled by addiction, homelessness, and joblessness.

These crimes are not excusable.

All crimes must be punished.

But these two groups – the higher and lower risk – are different.

If we want to reduce reoffending, cut crime and have safer streets, we have to treat them differently.

And too often today, we don’t.

We have a one size fits all approach.

That must change.

For higher-risk offenders, a probation officer’s time and focus is essential.

It is no exaggeration to say that effective supervision of this cohort can be the difference between life and death.

We all know the tragedies:

I think of Terri Harris, her children John Paul and Lacey Bennett and Lacey’s friend Connie Gent, savagely murdered by Damien Bendall in 2021, when Bendall was serving a community sentence.

And I think of Zara Aleena, murdered by Jordan McSweeney in 2022, just nine days after he had left prison on licence.

We will never be able to stop every tragedy.

But we have to stop more.

There are improvements that we can and must make to the processes probation officers follow, and the technology they use.

We have introduced new training, to better identify risk…

New digital tools, as I have mentioned already, will draw together the critical pieces of information from partner organisations, like the police.

But the vital ingredient is time:

The time of a professional probation officer…

Devoted to identifying the risk an offender poses…

Creating a plan to manage it…

And supervising, closely, that offender to ensure they do not deviate from it.

That is the human factor that only a probation officer can provide.

If probation officers are to have this valuable time with these offenders, we must be more efficient with the time they devote to lower-risk offenders.

At the very end of their time in office, my predecessor introduced a policy called Probation Reset.

This saw supervision of lower-risk offenders end after two-thirds of their licence period.

This was a step in the right direction.

The interventions that work best with lower risk offenders are not necessarily those provided by probation officers.

So that is where we must now direct the attention of their supervision.

We need to get these offenders off drugs and booze – reoffending rates are 19 points lower when an offender completes a drug treatment programme.

We need to ensure they have a roof over their heads – reoffending rates double for those released homeless.

And finally, we need to get them working – reoffending rates are up to 9 points lower when an offender is employed.

The probation service has a role to play here…

But their unique value is in referring offenders to the intervention that is required to address the cause of their offending.

And so today, I can announce that we will build on the work of Reset.

This Government will focus the probation service on the interventions that have the greater impact.

For lower risk offenders, we will task probation officers with providing a swifter intervention.

They will spend more time with an offender immediately after their release:

First, assessing the root causes of an offender’s crime…

Then referring them to the services that will address that behaviour:

Which could be education, training, drug treatment or accommodation…

Delivered by the probation service, our partners across Government, and through the brilliant work done by the voluntary sector.

Once offenders are following that direction, as long as the offender stays on the straight and narrow, we must then focus probation officer’s time more effectively:

That means more time spent with the offenders who pose the greater risk…

More time with offenders who pose a risk of a serious and violent further offence…

And more time with offenders whose prolific offending causes so much social and economic damage to local communities.

That is how we will reduce reoffending…

That is how we will cut crime…

And that is how we will make our streets safer.

These measures are necessary today, but they will be even more important in the months and years to come.

David Gauke’s independent review of sentencing will report soon.

He has been asked to ensure we never run out of prison places again.

There is no doubt that this will increase pressure on probation.

As I made clear when I announced the review, I have asked David to consider how we make more use of punishment outside of prison.

In my view, technology is likely to play a key role – taking advantage of advances in the tech that is being used here and in other jurisdictions:

Like sobriety tags, which can measure the alcohol levels in offenders’ sweat every 30 minutes, and have a 97 percent compliance rate…

And GPS tags, which can put in place exclusion zones to alert authorities if offenders enter areas we have banned them from.

There are also likely to be more sentences served in the community…

And more drug, alcohol and mental health treatment requirements placed on offenders.

These are the tools that must be at the judiciary’s disposal to deal with criminals…

And judges must have trust and confidence that the probation service can deliver them.

The changes I have announced today are about support for the probation service:

1,300 new trainee probation officers…

New technology to lighten the administrative burden…

And a new focus of their time on where it has the greatest impact.

Today, I have set out what I think the future direction of the probation service must be.

And I think we must, finally, consider the alternative.

What would happen if we allowed probation to carry on as it is?

What would happen if we allowed the service to be stretched so thin, trying to do too much with too many offenders…

Too much time spent doing the wrong things, and not enough time doing what is right and what works.

We know what the consequences would be.

We’ve seen it in the stories of far too many victims…

And the pain their friends and families have experienced – and continue to experience – every single day.

When the probation service isn’t able to properly assess the risk of offenders or supervise them…

Innocent people pay a terrible price.

The first job of the state is to keep its people safe.

We are willing to take the difficult decisions, where they must be taken.

I will support probation officers, both the new recruits we will bring in and the professionals of whom we have asked so much in recent years.

While they are professionals these days, and experts in their field…

They are drawn to the profession by the same desire that called to those missionaries a hundred and fifty years ago:

To encourage offenders to turn their backs on crime…

And to make our streets and the public safer.

To fulfil that purpose now, we must do things differently.

And that begins today.

Thank you.

February 22, 2025
James Timpson – 2024 Speech to the Prison Governors Association

The speech made by James Timpson, the Prisons Minister, on 8 October 2024.

Thank you for that introduction, Graham, and for the invitation to speak – it’s great to be here.

Thanks to everyone involved for putting this event together.

Let me start by saying just how grateful I am for the PGA’s work.

You speak up for change, where change is needed…

You push Government, where it needs to be pushed…

And you do it not just for those you represent, but in the interests of public safety too.

