UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Criminal Justice

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Speech on Reducing Unnecessary Red Tape

    Chris Philp – 2023 Speech on Reducing Unnecessary Red Tape

    The speech made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime and Policing, on 13 April 2023.

    Good morning everyone.

    Thank you for attending today. It’s a great pleasure to see everyone here. Let me start by saying a huge thank you to everyone in policing, those here with us today and frontline officers up and down the country for the work they do on the daily basis to keep us and our families safe.

    We rely on the police to protect us, support us, to enforce our laws and help secure justice when those laws are broken.

    Officers place themselves in the way of danger to discharge their duties. The work they do is extremely important. Without it the foundation of our society would crumble. We owe thanks to the men and women up and down the country devoted to their mission of fighting crime and keeping their communities safe.

    And speaking of numbers, we’re going to have an announcement I think in a couple of weeks on the 26th of April, getting the results of the Police Uplift Programme – the plan to hire an extra 20,000 officers. While we don’t have the final figures yet, I am fairly confident when those figures are announced, we’ll have more police officers in England and Wales than we have at any time in our country’s history.

    And that is something only we can be enormously proud of. All of us that have worked on that mission together, I think can be enormously proud of as well, so keep 26th April marked in your diaries. That will be a huge announcement for policing and the law enforcement community. I know the Prime Minister and Home Secretary will be doing lots of work around the announcement but keep an eye out because it’ll be fantastic culmination of what’s been an incredible programme between the Home Office and policing.

    Now policing in a job like no other. Difficult, often dangerous, always pressurised. The work matters.

    One minute officers could be racing to the scene of an emergency, the next visiting a victim of burglary. One of the great privileges of my role as policing minister is seeing first-hand the incredible work they do. As Gavin [Chief Constable Gavin Stephens] said in his opening comments, fantastic officers across the country go above and beyond the call of duty. Who run towards danger when others run away, who give everything to help others.

    My respect and admiration for these officers is unlimited.

    I also want to see those same officers use their time on the things they are good at and trained for, and indeed the things they want to do. Protecting the public, supporting victims and preventing crime.

    First of all, as Policing Minister I want to make sure we clear away any obstacles that get in the way of police officers focusing on the things that matter to them and to our communities, which means cutting down on red tape which so often gets in the way of real police work.

    Whatever their values, police officers are driven by a desire to protect the public and catch criminals. But they can’t do that if they are spending hours putting excessive information into computers. We have processes to ensure proper records are kept. But those can’t go too far, and I’ll say a little more about our plans in a moment.

    Secondly, I’m also clear the police should not be a stopgap for other agencies. Police officers are of course often first responders, problem solvers and investigators, but they are not for example, mental health specialists. In my view the police should not be expected to fill in for other emergency services where there is no risk to life or safety and where no criminal offence has been committed.

    I want to talk about the plans we have to reform the way mental health cases are handled to ensure policing spend time protecting the public, not on work better done by other agencies.

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank Alan Pughsley, former Chief Constable of Kent, who is leading piece of work on police productivity. The counting rules I will talk about, the mental health work is part of this, but there is more to come.

    I’d like to thank Alan for this work to ensure the police will spend as much of their time as possible fighting crime and catching criminals affecting the public, not on other activity that is bureaucratic or a distraction. So, Alan thank you for your work leading on that area.

    Now let me start substantively talking about the Home Office counting rules. This is an area of the criminal justice system, outside policing, not many people are familiar with, but they are rules which specify what the police have to record in detail as criminal offences.

    Now clearly, it’s vital that accurate records are kept, but concerns have been brought to me as policing minister over the last few months that the rules developed over time have become excessively bureaucratic and compel the police to record the same reports of crime under multiple records, creating huge amounts of data entry duplication, which is preventing them being on the streets looking after the public where they belong.

    Chris Rowley, the Chief Constable of Lancashire very kindly agreed, well I assume he agreed rather than being compelled, to look into this and provide a series of recommendations. Chris came up with these recommendations a few weeks ago and we have accepted in full and this morning we are formally announcing that.

    One of his recommendations is that we cease the requirement for police to create separate crime records when there is more than one crime in a particular report or account that a victim has passed to the police.

    All of those other crimes will still get recorded on the incident record so we can prosecute and investigate them. We don’t really need to create multiple criminal records when there is only one report or incident. So, we’re going to revert the principal crime rule for all crime which was the case until relatively recently in 2017. We are also removing the requirement to record minor public order offences where no victim has been identified or when the police turn up, there is nothing to see.

    Of course, that will still be recorded as an incident, and used for intelligence purposes, but creating a whole new crime record where this is no victim and nothing when the police turn up is taking up a lot of time which could be better spent catching criminals.

    We are also making clear frivolous allegations of criminal offences should not be recorded as a criminal offence unless a criminal threshold has clearly been met. We don’t think being rude or insulting is a police matter. Officers are not the thought police. And where something is reported and it doesn’t meet that clear criminal threshold, we don’t want that being investigated or to be recorded as a crime, we don’t want to waste police time on that kind of thing. We will very shortly be publishing guidance clarifying where that threshold should sit.

    So, what’s the impact of the changes I have described? What is the impact on policing? Well, the NPCC, the National Police Chiefs Council, have done some sums on this, and they have calculated that making the changes I have described will save 443,000 hours of police time each year. Almost half a million hours of police time. Instead of being spent filling in forms and bureaucracy, they will be spent catching criminals and supporting victims.

    This is an enormous impact the public and policing will welcome. I want to see these changes implemented as soon as possible. Nothing annoys me more than government processes taking months and months or years and years. So, I have pressed colleagues to get this done fast. We should actually be able to get these changes rolled out next month. The changes I have described will take practical effect just a few weeks from today.

    We’re not going to stop there. I would like to go further and there will be a second phase to the work on counting rules which I hope Chris is willing to continue working on. We will look at various other things like the National Standards for Incident Recording for example and the way that the outcomes of investigations are recorded. I think currently there is 20 or 30 ways the outcomes of investigations are recorded. So, we are going to see if we can go further and lift the burden off the shoulders of policing, because we want to see police chasing criminals, not paperwork.

    So, Chris, Alan, thank you again for the work you’re doing on this over the last few months. As a return on a few months’ work, saving half a million hours of police time, every year, forever, is a pretty good return on investment.

    So, Chris I want to say thank you very much for everything you have done.

    Now secondly one of the other areas brought to my attention shortly after being appointed Policing Minister a few months ago was the demand mental health places on police time. This was raised by people from Mark Rowley of the Met to frontline emergency response officers in Croydon, which is the borough I represent in Parliament.

    Everyone was raising this as a concern. The concern was cases that were basically medical, a mental health crisis, where there was no threat to life or safety, either to the individual themselves or the public more widely, were getting passed to policing, rather than being dealt with as a medical or social services incident and taking up a huge amount of police time.

    Turns out there has been some fantastic work done on this in Humberside to define more appropriately who deals with what incident, which also benefits the individual. If someone is having a mental health crisis, it’s not really that helpful to have a police officer turn up without medical support.

    In Humberside, led by Chief Constable Lee Freeman – who I initially just discovered was initiated by Chris when he was Chief Constable beforehand. It’s called “Right Care Right Person”.

    Humberside Police estimated that just in their force area alone, it’s saving something like 15,000 hours a year, just in Humberside, which is actually a small police force.

    They have done this in partnership with the local NHS, the local ambulance trust and local authorities.

    The concept here is we will apply nationally across the whole country via a National Partnership Agreement.

    My colleagues at DHSC, the ministers over there, have embraced this concept enthusiastically which is good news and we are hoping the National Partnership Agreement between policing, the Home Office, the NHS, the Ambulance Trust and the Department of Health and Social Care will be in place and ready to be rolled out in the coming months.

