Tag: Chris Philp

  • Chris Philp – 2025 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Chris Philp – 2025 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, in Manchester on 5 October 2025.

    Like Kemi, let me start by condemning the appalling terrorist attack in this city last Thursday.

    Our thoughts and prayers are with the families whose lives, on that holy Yom Kippur morning, were so wickedly torn apart. But we will also stay strong in the face of terror. We will never change our way of life, because we are stronger than them. And I know everyone in this hall and beyond will renew their resolve to fight the ancient evil of antisemitism wherever it is found.

    It has no place in any civilised country. Not in our United Kingdom. Not ever.

    And if a foreign citizen expresses racial hatred, including antisemitism or supports extremism or terrorism, I’ll tell you this as Home Secretary I’ll deport them.

    And I would like to thank the police and security services who responded so fast last week. They take risks up and down the country every single day to protect us, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Thank you.

    Conference, this is a historic moment. As the Leader just announced, we have concluded it is right for our country to leave the ECHR.

    This is not a decision taken lightly. We have thought long and hard. And unlike others, we did not leap without first carefully considering all the implications. I thank Lord Wolfson for his detailed and masterful legal analysis. There he is, thank you David.

    We are, of course, deeply aware of why the Convention was originally written, in the aftermath of the horrors that ravaged Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. And we remain as committed as ever to protecting rights and to the rule of law.

    But the way the courts now interpret the ECHR makes it unrecognisable from the system which Winston Churchill first helped shape.

    And we are clear about this: the ability to control our country’s borders is non-negotiable.

    We will not, and we cannot, compromise on the ability of our democratically elected parliament to set the laws that govern who comes here, and who stays

    Because if we can’t control our borders then we are no country at all. With no border control we would lose our identify and we would lose our security. And this party will always protect our identify and will always protect our security.

    Now, the small boat crisis has brought this issue into sharp focus. The government said they would smash the gangs. Well, that is now laughable. Because so far all they have smashed are records for illegal arrivals. This year has been the worst in history. This Labour government has lost control of our borders. They are weak and they have let Britain down.

    The Prime Minister’s latest gimmick is his one-in-one-out deal with France. Since that deal was announced, 11,000 illegal immigrants have come in, and about seven have gone out.  Even Rachel Reeves with her dubious CV can tell that doesn’t add up.

    And every single channel migrant is coming here illegally and is a paying customer of people smugglers. They are departing from France, a safe country. These journeys are unnecessary.

    And we have seen some terrible crimes committed by migrants who came on small boats and were accommodated in hotels at our expense.

    Let me tell you about Abdelrahmen Abouelela. He is a 42-year-old Egyptian illegal immigrant who came here by small boat. He was accommodated in a Hilton Hotel in Ealing – at our expense. He then proceeded to brutally rape a young woman, who was walking home at night in Hyde Park. She was alone and she was vulnerable. It now turns out that Abdelrahmen is also has convictions in Egypt as an Islamist terrorist. In another case, a fourteen-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a channel immigrant – who later said in his culture that was acceptable behaviour.

    This is sick. We must do whatever it takes to end this madness.

    It is now clear to this new leadership that our international obligations have been stopping us from acting effectively. We experienced this in government and the decision to leave the ECHR was reached partly as a result of that.

    And now Lord Wolfson has clearly advised, and I quote, that “ECHR membership places significant practical limits on the UK’s ability to maintain control of its borders.” And that is why must come out.  Because this party is determined to control our borders.

    And to those who say this will make us an international pariah where rights are casually disregarded, look at Australia or Canada.  They aren’t in the ECHR. And the UK is the land of the original Bill of Rights, the body common law, the writ Habeus Corpus and protections in law that Parliament has passed. Our rights in this country long predate the ECHR.

    And to those who say we must stay in the ECHR to set an example to others, I ask this: does our membership of the ECHR really make the slightest difference to way that Russia or China behaves? No, of course, not

    The ECHR started as a noble endeavour. But it has become twisted by Judges expanding the meaning of well-intentioned but vaguely worded clauses. Shocking examples of this abound.

    Like a paedophile not returned to Zimbabwe in case he faces hostility there – without a single thought for the rights of children here to be protected.