Your voice is valued, and we thank you for it… even when you say things we don’t necessarily want to hear.

I know it’s your first annual conference since becoming PGA President, Tom – congratulations again on your appointment.

Let me also congratulate your new Vice-Chairs, Mark, and Carl, on their appointments too.

I’ve known Tom for a while now – we once even shadowed each other a few years ago, when he was Governor at HMP Wakefield, and I headed up the Timpson Group.

I took Tom to visit some of our shops – one branch was in Uttoxeter Tesco, as I recall – while I found out what it’s like to lead one of our toughest prisons.

I know who has it harder…!

And now I’m wearing a new hat, I did ask Tom if he fancied another job swap – but for some reason he wasn’t up for it.

I can’t think why…

I realise that the CEO of a business and prison governor are very different roles – but there are similarities, too.

Both manage complex organisations. Both need a strategic brain, excellent management skills, the ability to communicate, inspire and motivate.

But the main difference is this: most people know what a CEO does, what their job entails.

You, on the other hand, are largely hidden from view. Even when prisons are plastered all over our TV screens, as they are right now.

The average person would have little idea about your day-to-day – what it really means to lead a prison in 2024, as Tom has set out so starkly just now.

Working every hour, under extraordinary pressure, to run safe and secure regimes.

Dealing with self-harm, deaths and the scourge of drugs on a daily basis.

Supporting your teams and trying to nurture them in an environment more stressful than most could imagine.

Every challenge amplified, because our prisons are full to bursting.

These are the realities you face every day.

Now, prisons have always fascinated me – since I was a young boy, and my Mum, Alex, would take the babies she’d fostered into HMP Styal, so their mothers could see them.

I’d sit outside in the car and wonder what was going on inside…

What had these women done that was so terrible, that they couldn’t be with their babies?

It was the start of a life-long interest.

And as you may know, around 10 percent of people who work for Timpson are ex-offenders.

It all started by chance 22 years ago, when, as a new CEO, I visited a local prison and met Matt – who got into a fight after his A-levels, and instead of going to university, went to jail.

Matt showed me around the wing, and I immediately liked him. He was bright, enthusiastic, and I thought he was just the sort of person we wanted in the business.

So I told him – “when you get out, I’ll give you a job.”

And the rest is history.

Matt went on to be one of our most successful branch managers – in a branch just a stone’s throw from the prison he served time in.

He’s still there today. And while he hasn’t gone far physically, he’s travelled lightyears in terms of what he’s achieved…

Because he had the will to turn his life around, and that extra support to get into work.

I knew there must be more great people like Matt in our prisons, and from then on, we decided to proactively recruit ex-offenders.

Later, working with you, we set up prison training academies…

Then to create Employment Advisory Boards, building those vital links between prisons and local employers.

And, in 2016, I was honoured to become Chair of the Prison Reform Trust.

So I’ve been behind the scenes.

And in that time, one constant has been your outstanding leadership, in the most challenging circumstances.

It has been a privilege to get to know you, and to see the incredible work you do.

Thank you.

You have our deepest respect, and our gratitude.

Over the years there has been much debate about what prison is primarily for – be it punishment, public protection or deterrence.

Of course, it’s all of these things.

It’s right that dangerous people are taken off our streets – and that people who destroy lives and wreck our communities face the consequences.

But if we cut to the core of it, prison should also be about reducing offending. That’s the only way we are genuinely going to protect the public.

I say ‘should’, here, because it’s something we haven’t always been very good at in this country. I know you’d agree.

Serious criminals should see the inside of a jail cell – and the most dangerous should stay there.

But what happens next to the many offenders who will someday be let out really matters.

For the vast majority of offenders, being locked up is a fork in the road.

One way on that road can lead them to turn their lives around…

The other will take them straight back to prison.

Too often, it’s the latter. And I’ve no doubt how deeply frustrating it must be for you to see the same faces at your gates again and again.

The numbers are clear – 80 percent of offending in this country is reoffending. That is too high by any measure.

But I know just how determined you are to turn that around.

We all know what the answers are. I know that you know what needs to be done. My job is to help you realise those ambitions.

Having worked in the family business since I was 14, I hope I’ve learnt a few things about leadership and responsibility along the way. There are plenty of philosophies out there.

I found that a strong culture and high standards – rooted in trust, and kindness – was what worked for us.

And I firmly believe that strong leaders – you – are the single most important element in a good prison.

You set the culture…

You set those high standards for your teams to follow, and for the prisoners you rehabilitate.

And I can’t stress enough how important high standards are in our prisons.

Put it this way – I’ve never known a great organisation to have poor standards.

That starts with the basics – a clean, tidy, environment, where prisoners and staff respect the rules.

When I was a CEO, I’d check the Timpson head office car park for weeds and litter…

Small things, I know. But they really matter…

Those first impressions for people arriving really matter…

And as leaders, it’s our job to lead by example.

And in over 20 years of being involved with prisons, I can’t think of a time when your job has been tougher.

For too long, you’ve been doing your best in very challenging circumstances.

People don’t turn up to work to get beaten up, they turn up to inspire people, and to and turn lives around.

Yet our crammed prisons are breeding violence – which threatens everyone’s safety, staff and prisoners alike…

Staff shortages – and a lack of experienced staff – stretch your ability to run the kind of regimes you want to run.

While so many of your prisons are dilapidated, in desperate need of repair…

I’m grateful to Charlie Taylor – who is up next – for HMIP’s unflinching focus on these issues.