    Well, it says here in the coming months, but I’m hoping by the summer we’ll be in a position to get this done. Let’s show a sense of urgency. Because again, that’s going to really help the individuals suffering from mental health crises, as well as save enormous amounts of police time that could be better spent protecting the public.

    So once again, thanks to Alan, to the NPCC, the APCC as well, for the work they’ve been doing in developing that model. I think it can make a real difference.

    And that is a good moment, I think, to also thank police and crime commissioners, who I know have been working extremely hard on these topics. I can see Donna Jones from Hampshire; I can see Roger, my good friend from Essex. I know you have been putting a lot into this as well.

    And this partnership between the Home Office, policing and police and crime commissioners I think makes these kind of reforms really work. So, a big thank you for what you’ve been doing as well.

    Now the third area, where I think there is an opportunity to do more is the way the wider criminal justice system functions.

    Now, I mean partly getting cases heard more quickly before the crown court, which is recovering still from COVID and the barristers’ strike last year, but it also means getting cases charged a lot more quickly.

    And there has been a very effective pilot run in I think Cheshire, Merseyside and Wales, where the most urgent cases have had charging decisions made by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in a matter of a few hours. Which is a big step forward from where it’s been in the past. And I’m delighted to say the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill, has agreed to roll that out nationally – I think by the end of the year. So that will give us a huge benefit in terms of getting charging done more quickly.

    But I think there is a lot more we can do, in terms of getting our cases well prepared and sent to the CPS in good condition. I think we can probably improve a bit.

    Some forces, like Cambridgeshire, have got a really good dedicated criminal justice unit, who help frontline officers get their cases prepared and sent to the CPS. They have got the highest case file success rate in the country. I think there may be a case to work with police forces to see if we can do a little bit more in that area.

    But I also want to see changes made that will reduce some of the other burdens on policing, around for example redactions, where case files have to be redacted prior to sharing with the CPS.

    We’re looking at ways of making legislative amendments, via the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, to either reduce or in some cases remove the redaction requirements on policing before case files are shared with the CPS, prior to a charge decision. And then perhaps reduce, but not eliminate, the redaction required before cases are then passed to barristers, solicitors and the courts.

    And if we are successful in doing that, again that could save hundreds of thousands of hours of police time each year that could instead be spent chasing criminals.

    And all of those things, the mental health work I mentioned, the work we’re doing together with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS, it is all in addition to the 443,000 hours of police time saved by the announcements being made today.

    So, I think all of those initiatives have enormous potential to free up police time for the frontline. It is all very well hiring extra officers but we have got to make sure their time is well spent protecting the public.

    Now before I finish, I would like to say a word about ethics, integrity and standards.

    We have clearly had quite a lot of public commentary on this over the last few weeks and the last few months. We had the Casey Report into the Met just a few weeks ago, which makes for very sobering reading for those of us that are involved in policing.

    It is quite clear we have more work to do to earn and retain the trust of the public, which is a critical prerequisite of protecting the public. As Robert Peel said 150 years ago, without public confidence policing cannot do its job.

    So, we’re working in the Home Office very closely with the policing community to make sure Her Majesty’s Inspectorate’s 43 recommendations on vetting are being implemented. And Andy Cooke, the chief inspector is going to make sure those are indeed being implemented in the coming months.

    We’re making sure that police officers are being checked against the Police National Database to identify anyone else who should not be serving as an officer. And the College of Policing, I can see Andy Marsh is here I think – Andy’s there – is working with us on some new statutory guidelines on vetting. I think those are out for consultation, or the consultation may just have closed at the moment.

    But in addition to that, we in the Home Office have committed to review the rules around police officer dismissal.

    Because a point that Mark Rowley and others have made is that chief officers cannot run their forces well, effectively cannot root out misconduct, if they cannot control effectively who is in their force.

    The rules around dismissals are quite a convoluted. Misconduct cases involve legally qualified chairs, who have the final say. And the process for poor performance is extremely convoluted. It is also very difficult to remove an officer who fails vetting once they have gone through their probationary period.

    So, we initiated a process to review those rules. That will conclude in the next few weeks. And I anticipate making announcements probably in middle to late May, where we will propose some changes to address the issues I have just referred to.

    It is vital that chief officers have the powers they need to run their forces and make sure that only officers who deserve to serve in uniform are able to do so.

    And I am very confident, you can take the steps I’ve described, if chiefs officers show the leadership I know they are committed to showing and if officers from the frontline to the top embrace the changes that are needed, I know we will earn the right to have the public’s confidence.

    It has been shaken somewhat recently but I know it can be restored. I am completely confident that it will be restored. And by working together, I know that we’re going to do that.

    Thank you to everyone here who has already made a contribution to that work. I think it is critical not just to restore and maintain policing’s reputation but it is also critical prerequisite of protecting the public as well.

    Let me just finish by saying that I think the work we have done here on these issues, around the bureaucracy that we are getting rid of, the work on mental health, the work we are doing with the CPS, is a really good example of government working together with policing, working together with police and crime commissioners, to ensure the public are protected.

    I have found it, just speaking personally, an enormously rewarding and highly motivating process these last few months. It shows that we can deliver, if we work together very quickly, in a matter of weeks or months, not years. None of us want to see these changes taking ages.

    And I feel that we are really making a difference for the public in the work that we are doing. And if we continue to work together in this way, recruiting more police officers, getting rid of bureaucratic distractions, focusing on higher standards, getting back to common-sense policing, protecting the public, prosecuting criminals and supporting victims, I know we’re going to make a criminal justice system and a police force we can all be proud of.

    So let me just finish by saying again, a huge thank you to everybody here and in police forces up and down the country who do such incredible work to keep out communities safe. Thank you for what you’ve done so far and thank you for, more importantly, what we are going to do in the future.

  • Dominic Raab – 2023 Speech at the King’s Counsel Appointments Ceremony

    Dominic Raab – 2023 Speech at the King’s Counsel Appointments Ceremony

    The speech made by Dominic Raab, the Secretary of State for Justice, at Westminster Hall, London, on 29 March 2023.

    It’s a great pleasure to welcome you all, as you make your declarations…

    And confirm your new status as Kings Counsel, and Honorary King’s Counsel.

    This is the first time in over 70 years that a Lord Chancellor has presided over the appointment of ‘King’s Counsels’, since the passing of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

    Of course, for all of you, I know this is the culmination of years of hard work, dedication, and sacrifice.

    The late nights working on a brief,

    The weekends lost to preparing a case in court,

    The countless hours spent representing your clients will now,

    I hope, at long last be worth it today.

    You have made it to the pinnacle of your profession,

    You will be recognised for that by your peers, by the Crown,

    For what is an immense achievement.

    You, your families, friends, and colleagues, should rightly be very proud.

    Steeped in tradition going back to the 16th Century, the KC title has long been a hallmark of excellence.

    It acknowledges your experience, expertise and eminence in your particular fields of law.

    And so, today’s ceremony cements your status as ambassadors for a legal system envied across the world.

    And, as we celebrate your success in these historic surroundings…

    Arguably the birthplace of both British justice and democracy… You are taking your own place personally in our country’s distinguished legal history.

    Of course, the KC quality mark is recognised not just here in the UK, but abroad too.

    It holds up our legal professionals as the best in a global market.

    And it underpins the worldwide appeal of our legal system… along with our common law precedents and world-renowned independent judiciary.

    Our profession is, of course, also one of the reasons the UK has become the world’s pre-eminent centre for dispute resolution.

    Just to give you a flavour, in 2021, over 28,000 civil disputes were resolved through arbitration, mediation and adjudication in the UK, while more than 80 percent of the world’s maritime arbitrations are handled here.

    Businesses around the world turn to us time and time again to be their counsel and courtroom… because they know that a decision from a UK court carries a global kitemark… of impartiality, integrity and enforceability.