    Or a drug dealer not returned to Iraq because he’s too westernised.

    Or a violent murderer not returned to Uganda because mental health services there are apparently not as good as here. All ECHR cases.

    These criminals are all still in the UK. They’re still all posing a risk to our citizens. All thanks to the ECHR.

    So, this madness must end.

    But as Lord Wolfson very wisely said, leaving the ECHR alone is not enough. We need a full plan, a complete plan to fix Labours’ borders crisis – which leaving the ECHR enables.

    And let me be clear about this. The Reform Party has not bothered to develop such a plan. They trumpet slogans dreamt up in a pub and written on the back of a fag packet. But they have not done the detailed work needed to make real change happen.

    Well, this party has done the work. It’s called the BORDERS Plan, and we published today.

    Enabled by ECHR exit, we will ban all asylum and other claims by illegal immigrants. And this will mean all those arriving illegally – including by small boat – will be immediately deported back to their country of origin if possible or to a third country like Rwanda if not within a week of arrival.

    And the deterrent effect of that will mean people will rapidly stop bothering to attempt the crossing in the first place. Why would you attempt the crossing in the first place? Why would you attempt the crossing if you are going to be immediately removed?

    It worked in Australia 12 years ago.  It is working in the United States of America this year. And it will work here too.

    And we will also deport all foreign criminals. Not some, all. There are currently about 20,000 serious foreign criminals roaming our streets who should have been deported already.  They have gone on to commit between them a further 10,000 offences, including murder and rape.

    It still shocks me that Keir Starmer and Shabana Mahmood signed a letter opposing deporting dangerous foreign criminals to Jamaica – one of whom later went on to commit murder here after he should have been deported.

    Well, we won’t be signing letters like that. Instead, we will deport all those who pose a danger to the public. And that means every single foreign criminal.

    And we will also end the legal quagmire. With endless appeals and judicial reviews. Made up and contradictory claims being heard.

    Lawyers running up huge legal aid bills. I hope there are none of them here.

    One man claimed asylum, you won’t believe this, one man claimed asylum saying he was Iraqi. When that claim was rejected, he said, he suddenly remembered that in fact he was Iranian, and the whole process started again.

    And there was the notorious case of Yacub Ahmed, a Somali man who gang raped a 16-year-old girl.

    After his sentence in prison had finished, it took eight years, eight years to deport Ahmed, because he made repeated asylum, human rights, and modern slavery claims.

    Many migrants make claims on the eve of deportation to stay here, usually very shortly after they meet a taxpayer-funded lawyer who tells them what they need to say.  

    Judges accept all kinds of nonsensical arguments. Just last week, eight Afghans who can’t speak a word of English were allowed into the UK from Turkey – a safe country – on tenuous human rights grounds. Some Immigration Tribunal Judges even used to be open borders campaigners.

    You literally couldn’t make this up.

    So, we will abolish the Immigration Tribunal entirely, with decisions will be taken inside the Home Office.

    There won’t be any immigration judicial review, except on the narrow grounds of statutory power.

    And we will completely end the immigration legal aid gravy train by abolishing it.

    People don’t need lawyers to make their claims, they just need to tell the truth, and their claim will be fairly decided.

    We will compel countries to take back their own nationals. If a country won’t take back their own citizens where they commit a crime or have no right to be here, we will simply stop issuing entry visas to nationals of those countries to come here. We will use visa sanctions and withdraw overseas aid to countries who don’t take back their own nationals. We always take back ours and they should do the same.

    We will also create a new Removals Force in the Home Office – doubling the current budget of the current enforcement team to £1.6 billion.

    And by stripping away the legal obstacles, that I have described, and doubling that budget means we can remove 150,000 people a year that no legal right to be here. That is three-quarters of a million over the course of the next Parliament. This illegal immigration scandal will end.

    So, Conference, we have a plan. Leave the ECHR. Deport all illegal immigrants immediately upon arrival and all foreign criminals.  A new Force to remove 150,000 people year with no right to be here. Abolish the Immigration Tribunal. End Judicial Review and legal aid in immigration cases. And make sure countries take back their own citizens just as we do.