And I know it hasn’t been easy, trying to rehabilitate offenders in a system teetering on the edge of disaster.

A system that, when we came into government, had been run at 99 percent capacity for months.

I should emphasise – none of this is your doing – in fact, the PGA has been sounding the alarm loud and clear.

That’s why we had to take the tough decision to bring in changes to automatic release to ease the pressure on our prisons.

It was, quite literally, a rescue effort.

If we hadn’t acted, the justice system would have ground to a halt:

Courts would have been unable to hold trials and police unable to make arrests.

We would have faced the total breakdown of law and order.

We only have to look at the recent disorder on our streets to see how close to catastrophe we came…

Because we could deliver justice swiftly, we brought the violence to an end.

But, in the process, we came dangerously close to running out of prison space entirely.

We had no choice but to introduce emergency measures in the first few days of this new Government.

It was only thanks to the heroic efforts of prison and probation staff, that we pulled through.

We didn’t want to do this. But we were left with no choice…

To attempt to delay any further, would have allowed our justice system to collapse.

We could never have allowed that:

This Government will always put the safety of the public – first.

Throughout all of this you have been under immense pressure.

Offender management units, in particular, have borne the brunt of several emergency measures…

While more broadly the estate has coped with higher numbers of late arrivals and redirections.

It’s in times like these that strong leadership matters most. We couldn’t have managed this crisis without you.

And while there is still work to be done ahead of the next releases later this month, I want to thank you, again, for everything you’ve done to get us to this point.

So, our changes have bought us some time. Time for the system to catch its breath.

But these challenges haven’t just disappeared, and the crisis isn’t over.

If things don’t change, we’ll end up in the same position all over again… Sooner than we care to mention.

I want us to get a point where you can run your prisons how you want to run them…

That is why the Justice Secretary has been clear that getting prisons built is a priority for her.

That is why we will take control of the planning process, and deem prison development of national importance.

And we also need decent regimes, that help offenders turn their backs on crime for good.

I know there is brilliant, innovative work going on, and I want to encourage more of it.

But innovating is difficult – impossible, even – when you’re so full that you can’t let prisoners out of their cells.

That’s why it is essential we resolve this capacity crisis…

So we can support and empower you to go even further to reduce reoffending.

And, if we create the right conditions for you to do your jobs as you’d want to do them – I hope to see more of you staying in post for longer, too.

Stability at the top is crucial.

Because our prisons are on a journey, and there’s a long road ahead.

Culture change doesn’t happen overnight.

In my experience, it can take anywhere from three to five years to really move an organisation on.

Much of our success will be down to you, our prison leaders.

So I want to see more of you staying on that road for longer – and I want you to tell me how we can support you to do that.

Great prisons need great leaders. But second, they need hardworking dedicated staff, like the officers in your teams.

Fundamentally, prisons are a people business – like any company.

As a CEO, I found that the happier people are in their jobs, the better they work. If they feel valued, trusted and cared for, they are going to perform well for you.

And in your teams, people are working under such intense pressure day in, day out.

The relationships – between you, and your staff… and your staff and your prisoners – go right to the core of safe, decent prisons.

If we invest in officer training – in their well-being, and development – we empower them to do much more than simply maintain order.

We empower them to become agents of change – to help people turn their lives around.

I’ve met plenty of men and women who say that a prison officer transformed their life.

Officers who took the time to mentor them – who really got to know the people on their wing.

Who knew if their mum wasn’t well, or when their kids were starting school.

But to be a prison officer requires a unique set of skills – quite unlike any other job.

That ‘jailcraft’ equips officers for the challenges they will face every day. It takes time, and continual learning.

Before joining the Government, I had the privilege of leading a review of prison officer training – speaking to hundreds of officers across the estate.

It’s clear we have some decent foundations – but we can do so much more.

I want to see more in-depth training that fully prepares officers for the realities of the role, right from the start.

Greater consistency – with a strong curriculum and clear standards…

More local ownership of training…

Clear channels of accountability…

And a culture of ongoing learning throughout an officer’s career…

One that rightly builds pride in this absolutely critical role.

I want to push forward with these changes, and I’ll say more about this as soon as I can.

The third element of a good prison is, of course, purposeful activity.

Prison education and training has a huge influence on the path offenders choose to take.

It’s crucial that we get this right if we are to release better citizens, not better criminals.

Yet I’ve seen people leave prison not even knowing how to use a computer.

When we spend so much of our lives – and jobs – online, how are they supposed to get on in the modern world?

That’s just one example. There are many others.

But the point is clear: when you don’t have the right skills to get a job, slipping back into old habits is all too easy.

And the lure of easy cash might feel like the only way to put money in your pocket.

So, it might not come as a surprise that I’m passionate about prison education and training.

Training that opens doors – that gives prisoners pride – and real skills that today’s employers want.

I’m clear that prison is a punishment. But that’s no reason to stop the one in four working-age people in the UK who have criminal records from getting jobs.

We know that prison leavers are less likely to reoffend if they have a job within a year of release.

So, getting them into work doesn’t just cut crime, it boosts our economy too.

That’s a win-win we can’t ignore.

But for many, the process of applying for jobs can be daunting.

That’s why I’m pleased to see a new partnership – between the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Trust and the New Futures Network.

It will embed HR professionals in EABs…

Ensure that prison leavers can access HR advice to support them into work…

Provide mentoring for Prison Employment Leads…

And help us to create even closer links between prisons and local employers.

And, I can testify, former prisoners make great colleagues.