    It isn’t by luck that English and Welsh law is the choice for global business and international trade… used in some 40 percent of all global corporate arbitrations.

    Nor is it a surprise that more than 200 foreign law firms, from over 40 jurisdictions have branches in the UK.

    In fact, every single one of the world’s top 40 law firms has an office right here in London.

    A world-beating legal system goes hand-in-hand with our world-beating legal services…

    One of this country’s greatest exports – and at the heart of our future as a global, free-trading Britain.

    Our legal services support the growth of global trade and investment across the whole country… contributing billions to our economy each year.

    And it’s why we’re working hard to promote legal services abroad…

    Targeting priority markets, like the Indo-Pacific and the United States…

    And opening up market access for our legal professionals through free trade agreements… including current negotiations with India, the Gulf states, Canada, Mexico and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

    All this serves as a reminder that our KCs don’t just serve in English and Welsh courts.

    They make a huge contribution to the international rule of law. Never has this been more true than today.

    All the way back to Nuremberg, our legal professionals have played their part in bringing the worst war criminals to justice.

    Take Hartley Shawcross KC – a formidable advocate who led the British prosecution at Nuremberg.

    His opening and closing speeches widely held to be some of the finest of those historic, ground-breaking trials.

    He observed that while some thought the Nazis on trial should have faced summary justice ‘…swept aside into oblivion, without elaborate and careful investigation into the part they have played…’

    ‘Not so would the rule of law be raised and strengthened on the international as well as upon the municipal plane…

    Not so would future generations realise that right is not always on the side of the big battalions…

    Not so would the world be made aware that the waging of… war is not only a dangerous venture… but a criminal one.’

    I think Shawcross’s words resonate, when we consider the importance of the international rule of law… and the ‘elaborate and careful’ investigations currently underway into atrocities in Ukraine.

    Nuremberg paved the way for the prosecution of war crimes and genocide in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and other wars and conflicts…

    And our KCs have been instrumental in the development of international law in the decades since, alongside our allies.

    We just need only look to The Hague to see the influence of some of the UK’s best legal minds.

    Sir Geoffrey Nice, Steven Kay, Andrew Cayley and Jo Korner are just some of the exceptional British barristers to have made their mark there and beyond.

    And another Brit, Karim Khan KC, is currently Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court and responsible for the investigation into atrocities in Ukraine, among other vital work he’s doing.

    All of these appointments are a testament to the standard of our professionals and indeed their standing in the world.

    I saw it myself – twenty years ago as a Foreign Office lawyer… I was posted to The Hague to help bring war criminals to justice at the Yugoslavian and Rwandan tribunals.

    So, I know first-hand the impact the ICC and ad-hoc tribunals can have.

    I remember in particular, Radovan Karadžić, the so called Butcher of Bosnia.

    In 2004, as a fairly fresh faced lawyer, while serving in the Hague I negotiated a sentencing enforcement agreement between the UK and the UN.

    Back then, no one thought we would get to use it…

    But 17 years later, Karadžić was transferred to a UK jail cell under that agreement.

    As you can imagine, I was proud to be a small part of that effort… a 30-year pursuit for justice.

    Now as you will know, on 17th of March, the ICC indicted President Putin for the forcible removal of children from Ukraine. An appalling crime.

    Today again, many doubters ask whether he will face the dock of a court.

    We know, these cases are complex, and it will take patience.

    To the doubters and the cynics I point to Karadžić, to Milošević, to Charles Taylor and others…

    To know that justice is on our side, and history is on our side.

    But justice doesn’t happen by accident.

    It requires deeds, not just words.

    That is why, a week ago today in the UK I hosted a meeting of justice ministers from around the world…

    Bringing together over 40 nations to agree support for the ICC, and its independent investigation into war crimes in Ukraine.

    I’m pleased we could agree that package that will support the ICC’s work in all its investigations.

    But looking at the country and profession, the real success was bringing 42 other countries together to offer support…

    Through the secondment of their national experts, the sharing of best practice to support the most vulnerable victims… and financial support to assist the ICC in its vital work.

    This is global Britain as a force for good in the world – galvanising other nations to act.

    In the same spirit, I have no doubt that many of you will go on to great things at home… and abroad… Building on the achievements of the remarkable KCs that have gone before you.

    I know you will make us proud.

    Today, we are also here to recognise eight candidates being appointed Honorary KCs, for outstanding contributions to the law outside of the courts.

    Our first candidate, John Battle, is a driving force in the campaign for open justice and in particular filming court proceedings.

    He is recognised for his extensive work with the media, Ministry of Justice, and with the senior judiciary.

    Next, Professor Lionel Bently is a universally respected scholar, nominated for his role in influencing intellectual property law in this country and beyond.

    Professor Richard Ekins has made a major contribution to public debate, and parliamentary deliberation, about the constitutional role of the courts…. Issues which are very close to my heart.

    Then we have Professor Rosemary Hunter, a leading Family Justice scholar. Rosemary is recognised for her important work in the field of domestic abuse, which has helped to shape the law in this area.

    Next, Dr Ann Olivarius, recognised for her vital role in the fields of women’s rights, sexual harassment and sexual abuse.

    She was absolutely instrumental in lobbying Parliament to pass laws against so-called ‘cyber flashing’, which I am proud we have now done.

    We also have Professor Richard Susskind is recognised for his important work to promote technology and innovation in legal and court services across England and Wales.

    Next, James Wakefield is nominated for his work to promote better access to the Barrister profession… encouraging retention of those from under-represented groups from across our society.

    Then we have Professor Julian Vincent Roberts, a leading authority on sentencing theory, policy, and practice.

    His work has made a major contribution to the analysis and development of sentencing worldwide.

    Last but certainly not least, there is Sir Michael Wood – a prominent member of the International Law Commission, recognised for his invaluable contribution to the teaching and application of international law in the UK and beyond.

    I have to say, there is one blot on his CV that I feel duty bound to point out.

    Sir Michael recruited me to the Foreign Office legal advisers in 2000, and then deployed me to the Hague between 2003 to 6.

    And was very much a mentor during that time, please don’t hold it against him.

    No one’s perfect.

    Of course, that’s just a brief mention of our recipients’ contribution to the law, which goes so much further.

    In closing, let me say again what an honour it is to preside over this ceremony.

    I hope you enjoy today’s celebration with your family and friends.

    It is truly well deserved.

    Each and every one of you here today is a shining example – the brightest and best of British justice, an inspiration to the next generation of lawyers.

    I’ve absolutely no doubt you will go on to even greater things in future…

    Playing your part in upholding the reputation of the finest legal system in the world.

  • Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech on Reducing Crime

    Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech on Reducing Crime

    The speech made by Sir Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in Port Vale on 23 March 2023.

    It’s good to be here in Burslem, the “mother town” of the Potteries. Where the spades first hit the ground in the construction of the great Trent and Mersey Canal. A fact which of course gives its name to Port Vale.

    Though for me, if I’m honest, this is better known as the ground where Arsenal came really close to losing the double in 1998. No really – you can look it up. Two draws in the cup and a very close penalty shoot-out somewhere over there. I went out to look at the pitch to see where those penalties were taken from.

    But we’re here today on more serious business. The launch of Labour’s second national mission – to make our streets safe, and stop criminals getting away without punishment.

    Now, if you think that sounds basic, something which should be guaranteed in a country like ours, then let me tell you: you’re right.

    Nothing is more important – more fundamental – to a democracy like ours. The rule of law is the foundation for everything.

    Margaret Thatcher called it the “first duty of government” – and she was right. An expression of individual liberty – our rights and responsibilities, but also of justice, of fairness, of equality – one rule for all.