    Now, we have thought deeply about this. Our plan is radical, yes, not because we are ideologues but because this plan has to be radical in order to work. The old ways have been tried, and they have failed. That’s why a new approach is needed.

    Now, we have taken our time over this, and some people have criticised us for that.  But we are now the only party, the only party to have a plan which is not only radical but will actually work in practice.

    So, now, the Conservative party is back.

    Back with the resolve to do what is needed to protect our country’s borders.

    Back with determination to ensure the laws passed by our parliament are actually implemented

    And back with a plan to end illegal immigration.

  • Chris Philp – 2025 Speech on Asylum Seekers, Borders and Migration

    Chris Philp – 2025 Speech on Asylum Seekers, Borders and Migration

    The speech made by Chris Philip, the Conservative MP for Croydon South, in the House of Commons on 1 September 2025.

    I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The Government have now been in office for well over a year, and I think it is fair to say that not even their kindest friends would say they think it has gone well, but listening to her statement, it sounds like she thinks everything is fine and that if there are any problems, it is somehow somebody else’s fault. Is she living in a parallel universe? After over a year in office, she must now take responsibility for what is happening under this Government.

    It was interesting to note that, during her statement, she did not mention her favourite phrase from a year or so ago—namely, that she was going to “smash the gangs.” I wonder why she was so silent on her previously favourite catchphrase. The answer is that it is not going very well. She mentioned National Crime Agency disruptions. Let me gently point out that 84% of those National Crime Agency disruptions that she cited a few minutes ago are classified as not being high impact, and National Crime Agency arrests for organised immigration crime actually went down by 16% in the last financial year. That is hardly smashing the gangs. In fact, the NCA’s arrests for organised immigration crime in that financial year were only 26—a drop in the ocean compared with the tens of thousands crossing the channel.

    It was also rather conspicuous that the Home Secretary did not mention even a word about the numbers illegally crossing the English channel. I wonder why that was. I wonder why she forgot to say a single word about that. The reason, I am afraid, is pretty clear. Far from smashing the gangs, so far this year, 29,000—to be precise, 29,003—illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. That is the worst year in history, and it is up by 38% compared with last year. That is not success; it is failure. Things are not getting any better; they are getting worse. This Government are failing and everyone can see it. That is why there are protests up and down the country, and where those protests are peaceful, I support them. That is why 75% of the public think the Government are handling immigration and asylum badly. That is a shocking figure; let it sink in.

    Let me turn to hotels. In the nine months before the last general election, 200 hotels were closed down, including the Bell hotel in Epping, but since the election the numbers in asylum hotels have actually gone up by 8%. Had that previous trend of closures continued, there would be no asylum hotels open at all today. I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that she will not reduce hotel usage simply by shunting asylum seekers from hotels into flats and houses in multiple occupation, which are desperately needed by young people. Will she give the House that categoric assurance?

    Last week the Home Secretary’s lawyers said that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of local people in places such as Epping. When this was expressly put in those terms to the Education Secretary yesterday on “Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips”, she shamefully agreed. Those statements are a disgrace. Does the Home Secretary realise how angry that makes people feel? It speaks of a Government not on the side of the people in this country. It means the Government appear to care more about the rights of illegal immigrants than our own citizens. Will she apologise for what her lawyers and the Education Secretary said, and will she undertake to ensure that Ministers and their lawyers will never say that again?

    The Home Secretary talks about her returns deal with France. It has been reported that the deal will return only about 50 people a week, amounting to 6% of arrivals. Does she accept that allowing 94% of illegal arrivals to stay will act as no deterrent at all? If she does not accept that figure of 50 a week, will she tell the House exactly how many immigrants crossing the channel will in fact be returned under her deal? She may recall that back in July we were told by the Government that the first returns would happen “within weeks”. Will she confirm to the House that the number that has actually been returned so far is precisely zero?

    The Home Secretary said to the House a couple of minutes ago that there would be security checks on those people reciprocally taken from France into the UK, but will she confirm that her agreement with France says expressly that the French Government will not provide the UK Government with any information at all—any personal data about those migrants—so if there are criminal convictions or suspicions about extremism or terrorism, the French Government will not provide information to us? If that is true, as her agreement says, how can she possibly conduct security checks?