In my experience, they work hard, they turn up on time, and they are trustworthy – because they are so hungry to prove themselves.

The amount they can achieve – starting from rock bottom – is nothing short of extraordinary.

It’s no exaggeration to say that some of the most accomplished people I know were once in prison.

They want to grasp that second chance with both hands.

Together – let’s make sure they get it.

Our fourth route to reducing reoffending is by tackling the scourge of drugs in our prisons.

As you know so well, drugs undermine rehabilitation, fuel violence, debt, and are a sure path back into crime.

Nearly half of prisoners have a history of drug misuse.

Many will have addictions when they turn up at your gates, but too many who were clean on the outside are drawn into drugs on the inside.

That flies in the face of what we want our prisons to achieve.

The answer is clear.

First, we need to stop drugs getting into prison. We can hardly expect prisoners to kick the habit if our jails are a sweetshop for drugs.

We know what you are up against. Not least the growing use of drones to smuggle drugs – and the phones that power the illicit market – over your walls…

And the increasing threat of synthetic opioids…

We have to adapt rapidly if we are to protect our staff and prisoners.

Second, we need prisons to drive demand for drugs down, not up.

Purposeful activity is so important here. If prisoners have meaningful ways to spend their time, they’re less likely to turn to drugs through boredom, or distress.

Staff training is crucial too. Your teams have to understand drugs, and addiction, so they can make sure prisoners get the right support, and are helped to recover.

Third, prisoners with an addiction need treatment.

There is good evidence to show this reduces reoffending – but we also need to make sure they stay in treatment after release. That groundwork starts in prison.

And fourth – where it’s safe and appropriate – we should be driving more people with a drug problem away from prison and into treatment.

That could include greater use of drug and alcohol treatment requirements attached to community sentences, for example.

There are no easy solutions, but I want to work with you to create a system where people leave custody prepared to lead productive, drug-free lives.

I know there is innovative work going on out there – and I want to explore how we can replicate that work elsewhere.

As I come to a close, let me say again – this is the beginning of a new journey for our prisons.

This Government will rebuild and reform the system.

We’ll accelerate the prison building programme, to make sure we have the cells we need.

We’ll soon publish our ten-year capacity strategy, setting out how we will acquire new land for prisons, and reform the planning process.

And, as you’re aware, we will carry out a review of sentencing – with a focus on how it both protects the public and reduces reoffending.

We’ll soon be in a position to share the terms of reference of that independent review and announce its chair – and I know the PGA will play its full part once it is underway.

As I’ve said, change takes time. It also takes stamina. The last Government hardly led by example – 14 Prison Ministers in as many years isn’t a record to be proud of.

So I can assure you – it’s very much my intention to stay the course.

I want you to judge me on my actions. When I’m back here next year, and the year after that, let’s see where we’ve got to.

I’m fortunate to have started this job with a good working knowledge of prisons, but it’s been humbling to visit some of you recently, and be reminded of the complex and challenging work you do every day.

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to talk to me so far –

Aled at Holme House…

Pete at Five Wells…

Amy at Downview…

Andy at Wandsworth…

Emily at High Down…

Dan at Preston…

And many, many more…

I should say that getting out into the estate is another of my top priorities…

So you can tell me straight – what’s really going on in the system, what you’re up against, and how, together, we can make it better.

I hear the last Minister to go to Isle of Wight prison was Ann Widdecombe. So, Dougie, you’ve been forewarned. I’ll be coming down!

Let me finish by saying thank you, again…

To you, to your teams, and every single person who keeps the system running – the teachers, nurses, psychologists, and non-operational staff.

As leaders, your role goes far beyond managing institutions.

You are protecting communities…

You are shaping lives…

And ultimately, you are strengthening our society.

Thank you.

November 2, 2024
Yvette Cooper – 2024 Speech at Labour Party Conference

The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, on 24 September 2024.

Pooja, thank you. Thank you for your words. Thank you for your courage.

It is just two years since Ronan was killed, but Pooja has not stopped fighting for him since.

Fighting for Ronan. Fighting for other children, for other mums and dads.

Because no parent should have to go through this unimaginable pain.

So Pooja, we salute you, we support you, and now we are in government we will back you in your fight to save young lives.

Ronan’s teenage killers ordered the ninja sword online.

No checks. No questions asked.

Lethal weapons put straight in the hands of children.

So this Labour Government will bring in new laws to crackdown on dangerous online sales and the gangs who draw children in, alongside new youth hubs to steer young people away from violence – a teenage Sure Start to build hope in the future.

And we will make it a mission for our whole country to halve knife crime in a decade.

And yes, this Labour Government will pass Ronan’s law – a ban on ninja swords.

This Labour Government will.

It’s fifteen years since I’ve been able to say those words at a Labour Party conference.

All those years we said things but couldn’t do them.

So don’t let anyone tell you politics doesn’t matter.

Because six months ago, our party tried to ban ninja swords, but we didn’t have enough MPs to win that vote.

Because of the election – because of the change you campaigned for – now we do.

Ten years ago, I called for buffer zones around abortion clinics, but we weren’t in government. We couldn’t make it happen. Now we can and yes we have.

Because no woman should be harassed on the way to a healthcare appointment that is her legal right.

It can be hard to trust in change when things have felt so tough for so long.

And a year ago at this conference, I warned about the depth of the damage the Tories had done in 14 years.

How they’d taken a wrecking ball to the criminal justice system so criminals laugh at the law.

How they left communities to fracture so criminals and extremists step in.