    That’s the principle I’ve been proud to serve all my adult life. As a human rights lawyer, fighting for families with young children, trying to escape mould-infested accommodation, or for freedom of speech in the McLibel case.

    With the Police Service of Northern Ireland, advising them how to bring communities together, to make the Good Friday agreement work. And at the Crown Prosecution Service, as the Director of Public Prosecutions – the same principle.

    Everyone protected, everyone respected. No-one denied the law. No-one above the law. Not the murderers of Stephen Lawrence – who, for a time, thought they were, not Al-Qaeda terrorists. Not MPs, Labour or Conservative, gaming the expenses system to line their pockets. I prosecuted them all and I’m proud of that. One rule for all.

    That’s why I found the pandemic parties in Downing Street under Boris Johnson so reprehensible. The circus of the last few days – a reminder of his total disrespect for a national sacrifice. That’s why I said I’d resign, if I’d broken those same rules.

    I just couldn’t have looked the British people in the eye and asked for their trust. Those values are too important to me. The core of my politics today. So if the Tories want to attack me for being a human rights lawyer, attack the values I’ve stood up for my whole life, I say fine.

    That only shows how far they’ve fallen, and how little they understand working people.

    Because whatever the crime: anti-social behaviour, hate crime, serious violence, it’s always working people who pay the heaviest price.

    Working class communities who have to live under its shadow.

    That’s why tackling crime – law and order – will always be so important for my Labour Party.

    Fighting crime is a Labour cause.

    I grew up working class in a small town, I know how important it is to feel safe in your community.

    If you don’t have a big house and garden, the streets are where your kids play, your community is your family, your neighbours – your eyes and ears. You have to feel a sense of trust, of confidence, of security. It’s what gives you roots. A precondition of hope. The firm ground your aspirations can be built on.

    But as somebody who has worked in criminal justice for most of my life, I also know that far too often, the inequalities that still scar our society: class, race, gender; do find an expression in the very system that is supposed to protect us all, without discrimination.

    I’ve talked about this before, but the case that crystallised so much for me, was the murder of a nurse called Jane Clough. Stabbed to death in the car park of the Blackpool hospital where she worked.

    Killed – by the man awaiting trial on multiple charges of raping her, on the one morning she went to work unaccompanied. I will never forget the day her parents, John and Penny, came to my office and talked me through the awful treatment they’d received from our criminal justice system.

    It’s a moment that has shaped everything I’ve done since, everything I think about justice.

    How incomprehensible pain can only be met with practical action. And that if you have power and can do something for the powerless, you’ve got to roll up your sleeves. Work night and day. To make the changes – big and small – which can, if not put things right, then at least protect the future.

    That’s what happened that day. As I listened to John and Penny tell me Jane’s story, I knew a great injustice had been done. And I made a promise to work with them and make sure no other family would suffer the same fate.

    So together, we changed the guidelines on rape cases in court, and crucially, we forced a change in the law that gave prosecutors the right to appeal against a bail decision.

    Changes which do give extra protection to women brave enough – like Jane – to place their faith in the system and press charges. But it isn’t enough, I know that.

    In fact, it’s why I decided to come into politics. Because the more and more case files I read, the more and more I could see those ugly inequalities at work.

    You saw it in grooming scandals like Rochdale as well, how good prosecutors and decent police offices – people who hated crime – would end up looking for the “perfect victim”.

    Casting aspersions based on a way of thinking that was out of date, out of touch with the experience of the victims and communities that they needed to serve.

    “Why didn’t you come to the police straight away?”
    “Why did you go back with them?”
    “Why didn’t you put up a fight?”

    Questions and assumptions that are deeply flawed and have left vulnerable people, working class women and girls especially, ignored. Voiceless. Denied justice.

    That’s why the mission today matters to me.

    I’m proud of my previous work, proud of my record at the Crown Prosecution Service – but this is personal. Yes, it’s Labour’s plan to tackle the crime wave gnawing away at our collective sense of security – of course it is.

    But it’s also unfinished business in my life’s work to deliver justice for working people.

    Justice which, I’m sorry to say, feels quite absent as I look around Britain now. The statistics spell it out. Serious violence, rising again. Crime – way too high. The charge rate – just 5% – never lower.

    A recipe for impunity, an invitation for criminals to do whatever they want, swanning around our communities, without consequence.

    And it doesn’t stop there. Our courts are backlogged, victims trapped in a purgatory, waiting for the justice that they deserve. Anti-social behaviour is a growing blight. Knife-crime – back on the rise and not just in the inner cities.

    As you know – it’s increased in places like the Potteries as well. And then there’s the crimes that Jane Clough faced, that women face. Domestic violence – still rife. Sexual offences – higher than ever.

    Do you know – today, 300 women in Britain will be raped. But of those 300 rapes, just three cases will see someone charged. Honestly, I had to get my team to check those figures. I couldn’t believe them. But this is Britain right now.

    Yet from the Government – silence. No urgency, no reform, no big agenda – nothing. I could say it’s the usual Tory sticking plaster politics – and it is. But this is complacency on another level.

    It’s like they can’t see the Britain they’ve created, and maybe that’s it. Their kids don’t go to the same schools. Nobody fly-tips on their streets. The threat of violence doesn’t stalk their communities.

    They don’t see the problems, and so they’re complacent about the need for solutions. Asking outdated questions, making flawed assumptions, about victims, policing, crime, everything. Out of touch with the realities of modern Britain. They should try and walk in your shoes for a day or two.

    Come speak to the teenage girls here at The College in Stoke-on-Trent, who told me they’re afraid to walk down their high street in broad daylight, because they know they’ll get harassed. Or the women’s refuge I visited in Birmingham and see the bruises, not just on arms and bodies, but in the souls of the women I met there. The family that wrote to me, hiding, terrified that their father will come back to hurt them again, waiting since 2018 for their day in court.

    This is the Britain they’ve created – and they should look it in the eye. Working people don’t feel safe. I won’t take any lectures from them on this, I won’t have our commitment to justice called into question, and I won’t stop until working people feel protected.

    This is our mission, Labour will make Britain’s streets safe.

    And we will do so, as with all our missions, by bringing people together with purpose and intent, by embracing the challenge that comes with clear accountability, and setting out four clear, measurable goals.

    One, as I announced on Tuesday, we will restore confidence in every police force to its highest ever level.

    Two – we will halve incidents of knife crime.

    Three – we will reverse the collapse in the proportion of crime solved.

    And four – by solving more crime, by reducing the number of victims who drop out of the system, we will halve the levels of violence against women and girls.

    None of this will be easy – clearly. As I say about all our missions – they should invite a sharp intake of breath. After this week, nobody can doubt the scale of our ambition, nor its urgency. Or for that matter, how comprehensively the Tories have thrown in the towel. But equally – it’s obvious that these targets require partnerships, not just across government, but between politics and people.

    It’s not just about the police and criminal justice systems. It’s about education, media, health, community services, online regulation, tackling the evils our young boys are exposed to – that follow them in their pockets, everywhere they go.

    So yes, change has to come from all of us – it’s going to be a long, hard road. But there are some steps we need to take together now. Urgent priorities that my Labour Government would respond to immediately.

    So let me take each of our targets one by one, starting, as I did on Tuesday, with confidence in the police.

    Because the horror of what we’ve seen reported about the Metropolitan Police this week cannot be understated. I know there are good officers in the Met, as of course there are across the whole country. But the actions of that force, collectively and individually have tarnished the reputation of policing everywhere.

    Our policing by consent model – a precious model – is now hanging by a thread.

    And look – the confidence levels of police across the country are on a downward trend as well. Nearly every person I meet has at least one story, an interaction with the police where something just wasn’t followed up. Calls unanswered. Opportunities to share evidence – missed. And so people give up. They stop bothering. Crime – becomes decriminalised.