    The Home Secretary talked about tweaks to family visa rules. Let me be clear about the Opposition’s position on this. If someone enters this country illegally, they should not be allowed to bring in any family members. In fact, everybody entering this country illegally should be immediately removed, to their country of origin if possible, and if that is not possible, to a safe third country such as Rwanda—a scheme which she cancelled just days before it was due to start. The public expect that approach—an approach which she cancelled—because the numbers crossing the channel so far this year have been the worst ever; the worst in history.

    It is not just that the numbers are high. Hundreds of migrants, having crossed the channel and living in those hotels, have been charged with criminal offences, including sexual assaults on girls as young as eight years old and multiple rapes. This is not just a border security crisis; it is a public safety crisis as well, and people up and down this country are furious. That is why they are protesting, and that is why 75% of the public think this Government are failing on asylum and immigration.

    If this Government were serious about fixing this problem, they would know that little tweaks here and there are not enough. Tweaks to article 8 are not going to be enough. Tweaking the family reunion rules is not enough. Returning maybe 50 people a week, if we are lucky, to France is not going to be enough. Intercepting maybe a few boats—worthy though that is—is not going to be enough. The only way these crossings will stop—the only way we are going to get back control of our borders—is if everybody crossing the channel knows that they will be returned. We tabled a Bill in Parliament a few weeks ago to do that. We had a plan to do that: the Rwanda Bill. We need to go further by disapplying to immigration matters the entire Human Rights Act 1998, not just tinkering with article 8. If the Government were serious, that is what they would do.

    If the Home Secretary really wants to control our borders, and if she really wants to get down the record numbers that have been crossing on her watch, she would back our plan, disapply the Human Rights Act in its entirety to immigration matters, and ensure that every single person crossing the channel is immediately removed.

    Yvette Cooper

    I worry about the shadow Home Secretary’s amnesia. In the 14 years that the Conservatives were in government, they never managed to do any of the fantasy things that he claims they did. Let us come back to reality from his fantasy rhetoric.

    The shadow Home Secretary talked about the approach that his Government were taking before the election. It is worth reminding the House of what that approach was. Asylum decisions dropped by 70%. The Conservatives effectively had a freeze on taking asylum decisions, and they were returning those asylum seekers nowhere—not to France, not to the safe countries that people had passed through, and not to Rwanda, despite running that scheme for over two years with only four volunteers going at a cost of £700 million. Their approach left us with a soaring backlog. Had we continued with that totally failed approach—not taking asylum decisions, not returning people anywhere—there would have been tens of thousands more people in asylum accommodation and hotels across the country right now. That is the kind of chaos that his policies were heading towards. It is the kind of chaos that he is promising again now.

    The House will remember the shadow Home Secretary’s personal record. Small boat arrivals went up tenfold on his watch as immigration Minister. Fewer than 1,000 asylum seekers were in hotels by the time he became immigration Minister, but there were more than 20,000 by the time he left his post. On his new concern for local councils, he was the immigration Minister who wrote to local authorities to tell them that he was stopping the requirement on them to agree to accommodation and that he had

    “instead, authorised Providers to identify any suitable properties that they consider appropriate.”

    We agree with communities across the country that asylum hotels must all close, and I understand why individual councils want to take action in their areas, but I say to the shadow Home Secretary that a party that wants to be in government should have a proper plan for the whole country, and not just promote a chaotic approach that ends up making things worse in lots of areas. That is the Conservatives’ record. We have asylum hotels in the first place because the Conservatives did no planning and let the Manston chaos get out of control. As immigration Ministers, both the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the shadow Home Secretary rushed around the country opening hotels instead of taking a practical, steady approach to get to the heart of the problem, reduce the asylum system, strengthen our border security and tackle and reform the appeals that are causing huge delays.

    Let me make a final point. The Government strongly believe that sex offenders should be banned from the asylum system altogether. That is why we have put those details into the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which the shadow Home Secretary’s party has voted against time and again and is still resisting in the House of Lords. If Opposition parties supported and worked with us, that law could be on the statute book and we could have stronger powers against sex offenders, stronger counter-terrorism powers to go after criminal gangs, and stronger powers to tackle the offences being committed in the channel and across the country.