Conference, eight weeks ago, when the unbearable news broke about a horrendous attack in Southport on little children at a summer dance club, from all across the country our hearts went out to the loved ones of little Alice, Bebe and Elsie. And that’s where all of our thoughts should have stayed.

The following day I met the police officers, paramedics and firefighters who were first on the scene that day, and whose bravery in the face of such trauma saved many young lives.

But within hours the same Southport police were under attack, facing missiles, bottles, and bricks.

The most shocking, violent insult to a grieving community and the police officers protecting them.

A total, total disgrace.

In copycat violence over the following days, stirred up from a safe distance by the grifters and the agitators online, we saw looting of shops, attacks on mosques, a Citizens Advice bureau torched, an asylum hotel set alight, and people targeted on the streets of Britain because of the colour of their skin.

And here in Liverpool, on County Road, the burning of Spellow Library.

A place where children go to read left in ashes.

And I spoke to some of those children who live around the library in Walton.

One told me how scared she was that night, how her mum switched off all the lights in the house, and told her to stay quiet and sit on the stairs as bins were set alight along her street.

Don’t anyone tell me that was protest.

Don’t tell me that was about immigration, or policing, or poverty.

Plenty of people have strong views on immigration, on crime, on the NHS and more, but they don’t pick up bricks and throw them at the police.

They don’t set light to buildings with people inside.

It was arson.

It was racism.

It was thuggery.

It was crime.

And, you know, it happened because criminals thought they would get away with it.

They saw the cracks in the system, the impunity that built up through the Tory years.

And when they decided to run riot those early August days, they thought no one would stop them.

They were wrong.

With Keir Starmer’s leadership, this Labour Government made clear that we would back our police, not blame them.

We would stand up for our courts, not undermine them.

We would pull our communities together, not divide them.

We stood up for the rule of law, decent people stood up for their communities, and, together, we put the disorder down.

But I’ll be honest I’ve been shocked by the response from some of those in political parties on the right who once claimed to care about law and order.

After rioters attacked the police, they should have given full-throated backing to our brave officers.

Instead, too often we’ve seen them undermine the integrity and authority of the police, even making excuses for the mob.

If you remember, back in the run up to Armistice Day last year, disgraceful slurs made against the police which made it harder for them to do their job were treated as a sacking offence for a Tory Home Secretary.

A year on, those same slurs have become an article of faith for every Tory leadership contender.

It is shameful what that party has become.

The Tories, with their mates in Reform, are just becoming right wing wreckers.

Undermining respect for the law, trying to fracture the very bonds that keep communities safe.

They have nothing to offer but fear, division and anger.

But that’s not who we are.

That’s not what Britain is about.

Our country has always championed respect and the rule of law.

That’s what this Labour Party will always stand up for – the party of law and order, now a Government of law and order once more.

And nor will we let disorder and violence silence a serious debate on immigration.

Something that has been missing for too long amidst the chaos, the gimmicks and the damaging, ramped up rhetoric.

A serious government sees that net migration has trebled because overseas recruitment has soared while training has been cut right back, and says net migration must come down as we properly train young people here in the UK.

A serious government sees an asylum system in chaos and say we have to clear the backlog and end asylum hotels.

And a serious government looks at the criminal gangs who are profitting from undermining our border security while women and children are crushed to death in crowded, flimsy small boats and says they’ve got away with it for too long – we will not stand for this vile trade in human lives.

A serious government knows that immigration is important, and that is why it needs to be properly managed and controlled so the system is fair – so rules are properly respected and enforced but we never again see a shameful repeat of the Windrush scandal that let British citizens down.

So in three months, we’ve set up the Border Security Command, launched new investment in covert operations, high tech investigations to go after the gangs, with proper enforcement and returns.

And instead of spending £700 million and employing 1000 people to send four volunteers to Rwanda, we are boosting our border security instead.

Because the best way to do that is to work with countries on the other side of our borders, not to just stand on the shoreline shouting at the sea.

So from our border security to our national security – combatting changing terror, state and cyber threats – to the security and safety of our local streets, we know that security is the bedrock on which communities can come together, and on which all the opportunities Labour has always fought for are built.

You don’t get social justice if you don’t have justice.

And respect is the very foundation of our democracy.

And those Labour values are at the heart of all we do.

And they are at the heart of our mission for safer streets.

Where across the country where for too long rising town centre and street crime have been driving people away from our high streets, corroding the fabric of our communities.

So this Labour Government will bring in new powers on antisocial behaviour, shoplifting and off-road bikes and we will put neighbourhood police back in our communities and back on the beat.

And yes, after years of Co-op and USDAW campaigning, this Labour Government will introduce a new law on assaults on shopworkers, because everyone has the right to work in freedom from fear.

And you know Conference, it is long overdue.

At long last this government will treat violence against women and girls as the national emergency it really is.

When Raneem Oudeh called the police four times the night she was killed, no one came.

So in Raneem’s name, this Labour Government will put domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms.

Overhaul protection orders and go after dangerous perpetrators who put lives at risk.

New laws on spiking and online image abuse.

A radical, ambitious Labour mission – for the whole of Government, for the whole country – to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

Because we cannot, and we will not, let the next generation of women and girls face the same violence as the last. Our daughters deserve better than this.

And why do we do all this?

For the same reason that communities came together here in Liverpool and across the country to clear up the damage that rioters had done.

To rebuild the broken mosque wall in Southport.

To find a new Citizens Advice centre in Sunderland.

To clean up the streets.