    Now, I know, as Louise Casey pointed out, that austerity has had a pernicious effect. I ran the Crown Prosecution Service in the early stages of austerity – I had a front row seat for the chaos: the lack of planning and vision which came with the cuts.

    I accept – like every public service, the police have been failed by this Government. But there must always be a plan – you’ve got to find a way to modernise, got to keep up with the way crime is changing, retain a visible presence on our streets. And there can never be any defence for the institutional failings. The racism, misogyny and homophobia that we have seen in the Met.

    That’s is why our mission will focus on confidence – it will push us to do the hard yards, to tackle the wider sense of impunity in society. Unblock our courts and lower crime meaningfully, without perverse incentives on charge or prosecution rates.

    Confidence is everything. It’s what effective, visible, open-minded policing can provide to the communities it serves, and, as we’ve seen this week, it’s what bad policing destroys.

    So let me make it very clear: the next Labour Government will modernise British policing.

    We will raise standards, overhaul training, modernise misconduct and vetting procedures, and we will root out institutional discrimination wherever we find it. I’ve seen what is possible with the Police Service of Northern Ireland – and had a hand in it.

    And that word – “service” that captures what needs to be done.

    Policing must change: must start thinking of itself as a public service, must stand with communities, not above them, respect their values. Because if we can get Catholics to serve in Northern Ireland, integrate nationalist communities there into policing, then there can be no justification for any special pleading from the Met in London, or any police force.

    Policing must start to serve women and minorities – no more excuses.

    And look – modernising the police is also the first step we must take on halving violence against women and girls. You can’t defeat misogyny without robust policing, but you can’t have robust policing without defeating misogyny.

    That’s what modern policing looks like, what serving your community looks like.

    So we’ll put specialist domestic abuse workers in the control rooms of every police force responding to 999 calls, supporting victims of abuse.

    We’ll get a specialist rape unit in every police force. And we’ll also set up dedicated rape courts – the current prosecution rates are a disgrace. We all know how hard it is for women to come forward, that the criminal justice system only ever sees the tip of the iceberg on sexual violence.

    And that the experience of going to court – the way victims are treated – just doesn’t work. I’ve been pushing for action on this for nearly 10 years.

    In 2014 I spent nine months with Doreen Lawrence taking evidence and testimony from victims. In 2016 I wrote a Private Members Victims Bill that had cross-party support. The only reason it’s not on the statute book is that we don’t have a government capable of looking this problem in the eye.

    But mark my words, a Labour Government is coming – and we will bring forward a proper victims law.

    And something else that Louise Casey made crystal clear is crucial to restoring confidence. Visible neighbourhood policing. We need reform to get more police on the beat – fighting the virus that is anti-social behaviour.

    Fly-tipping, off-road biking in rural area, drugs – now some people call this low-level – I don’t want to hear those words.

    There’s a family in my constituency – every night cannabis smoke creeps in from the street outside into their children’s bedroom – aged four and six. That’s not low level – it’s ruining their lives.

    So we won’t pull any punches on this. Everyone protected, everyone respected – that’s what justice means.
    And the Tories are soft on it. Soft on anti-social behaviour, soft on the crime that most affects working class communities. Only Labour will protect them.

    We’ll get 13,000 extra police on our streets, bring in new Respect orders – anti-social behaviour orders with teeth, and we’ll get clever with fixed penalty notices.

    If you want to commit vandalism or dump your rubbish on our streets, then you’d better be prepared to clean up your own mess. Because with Labour in power – that is exactly what you will be doing. Cleaner streets are safer streets.

    But the reality of today’s society, as any parent knows is that our children need protecting in their homes as well as on their streets. You can’t fight behaviour that is learned online, spread online, glorified online, armed only with the tools of the past.

    Take knife crime. We know so much of this is about prevention, about pulling young boys back before they get in too deep. It’s about good youth work, neighbourhood policing, mental health support – in every school. We’ll do all that.

    It’s about smart legislation as well. About making the criminal exploitation of children illegal, and using that to target the county line gangs who exploit kids to do their dirty work. But it’s also about standing up to the big tech companies. Seriously – how can we ignore the fact a child can go onto the internet and buy a machete as easily as a football?

    It’s exactly the same thing with the social media algorithms that bombard young minds with misogyny. Both are social evils, both an example of where greed comes above good. So my message to the big tech companies is this – the free ride is over. If you make money from the sale of weapons, or the radicalisation of people online, then we will find ways to make you accountable.

    You wouldn’t get away with it on the streets and you won’t get away with it online.

    But look – the fight against online hate, shows the scale of the challenge we face.

    As I’ve said before, about all our missions, change must come from all of us. Success depends on unlocking the pride and purpose that is in every community.

    This is a new way of governing. But it can be done.

    From my experience, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere – I draw strength. From the unbelievable campaigners I’ve met, from my friends Doreen Lawrence, the Cloughs, Mina Smallman and more – I draw inspiration.

    And from the people of this country – communities like this, I draw belief. Change can happen – and it can happen quickly. People forget – it was only in the 1980s when the physical punishment of children in schools was banned, and a huge cultural change has followed.

    So why can’t we imagine a society where violence against women is stamped out everywhere? Why can’t the future citizens of our country look back at this generation as the one which turned the page on misogyny, which protected our children and made our streets safe?

    I promise you this. If we pull together – we can do this. And I will give it everything.

    Because this mission – crime and justice – is my life’s work.

    I’ve made it central to my Labour Party. Because it’s central to the lives of working people.

    For the confidence they need in their community, to push on and hope for a better future. The foundation for a better Britain.

    Where working people succeed, aspiration is rewarded, children are protected and crime is punished.

    A Britain where families once again feel safe on their streets.

    The basis for a country that gets its hope, its future and its confidence – back.

    Thank you.

  • Keir Starmer – 2023 Statement on the Baroness Casey Report

    Keir Starmer – 2023 Statement on the Baroness Casey Report

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 21 March 2023.

    This week I will announce details of Labour’s national mission on crime, one of five missions to give Britain its future back.

    These missions are about long-term plans to tackle long-term problems.

    And for those on the receiving end, there is no problem that has such a profound daily impact on their life as crime.

    From the antisocial behaviour that blights too many neighbourhoods and town centres.

    To the knife crime that is rising again.

    And violence against women and girls that is shamefully high.

    So in light of the shocking report by Baroness Casey today, I want to bring forward the announcement of part of that mission.

    Today I can announce that part of our crime mission will be:

    To raise confidence in every police force to its highest level.

    I know this will be difficult, but like our other missions, it is ambitious, serious and measurable.

    Every day across our country, we know brave police officers put their safety on the line to protect us all.

    Risking their safety for ours.

    I know that, because in my role as Director of Public Prosecutions I worked with many of them to bring criminals to justice.

    We owe them our thanks.

    But we also have to face the reality that public confidence in policing has been shaken to its core in recent years.

    By the hollowing out of neighbourhood policing.

    The collapse in the charge and prosecution rates.

    The delays in bringing criminals to justice.

    And, as we have seen today, evidence of serious failures on standards.

    Including with the Met – the failure to root out police officers who themselves had committed the most terrible and unthinkable crimes.

    There will be police forces, outside of London, who might shrug their shoulders and say – this isn’t us.

    But I have worked in criminal justice for decades and I say to them: wake up.

    The findings in the Casey report are a warning for every police force.

    Confidence must be restored.

    Policing by consent depends on trust.

    When that breaks down, policing becomes harder and crime thrives.

    And of course, there is a special focus today on the Metropolitan Police following Casey’s devastating report.

    She catalogues, in grim detail, the culture, attitudes and practices of a police force that has lost its way.

    She pulls no punches in exposing a police force where:

    – Poor management and basic lack of workforce planning

    – Predatory and unacceptable behaviour have been allowed to flourish.