    The trouble is that what the Conservatives are doing in opposition is an even worse version of what they did in government: ramping up the rhetoric with policies that would make the chaos worse. This Government will fix the chaos that we inherited and strengthen our border security for the sake of the whole country.

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Speech on Police Stations

    Chris Philp – 2023 Speech on Police Stations

    The speech made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, in the House of Commons on 10 July 2023.

    Let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on securing this important debate and for speaking with such passion and eloquence on this topic. I agree with her sentiments about how important police stations are for our constituencies and our local communities. I say that having visited Chorley police station just a few days ago, Mr Speaker.

    As my right hon. Friend said, police stations in our local communities are close to the people they serve. They help officers stay in touch with the local community and connected to it. Their ears and eyes are on the ground picking up information, and they can serve local residents. They are also visible and reassure the public that the police are close to where crimes may be committed. It shows that police are available and accessible, and they can often respond to crimes a lot more quickly if they are deploying from a police station close to the local community, rather than one miles and miles away. My right hon. Friend set out a whole number of reasons why police stations as a physical location are so important.

    In relation to police stations in London, I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that Mayor Sadiq Khan should look again at the closure plan he set out in 2017—I think it was for a total of 37 police stations—and reverse it. Some of those closures have happened already; others have not. He demonstrated with his rather opportunistic and cynical U-turn on Uxbridge just a few days ago that he could look at this issue again, and he should. We should keep in mind that decisions on opening and closing police stations are for police and crime commissioners—in London, that is Sadiq Khan—not for the Government. I join my right hon. Friend in calling on the Mayor to reconsider and reverse the swingeing cuts that he announced back in 2017.

    It is worth reminding ourselves as we make that call that plenty of resources are available. The Metropolitan police have the highest funding per capita of any police force in the country by some margin, and that is excluding the national and international capital city grant and the counter-terrorism money they receive. On a straightforward territorial policing basis, the Met gets more per capita than any other police force. It receives some £3.3 billion a year. That figure went up by £102 million this compared to last year.

    It is also worth reminding ourselves that the whole policing system across the country gets £17.2 billion a year, and the part of that spent by police and crime commissioners on local policing—the vast majority of it—went up by £550 million this year compared to last year. So the resources are there, and we expect police and crime commissioners to use them wisely—unlike Mayor Sadiq Khan, who is not doing so.

    This might be a good moment to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who is in the Chamber this evening. His tireless campaign has saved his local police station in Tipton from the planned cuts. I am sure the whole House will want to congratulate him on his successful campaign to overturn a decision originally announced by the police and crime commissioner in the west midlands.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet made excellent points about why police stations are so important and why the Met’s decision should be reversed, one of which was about the extra police officers that we have recruited across England and Wales. Across the jurisdiction as a whole, we now have record police numbers—149,572 to be precise, which is 3,500 more than at any other time in the history of policing. The Metropolitan police also have record numbers—about 35,000 more than ever before—and, as she said, they need to be accommodated somewhere.

    It is worth mentioning that the Metropolitan police could have had even more officers—an extra 1,000 officers —if Mayor Sadiq Khan had used all the money that was available. It is a great shame and a great disappointment to me as a London MP, as I am sure it is to colleagues, that he failed to do so. I therefore completely endorse the points my right hon. Friend made about police stations in our community.

    There are some things that can be done to try to mitigate Sadiq Khan’s terrible police station closure plans. In my constituency of Croydon South, we have a fire station in Purley—there is no police station in my constituency—and following some work between the local police and the London Fire Brigade, we have managed to move local patrolling neighbourhood officers into the fire station. They now patrol from the fire station around the neighbouring area, which helps a little towards faster response times. It is also more convenient for officers, and they can share information with the firefighters based there. That is helpful, but it is not as good as having a police station.

    Given the lateness of the hour, I will conclude. I thank my right hon. Friend again for her tireless campaign to save Barnet police station. The Mayor of London has record levels of funding; I only wish that he would use that funding a little more wisely and reverse his shocking closure plans.