Because the simple belief that we all share is this: our streets do not belong to the gangs, yobs, and thieves. Our streets do not belong to the racists, extremists and thugs. And our streets will never belong to the stalkers, abusers or rapists.

These streets belong to us all. And it is time to take them back.

So Conference, of course the work is hard.

As a poet once said, ‘our sleeves will grow ragged from rolling them up’.

But if you need hope that together we can deliver, just look down the road again at Spellow Library.

After the fire, a young Mum from Netherton, here with us this morning, Alex McCormick, started a fundraiser.

Donations have poured in from all over the world, thousands of books, hundreds of thousands of pounds.

And already the Labour Council, Mayor and community are restoring and rebuilding Spellow Library, better than ever before.

So when Alex said: “Let’s show the world what community in Liverpool really means”.

She did her city proud, and she did our country proud.

Up from the ashes, a symbol of hope.

A model of what our country can do.

So leave the politics of fear, division and decline to others.

The politics of hope is ours.

The future belongs to us all.

Let change begin.

Thank you Conference.

September 26, 2024
Diana Johnson – 2024 Speech at the Police Superintendents’ Conference

The speech made by Diana Johnson, the Crime and Policing Minister, in Kenilworth on 10 September 2024.

Hello everyone and thank you for having me.

Given this is my first time addressing your conference, I’m tempted to ask you to take that into account, particularly in the Q+A.

But having spent much of my time before the election asking uncomfortable questions as chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, including to ministers and policing leaders, I guess I need to get used to the roles being reversed.

But – seriously speaking – my time in that role gave me a window into your world. The engagement we had with police bodies, including the PSA, helped to strengthen my understanding of the realities and challenges of policing today.

And one thing I also just wanted to let you know was that I’ve been an MP for 19 years, and one of the very best things I have ever done as a member of parliament was the Police Parliamentary scheme, where I got the opportunity to spend 24 days with my local police force, Humberside, and it gave me a real opportunity to see what was happening on a kind of day-to-day basis for police officers. And I remember doing the kind of early morning shift, and I did nights, and I went out on public order, and I went out with the dogs, and it was just fascinating. So, I’m really pleased I did that, and I have that experience now I’m a Police Minister. So I want to say as well, as the Home Secretary just did, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to all of you.

From the most routine acts of policing to national-scale operations and painstaking investigations, you make an immeasurable contribution to our society.

And I do also want to say a few words about the summer disorder. And as you know, it has been an incredibly busy few weeks for this government, since the general election, and the events of the summer have left us all, I think, with much to reflect upon.

The attack in Southport rocked that community to its core and the impact was felt around the country.

For three little girls to lose their lives is just unspeakably horrific, and my thoughts are of course with their loved ones. I cannot begin to imagine the anguish they are going through.

I want to take the opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to every officer involved in responding to that terrible incident. They showed tremendous courage in the most difficult of circumstances, and their actions saved lives.

We all know what came next; at a time when we should have been focused only on supporting those affected by the attack in Southport, and allowing the urgent police investigation to get under way, we instead found ourselves responding to an outbreak of widespread violent disorder.

The various incidents around the country have been catalogued in extensive detail so I will not get into a new blow-by-blow account.

I will simply say that the hijacking of those poor families’ grief at that time was utterly shameful…

…as was the violence directed towards police officers working to maintain order and protect the community.

The immediate priority was to get back control of the streets and restore order.

That’s why the Prime Minister and Home Secretary made clear from the beginning that you had our unqualified support in taking all necessary action to quell the disorder.

And we sent the message loud and clear that anyone involved in criminality should expect to be caught and face the consequences of their actions.

The swiftness of the response by policing and the wider criminal justice system was fundamental to getting the situation under control and restoring order.

As part of the national mobilisation plan coordinated by NPoCC, more than 40,000 officer shifts were worked by public order officers over that 10-day period, with over 6,600 public order officers deployed on one day alone. Rest days, as you know, were cancelled and additional hours were worked.

The fact that arrests were being made within hours and convicted offenders behind bars facing prison time within days not only showed we were serious when we said there would be a price to pay for criminality on our streets, but it also demonstrated to the law-abiding public that this behaviour will not be tolerated.

So, I want to echo the Home Secretary’s words of enormous thanks to everyone across policing for your tireless efforts during what was an exceptionally difficult period.

But I also want to say this: I’m appalled that new figures revealed today show that assaults on our women and men in uniform are still far too high.

Even preceding the violent disorder of this summer – assaults on police officers are up, with a quarter of those incidents resulting in injury.

The Home Secretary was right to call this a ‘stain on our society’ and to say that it will not be tolerated.

So, we recognise your service and your sacrifice.

Whether it’s responding to violent disorder, running towards danger, attending emergencies or investigating serious crimes, we know that the heroic daily work of the police exerts a huge strain on officers and their families.

That’s why we will always support you, as you support your teams to serve our communities.

It’s why we support the Police Covenant and why we are determined to work with you to ensure it delivers for all officers, staff and volunteers, recognising that wellbeing and mental health support is vital in maintaining a healthy and engaged police workforce who can effectively serve and protect the public.

Turning now to the safer streets mission, which the Home Secretary referred to, I think it’s clear that those unacceptable attacks on the police speak directly to this Government’s wider Safer Streets mission.

And that is to restore respect for the rule of law on British streets, including restoring respect for the police, which has sadly been eroded over many years.

To do that, we will ensure that you have everything you need to get back to tackling the issues that matter most to the public.