    – Londoners let down with the huge loss of neighbourhood policing.

    – Public protection failures that have put women and girls at greater risk.

    Across the force she found: institutional racism, institutional misogyny and institutional homophobia.

    Page after page, the report provides both a detailed diagnosis of what’s gone wrong and a blueprint for radical reform.

    The strength of its findings require an immediate and urgent response.

    Without that, confidence in policing cannot be restored.

    The fight against crime will be weakened.

    People will continue to feel let down and fearful.

    A government that I lead would accept the findings of the report in full.

    We would work, not just with the Met, but with policing institutions and forces across the country to ensure that deep reforms and changes are made.

    The new Met Commissioner Mark Rowley has our support in the work he has now begun to turn it around.

    But he must go further and faster. And he will have our support in doing that.

    I know that there are officers right across the Met who are desperate to see these improvements put into place and action taken to rebuild the confidence of Londoners.

    But mark my words: I will be relentless in demanding progress and change.

    The reforms needed, will be, as the report suggests, “on a par” with the “transformation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the Police Service of Northern Ireland”.

    Note that word “service”.

    Having played my part in that transformation, I know how serious a job it is to make that sort of deep cultural change to an institution.

    It requires extraordinary leadership, an iron will to make real change.

    It means being ruthless on weeding out those who will not change or are changing too slowly.

    It means tough disciplinary standards – swift action on those who continue to act against the new values of the organisation.

    A proper partnership between government and the police service to get the job done.

    And above all it means changing the police from a force to a service – with public service values at its heart.

    From standing above communities, to standing with them.

    That is the route to radical change and it needs a total commitment from the police to achieve it.

    That’s why I will expect radical change in the Met – no excuses.

    London is a diverse city – that is its beauty.

    And if we can get Catholics to serve in Northern Ireland, reach out across communities there, then I will not accept any special pleading that the Met cannot represent modern London.

    But I have to say: you cannot separate the failings laid out in black and white today from the political choices that have led us here.

    The report makes clear, there has been a ‘hands off’ approach to policing since 2011.

    This approach has been accompanied by haphazard cuts.

    People feeling that law enforcement has effectively withdrawn from swathes of the country.

    Accountability has been destroyed.

    Progress halted and then slammed into reverse.

    After 13 years of Tory government, policing is yet another public service that is collapsing.

    No longer serving those who rely on it, sacrificed to a Tory hands-off ideology that has failed.

    And until we change course, we will carry on down this path of decline.

    Successive Conservative prime ministers have diminished the fight against crime and done nothing to reform the police.

    In short: they have been negligent.

    It remains extraordinary that, even now after the terrible examples of violence against women from police officers, there are no mandatory national rules for police forces on vetting.

    It is left to 43 different police forces to do their own thing.

    I would put an end this situation and in Labour’s first term we would:

    – Bring in national standards for all police forces to include mandatory vetting, training and disciplinary procedures

    – Bring in a stronger accountability regime to turn around failing forces.

    – Rebuild neighbourhood policing with 13,000 more police.

    – Get specialist 999 call handlers, trained in domestic violence, in every police control room.

    – Set up a dedicated, specialist rape unit in every Police force in the country.

    But throughout my whole career, I have seen reports come and go.

    Moments like this, missed.

    The biggest danger today is that this becomes just another report rather than the beginning of real, lasting change.

    It cannot be an occasion for even more words and too little action.

    There needs to be a reckoning.

    And there needs to be change.

    A change for Londoners.

    A change for those good police officers, who are fed up of being let down by a negligent Government.

    And change for the public who deserve a police service that they can have confidence in.

    The British policing model which we should cherish began here in London nearly two hundred years ago.

    Unlike most forces across the world our police are guardians not guards, rooted in the powerful tradition of policing by consent where the police are the public and the public are the police.

    But that vital tradition is in peril.

    And without the biggest overhaul in policing since the force began, I fear for its future.

    We must rebuild confidence.

    Today is a day for action.

  • Louise Casey – 2023 Report into the Met Police (Baroness Casey of Blackstock)

    Louise Casey – 2023 Report into the Met Police (Baroness Casey of Blackstock)

    The report by Louise Casey, Baroness Casey of Blackstock, published on 21 March 2023.

    Text of report (in .pdf format)

  • Mhairi Black – 2023 Speech on the Manchester Arena Inquiry – Volume 3 Report

    Mhairi Black – 2023 Speech on the Manchester Arena Inquiry – Volume 3 Report

    The speech made by Mhairi Black, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    The awful events on 22 May 2017 led to the deaths of 22 innocent people and to hundreds more being injured and affected for the rest of their lives. Of course, the ultimate responsibility lies with the bomber who detonated his homemade device in the foyer of Manchester Arena as the crowds left an Ariana Grande concert. I welcome the fact that MI5 has reflected and apologised for its role in failing to prevent this heinous attack. For example, the report finds that intelligence could have led to the bomber being followed to a car where he stored his explosives. The inquiry also found that two pieces of information about the bomber were assessed by the Security Service as not being terrorism-related. An officer also admitted that they considered a possible national security concern on one of those pieces of information, but did not immediately discuss it with colleagues and did not write up a report on the same day.

    May I first ask the Home Secretary what steps she is taking to ensure that the security services improve in their communications and information sharing, guaranteeing that professional standards do not fall short, as they have done in this case? Secondly, the inquiry has found that the bomber was probably assisted by someone in Libya, but because of gaps in available evidence, that line of inquiry has not been addressed sufficiently. Can the Home Secretary provide further information on whether the investigation will continue to search for those who assisted the bomber? Given how much frustration the victims’ families are experiencing, understandably, as a result of information being withheld due to national security implications, will the Home Secretary at least provide reassurance to those families that the UK Government will leave no stone unturned in finding justice for their relatives?

    Suella Braverman

    I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Following the attacks in 2017, MI5 and counter-terrorism policing together carried out a series of reviews. Their 126 recommendations included: better data exploitation; the wider sharing of intelligence; and changes to how terrorist threats were assessed and investigated. An independent review by David Anderson concluded in December 2017 that

    “the recommendations taken as a whole will strengthen MI5 and the police in their ability to stop most terrorist attacks.”

    So a wide range of measures and actions have been taken since 2017 to improve data sharing, data exploitation and the assessment of intelligence. Let me give her and the British people the assurance that no stone will be left unturned by this Government to keep the British people safe. That is why have announced an investment of £370 million in a new counter-terrorism operations centre—CTOC. The new headquarters for London-based counter-terrorism policing, the intelligence community and Government partners will increase the strength, resilience and collaboration of our wholesale UK counter-terrorism effort.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2023 Speech on the Manchester Arena Inquiry – Volume 3 Report

    Yvette Cooper – 2023 Speech on the Manchester Arena Inquiry – Volume 3 Report

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    On 22 May 2017, thousands of people, including children and their parents, went to watch a pop concert. Instead, they were faced with the most unimaginable horror, and 22 people lost their lives, including children, the youngest being just eight years old. Hundreds more were injured. Those families have endured the unimaginable. All our thoughts are with them today, and with the people of Manchester, who have stood and supported each other through the most difficult of times. I join the Home Secretary in thanking Sir John Saunders for his far-reaching inquiry, and for his vital work in seeking answers for the victims and their families.

    The responsibility for this vile attack lies with the bomber and his brother, and with those who may have radicalised and enabled them, and we—all of us—condemn their actions in the strongest possible terms. It is right that the brother has been brought to justice. Rightly too, however, this report has looked at why it happened and at what might have prevented it, to seek the truth for families and their loved ones and to identify changes needed for the future. These are important and serious conclusions which are hard to hear: that there was, in Sir John’s words, a

    “significant missed opportunity to take action that might have prevented the attack”;

    that there was a failure to act swiftly enough on information; that there were failures in the sharing of information; and that the bomber should have been referred to the Prevent programme in 2015 or 2016, although Sir John says it is unclear whether that would have led to action. These are hard conclusions to hear, especially for those who have lost loved ones.