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on Policing the Coronation Protests

    Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on Policing the Coronation Protests

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, in the House of Commons on 9 May 2023.

    The coronation was a once-in-a-generation moment, a moment of national pride and a moment when the eyes of the world were upon us. It was a ceremony with roots over a millennium old, marking a renewed dedication to service by His Majesty the King in this new reign. The coronation went smoothly and without disruption. I thank the 11,500 police officers who were on duty alongside 6,500 military personnel and many civilians.

    Today, Commissioner Mark Rowley has outlined the intelligence picture in the hours leading up to the coronation. It included more than one plot to cause severe disruption by placing activated rape alarms in the path of horses to induce a stampede and a separate plot to douse participants in the procession with paint. That was the context: a once in a generation national moment facing specific intelligence threats about multiple, well-organised plots to disrupt it. The focus of the police was, rightly, on ensuring that the momentous occasion passed safely and without major disruption. That was successful. All plots to disrupt the coronation were foiled by a combination of intelligence work and proactive vigilant policing on the ground. I would like to thank the police and congratulate them on that success.

    At the same time, extensive—[Interruption.] Wait for it. At the same time, extensive planning ensured that protests could take place. That was also successful. Hundreds of protesters exercised their right to peaceful protest, including a large group numbering in the hundreds in and around Trafalgar Square. Where the police reasonably believed they had grounds for arrest, they acted. The latest information is that 64 arrests were made. I will not comment on individual cases or specific decisions, but the arrests included a person wanted for sexual offences, people equipped to commit criminal damage with large quantities of paint, and arrests on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, often backed by intelligence. The Met’s update last night included regret—to use its word—that six people arrested could not join the hundreds protesting in Trafalgar Square and nearby. The Met confirmed that those six people have now had their bail cancelled with no further action.

    The police are operationally independent and it is primarily for the Mayor of London to hold the Met to account, but let us be clear: at the weekend officers had to make difficult judgments in fast time, in a highly pressured situation against a threatening intelligence picture. I thank the police for doing that, for delivering a successful a coronation and for enabling safe, peaceful protests.

  • 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.

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on the Coronation and Extended Licensing Hours

    Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on the Coronation and Extended Licensing Hours

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    The Government have consulted on, and will be proceeding with, the proposal to make a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 to relax licensing hours in England and Wales to mark His Majesty the King’s coronation. The order is intended to enable people in England and Wales properly to celebrate the constitutional, historic, and momentous significance of the coronation of the King and the beginning of his reign.

    The order will apply to premises already licensed until 11 pm for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, for the provision of late-night refreshment—only where there is also the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and for the provision of regulated entertainment in England and Wales. The order will extend the licensing hours for such premises from 11 pm to 1 am the following day, on Friday 5 May, Saturday 6 May and Sunday 7 May.

    An economic assessment is being prepared and will be published alongside the order on www.gov.uk.

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on Alcohol Licensing

    Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on Alcohol Licensing

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    The Government are today launching a consultation on alcohol licensing regulatory easements. Our objective is to support businesses as they deal with ongoing economic and financial challenges and the effects of the pandemic, cutting red tape while making sure that local authorities can recover their costs without an additional burden on central Government finances.

    The Licensing Act 2003 allows premises licence holders to sell alcohol for consumption on site, off site or both. The holder of an on-sales licence can apply to their licensing authority for a variation if they wish to add off-sales to their licence. Provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 enabled on-sales premises licence holders to automatically also do off-sales, without any need to amend their licence.

    The Licensing Act 2003 also allows licensable activities to be carried out on a one-off basis without the need for a premises licence or any other authorisation, by means of a temporary event notice. Provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 temporarily increased the annual number of temporary event notices that a licensed premise user can have in respect of a premises from 15 to 20.

    We are consulting to understand whether there is support for making the regulatory easements permanent, in some form, or whether to return to the provisions in the Licensing Act. We will at the same time carry out a survey of local authorities so that we can better understand their actual costs for processing and enforcing licensing legislation.