Too many town centres and high streets across the country have been gripped by an epidemic of anti-social behaviour, theft and shoplifting, which is corroding our communities and cannot be allowed to continue.

There are thousands of incredible police officers and support staff doing an admirable job. But we do have to face the reality that there are still too many victims of anti-social behaviour who feel that when they call the police, no one listens, no one comes and nothing is done.

Our neighbourhoods and police forces have suffered enough after a decade of decline, and this government will help restore neighbourhood policing, with skilled, resilient and dedicated local cops.

We must rebuild these bonds of trust and respect between the police and local communities that have always been so central to our proud British tradition of policing by consent.

That’s why we will implement a new Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, restoring patrols to town centres, recruiting thousands of additional police personnel, and ensuring every community has a named local police officer to turn to.

And as part of that plan, I can announce today that the government has agreed initial funding to support the College of Policing in rolling out a specialist new training programme for neighbourhood officers.

The Neighbourhood Policing Programme Career Pathway will focus on anti-social behaviour, community engagement and problem solving and equip neighbourhood officers with the skills, knowledge and confidence they need to build local relationships and to tackle the issues that damage communities the most.

Every community deserves local officers who understand what is needed to keep them safe, and with this new training and our Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, we will deliver the change our towns and villages are desperate for.

Supers are the operational leaders, you know what is going on in forces day to day, and we want to tap into your insight and expertise as we restore neighbourhood policing and crack down on corrosive crimes like anti-social behaviour and shoplifting, which will help to restore public confidence that there will be consequences for criminality in their communities.

But to deliver on the promise of change we have made to the British people, we also need to crack down on the serious crimes that devastate lives and communities across the country.

That is why we are acting to address the deadly cycle of knife crime by getting more dangerous weapons off our streets and preventing young people from being drawn into violent crime in the first place, with a radical new Young Futures prevention programme and early intervention for those at-risk.

And it is why we have set out an unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, working right across government, as well as with the police and the criminal justice system, on everything from prevention work in schools, to pursuing dangerous perpetrators and to getting survivors the support and the justice they need.

Underpinning all of this is an unwavering commitment to protecting our national security, and those working to counter threats from terrorism, hostile states or any other source, and they have our full and enduring support.

Law enforcement has an instrumental role in delivering this ambitious mission. So as with neighbourhood policing, we will be looking to you and your teams to work with us so we can deliver real and lasting improvements for the public.

As the Home Secretary has said to many policing colleagues since the election – we will not be politicians who just shout from the sidelines. We will work in lockstep with you to deliver change – championing your successes, recognising your sacrifices and, yes, of course, holding you to account and asking difficult questions along the way to ensure that progress is being made in every corner of the country.

Because for this mission to be successful, it will be critical to secure and maintain the confidence of the people you serve.

The vast, vast majority of officers I know are decent, hardworking and professional. When standards are not met or powers are abused, I know that you all feel it deeply and it undermines your excellent work.

That is why, together, we have to ensure behaviour and cultures are beyond reproach, right across the system.

In charting a new path, I know that none of this is easy. There are deep-rooted issues that need to be reckoned with.

One thing we know for sure is that none of our goals will be achieved unless there is close alignment between government and policing.

But with the Home Secretary’s knowledge and leadership, I wholeheartedly believe we can chart a new, successful way forward.

And I know this because I have seen first-hand how dedicated the Home Secretary is to supporting each and every member of the policing family.

I know how keenly she feels her responsibility to ensure you have the powers and tools to fulfil your critical functions.

And I can assure you that when she says she wants to work with you to get British policing performance at its very best, she means it.

As superintendents and chief superintendents, but also as police leaders, you have an important and rightful role to play in helping us deliver safer communities.

You have a wealth of knowledge, insight and expertise that we absolutely want to tap into to help us deliver on our mission.

Whether that’s about the threats you and your teams are tackling day in and day out, or about more strategic policing issues, we want to and we need to hear from you in shaping our approach.

In conclusion, again I want to offer my thanks again to the PSA for all the work they do and for giving me the opportunity to address you today.

As Policing Minister, I intend to be your voice within government.

And I do want to champion your successes, understand your needs and support your teams.

As the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have made clear, we are serious. We are very serious about tackling crime, rebuilding confidence and putting neighbourhood policing back at the heart of our communities.

You and your colleagues will all have an integral part and role to play in that mission.

And I know it’s not going to be delivered overnight.

I’m conscious – I think I’ve been post about 11 weeks, so I know that you know this is going to take some time,

But what I have seen in my short time in my role has given me a renewed confidence that we will succeed.

The dedication, the skill, the bravery, the willingness to make sacrifices…these are the core elements of British policing at its best and they have been on display in abundance over recent weeks.

I will finish by saying how grateful I am to everyone across the service, and I very much look forward to working with you all as we strive to protect the public and make our country safer.

Thank you very much for your time.

September 13, 2024
James Cleverly – 2024 Speech on Border Security and Asylum

The speech made by James Cleverley, the Shadow Home Security, in the House of Commons on 22 July 2024.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I welcome you back to your place, on my first opportunity to do so. In my time as Home Secretary and, before that, Foreign Secretary, you were very kind about my minor indiscretions at the Dispatch Box, my late deployment of statements and my slight overruns. You have always been very kind to my family in sometimes quite trying circumstances, which I very much appreciate.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) on her appointment as Home Secretary. It is a challenging but incredibly rewarding job and, because the nation’s security is now very much in her and her Ministers’ hands, I genuinely wish her all success in everything she is looking to do.