    The Home Secretary has rightly said that agencies and counter-terror police work immensely hard to keep us safe every day. Sir John also says in his report that they have disrupted 27 major Islamist extremist terror plots in recent years, in addition to five right-wing and left-wing terror plots. That is a result of their immense efforts night and day. It is because they are dedicated to keeping us safe that they also recognise the importance of facing up to things going wrong, and they too have expressed their profound sorrow and apologies.

    Sir John has rightly made recommendations, and everyone is rightly seeking to take them forward. We should support them in doing so, but I want to press the Home Secretary on some of the details of those measures. First, all of us support the work of Figen Murray and many of the Manchester survivors to introduce Martyn’s law, but can the right hon. Lady tell me the timetable? Will the Bill have its Second Reading before the summer recess? On the closed recommendations, which are clearly important, will the entire report be shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it can oversee the changes that need to be made?

    On the issues around prisons and the Prevent programme, the bomber repeatedly visited someone who was in prison for terrorist offences, but that did not trigger a further assessment despite some of the wider things that were known about the bomber and his family. That raises serious concerns. Will the Home Secretary look again at the process for monitoring prison visits, and will she accept Sir John’s recommendations about the changes in approach to visits to terrorist and extremist prisoners that need to be taken and also his recommendations on changes to the law?

    Sir John also concludes that it is highly likely that the bombers used a video online to help them to make the device in 2016. It is appalling that that video was not taken down. It is also troubling that, seven years on, we do not have the Online Safety Bill on the statute. This also raises concerns about the lack of a proper strategy on online radicalisation. Can I urge the Home Secretary to urgently revise the countering extremism strategy, which is now eight years out of date despite her predecessors having received recommendations from the countering extremism commissioner in 2018 that it was already out of date then? Will she urgently revise it to address online radicalisation?

    Sir John also warns about a potential indicator of extremism being violent misogyny in this case. There are patterns here affecting different kinds of extremism—Islamist extremism, far right extremism and incel extremism —so will the Home Secretary commission a review to look at what role violent misogyny may be playing and how far it should be understood as a potential indicator of extremism and radicalisation? Sir John also raises workforce pressures, particularly in the north-west. Given the new threats from hostile states, can the Home Secretary comment on what her assessment is of resources?

    Finally, concerns were raised that the security services did not understand the threats from Libya sufficiently, and that that was a wake-up call. Does the Home Secretary recognise that that shows the importance for them to continually reassess different threats and not to have a hierarchy of threats or extremism but to pursue the evidence wherever it takes them? The Home Secretary mentioned the survivors, and we think of them. However, many of them still feel that they lack the support and help they need, even many years after the truly terrible things that happened. Will she meet Survivors Against Terror and look again at what further support can be provided for those who lost loved ones and those who were hurt in that terrible event?

    Suella Braverman

    I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions, which I will address in due course. I agree entirely with her assessment that we must now all come together—the Government, the security services and the emergency services—to learn the lessons of this awful tragedy and work to reduce the likelihood of future attacks. It was a truly sad and terrible incident, but I want to reassure the public that our priority is to keep them safe. We must root out extremism wherever we find it, and we must give no quarter to political correctness as we do so. We must respond quickly to all criticisms, but we must also recognise the serious work that has taken place since the attack.

    On Martyn’s law, the Government will publish draft legislation for scrutiny in the spring. After that, we will introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. Its progress will depend on Parliament passing it and agreeing a date for commencement. There will be a lead-in time to allow for those captured by the Bill to prepare.

    Martyn’s law is one part of our extensive efforts across Government, including by the police and security services, to combat the threat of terrorism. There remains an intensive programme of guidance, developed by security experts, counter-terrorism policing and other partners, to provide high-quality advice to stakeholders and others with responsibility for public places. I look forward to moving forward with the solution and to presenting the Bill on Martyn’s law.

    We have published a new policy framework allowing for greater scrutiny of the contact between terrorist prisoners and the public. Our new approved contacts scheme, to be implemented this year, will allow greater checks on the visitors and phone contacts of those convicted of terrorism and terrorism-connected offences, regardless of the category of prison in which they are held.

    A large amount of work has been done since 2017 to support and improve the consistency of local authority Prevent delivery, and to manage the risk posed by subjects of interest. This includes additional funding and support for the highest-priority areas, the publication of the Prevent duty toolkit and the development of the multi-agency centre programme. We are working across Government to mitigate the risk posed by those about whom we have concerns.

    Finally, the right hon. Lady asked about support for families who are going through this unimaginable process, which is why I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement last week on the Government’s commitment to legislating, as soon as possible, to establish an independent public advocate to support victims following a major incident. The IPA will help victims to navigate the systems and processes that may follow a major incident, such as the police investigation, the inquests and inquiries. I hope it does not have to be used, but in the event of a tragedy, we will have the resources, expertise and structures in place to support families in this unimaginable situation.

    I know the whole House will agree that we must now move forward with a solution to ensure our frameworks and processes are as robust as possible so that we never again see anything like this.

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on the Manchester Arena Inquiry – Volume 3 Report

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on the Manchester Arena Inquiry – Volume 3 Report

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the inquiry into the horrendous attack on Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.

    I work closely with MI5. While its activity is necessarily discreet, the whole country should be profoundly grateful for the patriotism and courage of its staff. They work indefatigably every day to keep the British people safe. Since the start of 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 37 late-stage attack plots.

    An Islamist suicide bomber murdered 22 people and injured more than 1,000, as well as inflicting incalculable psychological damage and misery. I know that the whole House will join me in expressing our profound sorrow and extending our heartfelt condolences to everyone affected by this barbaric act. They were supposed to have a brilliant time and come home safely. What should have been a simple pleasure turned into a hellish nightmare. It is vital that we understand what happened and what lessons we need to learn, because we must do everything possible to prevent a repeat of this outrage.

    Volume 3 of the inquiry was published last Thursday. I would like to thank Sir John Saunders and his team, who have spent more than three years on it. Sir John finds that there was a failure by the Security Service to act swiftly enough, and that there were

    “problems with the sharing of information between the Security Service and Counter Terrorism Policing”.

    Following the publication of the report, the director general of MI5 and the head of counter-terrorism policing offered their profound apologies for not preventing the attack.

    Sir John does not blame any of the educational establishments that the bomber attended for failing to identify that he was a risk, but he does find:

    “More needs to be done to ensure that education providers share relevant information about students”.

    Sir John concludes that the bomber

    “should have been subject to a Prevent referral at some point in 2015 or 2016. However, it is very hard to say what would have happened if”

    the bomber

    “had been approached under Prevent or the Channel programme.”

    The police investigation into the attack, Operation Manteline, is praised.

    Although Sir John cannot conclude whether the attack would have been prevented, he finds that there was a significant missed opportunity to take further investigative action that he judges might have led to information that could have prevented it. While this is welcome, and the Home Office will work at pace with both organisations to act on the chairman’s recommendations, we must not lose sight of the fact that responsibility for the attack lies with the bomber and his brother. These conclusions require careful consideration.

    Since 2017, the Government have made a number of changes to how we deal with and seek to prevent terrorist attacks. We have given law enforcement and intelligence agencies improved powers. We have strengthened the controls around access to explosives precursors. We have strengthened the management of terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders in prison and on licence. We have ended the automatic early release of terrorist offenders in England, Wales and Scotland, and we have ensured that the sentences served by terrorists reflect the severity of their offending. We have strengthened the tools for monitoring dangerous people in the community.