    The consultation will run for eight weeks and the Government will publish their response in early summer 2023. We intend to make any changes related to the consultation as soon as parliamentary time allows thereafter. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on Actions to Improve Police Standards and Culture

    Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on Actions to Improve Police Standards and Culture

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, in the House of Commons on 1 March 2023.

    Recent reports from His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services (HMICFRS) and significant high-profile incidents of police criminality and misconduct, such as the horrific crimes of David Carrick, have rightly raised concerns regarding police standards and culture.

    In January, the Home Secretary announced a series of actions being undertaken by the Home Office and the police to ensure that police vetting is fit for purpose, that officers who fall short of the standards expected of them are identified and dealt with appropriately, and that concerns around policing cultures are being addressed to rebuild public confidence.

    On Monday 27 February I convened a roundtable with senior leaders from across the policing sector to review progress on these commitments and to ensure that activity is being co-ordinated to drive up police standards and improve culture.

    In relation to police vetting, the Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s inspectorate of fire and rescue services to undertake a rapid review of progress being made against the 43 recommendations in their 2 November 2022 assessment of police vetting and counter-corruption capability. The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) are co-ordinating the forces’ responses to the inspectorate’s report and, at the roundtable, reported significant progress in implementing a suite of changes to ensure that police vetting is more robust and consistent. HMICFRS will publish its rapid review in April.

    In addition, the Home Secretary asked the College of Policing to refresh its statutory vetting code of practice to strengthen legal obligations on Chief Officers and provide clarity to forces across England and Wales. The college has published the revised statutory code yesterday for a three-week public consultation (available on the College of Policing’s website). Following consideration of that feedback and Home Secretary approval, the revised code will be in force by the summer. I also welcome the work being undertaken by the College of Policing to overhaul the police code of ethics which is expected to be published for public consultation next month.

    Across police forces, significant activity is underway to identify individuals who fall short of the high standards the public expect of them and to deal with those individuals appropriately. This includes the work being co-ordinated by the NPCC, under the leadership of Chief Constable Serena Kennedy, to check all police officers and staff against the police national database (PND) to ensure that no actionable intelligence in relation to potential police misconduct or criminality has been missed.

    As of this date, all force HR records have been prepared for the data wash which will conclude by the end of March, cross-checking over 326,000 officers and staff against relevant PND records. Forces will then interrogate this data and take action to investigate where necessary.

    Where officers are found to have potentially breached standards of professional behaviour, it is of vital importance that those who are not fit to serve the public are swiftly dismissed. On 18 January, the Home Office launched a review of the effectiveness of the police dismissal process to determine how improvements can be made. The call for evidence has now ended and the Home Office have received submissions from a wide range of stakeholders. These will now be analysed, with the output from a new data collection, to inform proposals for change. This work will be complete by the end of April and the Government are committed to implementing reforms, including via legislation, as soon as practicable thereafter.

    Alongside this, it is essential for public confidence in policing that we have an effective independent process for investigating the most serious complaints about the police. That is why I am announcing today the start of an independent review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) led by Dr. Gillian Fairfield (Chair of the Disclosure and Barring Service), whom the Home Secretary has charged with considering the IOPC’s effectiveness, efficiency, governance and accountability. The review’s remit is tightly defined to avoid infringing upon or impacting ongoing investigations, which are rightly independent from Government, the police and complainants. A summary of the review’s terms of reference will be published on gov.uk and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Dr Fairfield has been asked to submit her final report and recommendations for internal review in autumn 2023. I shall inform the House of the outcome of the review at its conclusion and a summary of its key findings will subsequently be published.

    As well as driving up standards in police vetting and dealing with misconduct, the Home Secretary has been clear that policing needs to address the root causes of poor, and in some cases toxic, cultures. This will be a key focus of part 2 of the independent Angiolini inquiry that was established in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard to understand how a serving police officer was able to carry out such a horrendous crime. Part 2, which will look at broader issues for policing, will start later this spring, following a public consultation on the terms of reference that ended last week. The Inquiry will also look at the appalling case of David Carrick, in terms of reference published on 7 February 2023.

    The Government and our policing partners are determined to deliver on these commitments to help rebuild confidence and trust in policing. This is what the public expect and the decent, hardworking majority of officers deserve. I will update the National Policing Board, chaired by the Home Secretary, on 8 March on progress and provide the House with updates in due course.