The right hon. Lady inherits a dedicated team of Home Office civil servants who will help her to keep the country safe and secure. They helped me when I was in her position and, although it is disorderly to recognise their presence, if I were to wave my hand vaguely in their direction, I might take the opportunity to thank my previous private office civil servants.

My notes say that I want to thank the Home Secretary and her team for advance sight of her statement, but I will put a line through that.

The Labour party, and indeed the Home Secretary, likes to talk tough on border security, but today’s statement, despite all the hyperbole and the made-up numbers, is basically an admission of what we knew all along, which is that the Labour party has scrapped the Rwanda partnership on ideological grounds, removing a deterrent that the National Crime Agency said we needed.

The level of discourtesy directed towards the people and Government of Rwanda is quite breathtaking. To have them read about this decision in the papers before anyone from the UK Government had the good grace to formally notify them is an error, and no one in this House believes for a moment that this level of discourtesy would have happened had the partnership been with a European country.

Labour has given an effective amnesty to thousands of asylum seekers who were banned under Conservative plans. Labour’s plans amount to doing less than the Conservatives were doing when we were in government, merely changing the signs above a few desks in the Home Office with its so-called border security command and returns unit. Before the election, the right hon. Lady said that she would create a returns unit, and now the narrative is that she will redeploy some staff—not increase the number of staff, but redeploy some staff—which shows that the returns function already exists.

There is no safe third country to which to return people who cannot be returned home, so where will the right hon. Lady send people who come here from countries like Afghanistan, Iran and Syria? Has she started negotiating returns agreements with the Taliban, the ayatollahs of Iran or Assad in Syria? If she is not going to send to Rwanda anyone who arrives here on a small boat, to which local authorities will she send them? We were closing hotels when I was in government, so I wonder which local authorities will receive those asylum seekers. If not Rwanda, will it be Rochdale, Romford or Richmond? Most importantly, can the right hon. Lady now confirm that people who arrive here illegally in a small boat will be able to claim asylum? Finally, how long after the right hon. Lady briefed the media that she is scrapping the Rwanda partnership did she have the courtesy to speak directly with the Rwandan Government?

It is because we now have no deterrent that nobody wants to head her new so-called border security command. Neil Basu, a former senior police officer for whom I have huge respect, was Labour’s No. 1 choice, and he has ruled himself out. We now learn that General Stuart Skeates, a highly respected former general in the British Army, who was, in large part, responsible for delivering the Albania deal, which cut small boat arrivals from that country by 90%, has resigned from his position as director general for strategic operations. To misquote Oscar Wilde, “to lose one border commander could be seen as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness”—perhaps even incompetence. I notice that the new job advert—it is available online for those who are thinking of applying—for Labour’s border security command says that the role is not located in Kent, where the channel is, but is flexible from Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Durham, Glasgow, Liverpool or Manchester, none of which, the last time I checked, are anywhere near the English channel.

The reality is that everybody knows, including the people smugglers, that the small boat problem is going to get worse—indeed, has already got worse under Labour—because there is no deterrent. People are being sold a lie when they are being smuggled into this country, across one of the busiest shipping lanes. We need to stop them. Too many lives have already been lost. Sadly, six more have been lost in the channel in the last few weeks, and our hearts go out to them and their loved ones. We disagree on many things, but we can agree that we need to put an end to this evil trade. Sadly, the initial decisions made by her Government have made the problem worse, not better.

Yvette Cooper

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s words about the dedication of Home Office officials and about the importance of work on national security. As he knows, when I was shadow Secretary of State, I always worked with him and supported him around national security issues. I know he will do the same and I welcome him to his shadow post. I presume what we heard was the first of the Conservative leadership contest speeches.

I will respond to some of the things the shadow Home Secretary said. We need to be clear about what we have inherited from him and his party. Under his party, we have had the highest level of spring crossings ever. Gangs have been left to wreak havoc, not just along the French coast but across our border, through our country and back through Europe. Asylum support costs are set to rise to £30 billion to £40 billion over the next four years as a result of his and his party’s decisions.

As for the idea of deterrence, I am sorry but four volunteers being sent to Rwanda is not a deterrent to anyone for anything at all. The idea that he would spend £10 billion on this fantasy, this fiction, this gimmick rather than ever do the hard graft—£700 million has already been spent on sending just four volunteers in two and a half years. We have often warned that, frankly, it would be cheaper to put them up in the Paris Ritz. As it turns out, it would have been cheaper to buy the Paris Ritz.

As for the amnesty, I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has ever understood the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which he voted for and he inherited from his predecessors. He asks if people who arrive illegally can claim asylum—that is exactly what happens under section 9 of that Act. They can all claim asylum, enter the asylum system and be entitled to asylum support. That is what happens in the system, which we have inherited, that he has presided over and run since he became Home Secretary. The problem is that people enter the asylum system but never leave. He did not bring in operational arrangements to try to take decisions properly. His Home Office effectively stopped taking the majority of asylum decisions in May. Perhaps he did not know that, but that is what happened in his Home Office. This party and this Government do not believe in amnesties. We think that the rules need to be respected and enforced. His party is the one that has given an effective amnesty to people who can end up staying in the asylum system forever. We believe that the rules should be enforced. The problem is that that is what the shadow Home Secretary believes too. He does not believe any of the stuff that he has just said. He is only saying it for his Tory leadership contest; he is just too weak to tell his party the truth. He thought that the whole policy on Rwanda was “batshit” and then he went out to bat for it. It is just not serious.

August 9, 2024