    We have invested heavily in counter-terrorism. We unveiled a new counter-terrorism operations centre in 2021 that brings together partners from counter-terrorism policing, the intelligence agencies, the criminal justice system and other Government agencies. This will allow minute-by-minute collaboration between teams in the police and MI5. Last year’s integration of special branch into the national CT policing network will improve our response to the full range of national security threats, boost skills and ensure better communication between agencies and a more consistent and effective national response.

    Work is under way to develop a new faith security training scheme to raise security awareness among faith communities and help them to mitigate threats. We continue to engage with faith organisations and security experts to develop the scheme. In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) announced the continuation of the Jewish community protective security grant for 2022. In May, new funding was allocated to provide protective security at mosques and Muslim faith schools.

    In response to any terrorist attack affecting British nationals, in the UK or overseas, the Home Office’s victims of terrorism unit works to ensure that the right support is available to them. The unit is conducting an internal review to strengthen its work. I am overseeing a comprehensive review of the CONTEST strategy to combat terrorism. It follows on from the independent review of Prevent, led by William Shawcross, which assessed the programme’s effectiveness in preventing people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. As the review made clear, Prevent requires major reform, and I have accepted all its recommendations.

    Prevent has underestimated the threat of Islamist extremism, which remains far the biggest threat that we face, and too often it has minimised the role of ideology in terrorism. It will focus on security, not on political correctness, and its first objective will be to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism. The Government have also developed a comprehensive system of support for the owners and operators of public places across the UK. It includes access to research-driven expertise through products delivered by the National Counter Terrorism Security Office and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.

    However, we must go further. Martyn’s law, formerly known as the Protect Duty, will introduce proportionate new security requirements for certain public premises throughout the UK. They will be better prepared and ready to respond, and their staff will know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. Martyn’s law will clarify who is responsible for security activity at the premises in scope, increasing accountability. We are also considering how an inspection function will oversee compliance, to provide appropriate advice, and, where necessary, to sanction.

    Martyn Hett was one of those killed in Manchester. I am enormously grateful to his mother, Figen Murray, and the Martyn’s Law Campaign Team, as well as to Survivors Against Terror and all the security partners, businesses, charities, local authorities and victims’ groups that have informed our work. I have always been humbled when I have met them and heard about their experiences.

    The doctrines that underpin the way in which the emergency services respond to incidents have improved since the attack. Let me end by once again recognising the anguish, and the courage, of the loved ones of those who were killed or hurt on that dreadful night. It united the country in sorrow and in disgust. We will continue to work non-stop to prevent further such tragedies from being visited on others, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Anthony Browne – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    Anthony Browne – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    The speech made by Anthony Browne, the Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2023.

    I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, and on his birthday as well—hopefully, seeing his Bill pass its Third Reading will be a fantastic birthday present for him. Like my various colleagues, I welcome the scope extension to include tradesmen and their tools, but I will concentrate my comments on the original rural focus of the Bill.

    Like my various colleagues, I have a rural constituency; I have many farmers in my constituency, and whenever I ask them what their key concerns are and how we can help, rural crime is always one of their top concerns. Indeed, just at the end of last year, I had a meeting with local farmers in the village of Abington Pigotts, which incidentally has a wonderful pub called the Pig & Abbot. Anyone who is in the area should visit that pub. There were 30 farmers there, and we were talking about rural crime. I did a little poll: I asked, “Who has experienced rural crime in the past year?”, and every single one of those 30 farmers stuck up their hand. Every single one had been a victim of rural crime in the past year.

    The police do their best. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned the hard work of the police, and I know they work hard in Cambridgeshire, but it is often very difficult to crack down on rural crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) mentioned, urban crimes have a 25% higher enforcement rate than rural crimes. That is not just in South Cambridgeshire, obviously, but in all rural areas: when the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution did its big farming survey, 38% of farmers said that they had been victims of rural crime in the past year. Cereal farmers, who make up a large part of my farming community, are the hardest hit, with 51%—more than half—being victims of rural crime. As such, I fully appreciate and support the intent of the Bill.

    It is easy for people to dismiss the seriousness of rural crime; it is often seen as something that we do not really need to worry about. Quad bikes and ATVs, which are the focus of the Bill, are often viewed as leisure vehicles by many members of the public—they see advertisements for quad bike adventures, something that can be done in my constituency as well—but for farmers, they are serious working vehicles. Various hon. Friends have mentioned how dependent farmers are on their equipment to make a living. For farmers, those quad bikes and ATVs make them far more efficient when covering large areas; without them, they simply cannot do the work. Many farmers work on very tight margins, and having farm equipment operational makes the difference between making money for the year, enabling them to pay their wages, and losing money. Having proper, working farm equipment is crucial to people’s livelihoods. That is why agricultural machinery theft was reported to be a top priority for the police to tackle in the 2020 rural crime survey.

    Quad bikes and ATVs make particularly attractive targets. They are obviously transportable: a thief can load them on to a trailer or a lorry and whisk them away very easily. They often have poor security features that do little to deter those thieves. Their value on the second-hand market has increased recently, making them even more attractive as targets—that is because of the supply chain issues that make it quite difficult to order new ones, as we heard earlier. Currently, it takes three to six months to get a replacement vehicle, which is an incredibly long time for a farmer to cope without vital equipment.

    As such, I fully welcome the measures in the Bill to clamp down on this problem: they make a lot of common sense. Cars have had immobilisers on them for over 20 years, and it is time that ATVs and quad bikes followed suit. Immobilisers act as a significant deterrent by making vehicles much harder to steal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned, this is not just about making it easier to catch vehicles afterwards, but about deterring the crime in the first place.

    A vehicle register also seems like a natural step to take, as better record keeping will help put an end to the grey markets that the criminals tend to operate in. During my research for this speech, I came across the CESAR scheme—the construction and agricultural equipment security and registration scheme—which has a database of ownership and covert markings. That scheme has reported a 60% decline in thefts since it came into operation in 2008, and I hope this Bill will be the catalyst for a similar trend in quad bikes and ATVs.

    The Bill will save farmers much aggravation from the fallout and cost of theft. It will be good for police, because it will hopefully reduce the amount of work they have to do, and if there are cases of theft, they will be easier for police to track down and solve. It will also lead to a reduction in insurance premiums over time, which will be incredibly welcome for farmers while energy prices and the cost of living are so high.

    This and any Bill that tackles rural crime will always have my wholehearted support. We need to level up our response to crimes committed outside cities. I am glad to see that organisations such as the NFU and the Countryside Alliance, which I know are important in my constituency and elsewhere, fully support the Bill. I support it, and I hope it makes speedy passage through the Lords.

  • Ruth Jones – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    Ruth Jones – 2023 Speech on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

    The speech made by Ruth Jones, the Labour MP for Newport West, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2023.

    I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on bringing the Bill forward and wish him a happy birthday— penblwydd hapus.

    The Bill introduces a number of solutions to the growing problem of the theft of quad bikes and other all-terrain vehicles. We know from the National Farmers Union that there are between 800 and 1,100 thefts of ATVs every year. Aside from the financial cost, which is bad enough, there is the issue of the physical replacement of these vehicles. That can take months and hampers the vital work that farmers do to feed us and provide other important things for our country; I am thinking especially of the hill farmers in north Wales, who are very hard hit by the theft of these sorts of vehicles.

    The introduction of these common-sense solutions—immobilisers, forensic marking and the setting up of a registration database—is so sensible. At the risk of incurring Mr Deputy Speaker’s wrath, I make a plea for the use of SmartWater, which is so important for not just farm vehicles but all items, to discourage and deter thefts and enable the police to return stolen items to their rightful owners very quickly. Forensic marking is so important.

    I do not mean to detain the House for too long. I am sure Members from across the House will join me in thanking the hon. Member for Buckingham for bringing this positive and proactive piece of legislation before the House today.