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on the National Police Response to the Hillsborough Families Report

    Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on the National Police Response to the Hillsborough Families Report

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know this is a subject with profound personal resonance for him. I pay tribute to him and many others for the work they have done and continue to do in memory of the victims of this awful tragedy and to ensure that the lessons are learnt.

    The Hillsborough disaster was an awful, devastating tragedy. Its impact continues to be felt to this day, especially by the families and friends of the victims. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with them. It is imperative that lessons are learned from the experiences the Hillsborough families have gone through, so I am very grateful to Bishop James Jones for the report he produced, which highlighted a number of points of learning for the Government, the police and other agencies.

    As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said during yesterday’s debate, the Government are fully committed to engaging with the Hillsborough families prior to the publication of the Government’s formal response. Since arriving in the Home Office two or three months ago, I have asked for this work to be sped up, and we are expecting it to come out in the course of this spring. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing published their response earlier this week. I welcome their commitment to avoid repeating the mistakes that were made, and I welcome the apology that they gave. They made it clear that strong ethical values and the need for humanity and humility in the police response to public tragedies are critical. One of the commitments they rightly made earlier this week was to substantially strengthen and update their own code of ethics in relation to these issues.

    Some important steps have been made by the Government in the past few years, which have addressed a number, but not all, of the points that Bishop James Jones published. For example, in 2020 a suite of police integrity reforms was introduced, on a statutory basis, via the professional standards for policing, which included, crucially, a duty to co-operate with inquiries. Other initiatives have already been taken forward to support bereaved families, including the removal of means-testing for exceptional case funding to cover legal support for families at an inquest, which broadens the scope and access for families; and the refreshing of our “Guide to Coroner Services for Bereaved People” so that it is more tailored to their needs and provides improved guidance for others involved in the inquest process. The Inquiries Act 2005 also provides a statutory process for funding legal representation requests. Last year, the Home Office also established an independent pathology review, and additional consultation with the families is now taking place. A consultation has also taken place on retaining police documents, which was the subject of a recommendation made by the bishop, and the Ministry of Justice has also consulted on establishing an independent public advocate.

    Those steps are important. They go a long way to improving the situation, but they do not cover everything that the bishop recommended, which is why we will be responding in full. We intend to do so in the spring, but after, of course, full and deep engagement with the families concerned.

    The Government are committed to making sure that these lessons are learned following this awful tragedy and I, as the newly appointed Police Minister, will do everything that I can to work with Members across the House, particularly those representing the affected communities, to make sure that this does now happen quickly.

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on the Late Night Levy Consultation

    Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on the Late Night Levy Consultation

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2023.

    The late night levy—the “levy”—is a discretionary power enabling licensing authorities in England and Wales to collect a financial contribution from premises that profit from the sale of alcohol late at night—between 12am and 6am.

    Section 142 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 introduced several changes to the late night levy, which are yet to be commenced. Once in force, these changes will give licensing authorities the power to charge late night refreshment (LNR) premises the levy to assist with the cost of policing the NTE, give PCCs the right to request that a licensing authority formally propose a levy and require licensing authorities to publish information about how the revenue raised from the levy is spent.

    LNR premises will only be charged the late night levy in areas where licensing authorities decide that they place demands on police resources in the NTE. In each area, licensing authorities will have the option of charging only premises licensed to sell alcohol, or to premises licensed to sell alcohol and premises licensed to sell late night refreshment. The consultation asks whether LNR premises should be charged the same rate as other venues included in a levy, or whether they should receive a 30% discount.

    The Government recognise that businesses operating in the night time economy have faced particularly challenging times over the course of the pandemic. However, we believe the time is right to finally commence the changes made to the levy in 2017 which have been considerably delayed. The requirements for a local authority to consult widely before taking a final decision on the introduction of the levy locally provides sufficient safeguards to protect businesses and use the power effectively.

    The consultation is aimed at late night refreshment providers, local licensing authorities, the police, licensed premises, members of the public and other interested parties in England and Wales, where these proposals apply. The consultation being launched today will run for 12 weeks.

    A copy of this consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.