UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Suella Braverman

  • Suella Braverman – 2024 Speech on the Economy, Welfare and Public Services

    Suella Braverman – 2024 Speech on the Economy, Welfare and Public Services

    The speech made by Suella Braverman, the Conservative MP for Fareham and Waterlooville, in the House of Commons on 22 July 2024.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould) on a simply superb speech that follows the best traditions of the House. She has done her constituents proud, and I know that she brings huge expertise and commitment to this House. I wish her all the best.

    I put on record my thanks to the good people of Fareham and Waterlooville for sending me back to Parliament. We had a fantastically energetic—let me put it that way—and hard-fought campaign. I am honoured and humbled to have the privilege to speak on their behalf in this Chamber.

    One thing struck me in the King’s Speech—not the long list of policies that will no doubt damage our economy, or the vague promises that will not survive contact with reality. For me, the thing that was conspicuous by its absence was the total failure of the Labour Government to deal with child poverty and scrap the two-child benefit cap on welfare. [Interruption.] Yes, hon. Members heard that right. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)

    Order. Could we show respect and listen to the Member’s speech?

    Suella Braverman

    I detect a bit of surprise on the Government Benches. I have risen to speak on scrapping the cap. In the grand tapestry of British politics, where the warp and weft of policy and principle interlace, it is not often that a Conservative MP will find threads of agreement with friends across the aisle, but here we are, discussing a proposal backed by Labour MPs, led by the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and backed by the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and many Opposition parties. It is one with which I agree, because it speaks to my profound sense of justice and, dare I say, compassion. I will say why Conservatives can and should back scrapping the cap.

    Let us not rewrite history, because there has been a lot of nonsense from Labour Front Benchers about the situation that we inherited in 2010. To put it simply, we inherited no less than an economic catastrophe, and we worked hard to recover from that situation. The deficit stood at 10% in 2010; we got that down to 1.9%. Public sector net borrowing was at 10%; we got that down to 3%. We were in a deep recession, and we now have the fastest growing economy in the G7.

    We had to make incredibly difficult decisions back in 2010 to reduce our welfare bill, but it is clear to me that through those welfare reforms, spearheaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), we overhauled an overly complex, bureaucratic system, and helped millions of people get back into work. Four million more people are in work now than in 2010. The unemployment rate is down to 4.4%—almost half what it was in 2010. We can make changes to some of the decisions that we made back then.

    It is clear to me from my work with vulnerable families in Fareham that the cap is not working. It is pushing more children and families into relative poverty, causing them to use more food banks. There are three good reasons for scrapping the cap.

    Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)

    Will the right hon. and learned Lady tell the House who introduced the cap, why, and which way she voted when the measure went through this House?

    Suella Braverman

    I just set out that the parlous economic situation forced us to make impossible choices, but thanks to the improved economics and the improvements brought about by universal credit, I believe that it is time to put child poverty first and scrap the cap. There are three big reasons for Conservatives to support that. First, it is affordable. For about £1.7 billion—0.14% of total Government spending—we could quickly bring around 300,000 children out of poverty. In this improved situation, that is the fair and right thing to do. Secondly, the reason why it was introduced in the first place was to disincentivise poorer families from having more children, but that has not necessarily worked. The number of children born has remained relatively stable. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found, heartbreakingly, 43% of children in larger families are in poverty. The children hardest hit are those under four. It predominantly affects younger children, and those in large families. I believe that the cap is aggravating child poverty, and it is time for it to go.

    I know that there is the argument, “Don’t have children if you can’t afford them.” To me, that is not compassionate, fair or the right thing to say. As Conservatives, we should be proudly and loudly the party of family. We should encourage families on lower incomes to have more children. For those families on middle and higher incomes, we should change our tax regime so that they are incentivised to have children. We have better parental leave policies, better childcare provision policies and better maternity care. I am a Conservative because I believe in the strength and the sovereignty of the family unit. We should support it, not suppress it. This is not about right or left. This is about right or wrong. Let us come together, in a spirit of compassion and common sense, to scrap the cap and end child poverty for good.

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Speech to the Police Federation

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Speech to the Police Federation

    The speech made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, to the Police Federation on 11 October 2023.

    It is an honour to join you today.

    Let me start by saying there is no greater privilege as Home Secretary than working with the heroic men and women of our police.

    And it is always deeply sobering – and moving – to hear the roll call of officers who have fallen in the line of duty in the past year.

    Words cannot do justice to the debt we owe them, nor to how keenly we feel for their colleagues and loved ones.

    And as Steve mentioned, I have personally been incredibly moved by attending the National Police Memorial Day in Cardiff only a few weeks ago, and also hosting the nominees for the Police Bravery Awards in Downing Street in London earlier this year.

    Those heroes will be forever cherished.

    I support your campaign for a medal for heroes. There is a consensus across government that this needs to happen – and I hope we will be able to announce something very soon.

    It’s my job to enable you to do your jobs. That’s why my colleague the Policing Minister Chris Philp and I have taken the scissors to red tape. We listened when you said that you were spending too much time filling in forms.  And I’m pleased to be working with the NPCC on reforming the rules.

    By changing the rules around how crime is recorded, we could free up around 443,000 hours that could be put to better use.

    There was no need to record two crimes when dealing with stalking, harassment, and controlling or coercive behaviour.

    Nor to record Section 5 Public Order crimes when, on too many occasions, officers arrived only to find an empty street and no disorder.

    It was right for bureaucratic reasons – and in the cause of free speech – to ensure that a malicious communication crime will be recorded only if a criminal threshold has clearly been reached, and not just when someone claims to be offended.

    Now, I’m not fighting my campaign against political correctness in policing only for the sake of the law-abiding majority who want to see officers patrolling the streets, not policing pronouns on Twitter.

    I also know that that’s what the majority of you signed up for, too.

    Recruiting more than 20,000 additional officers and having a record number of officers in England and Wales is just the start.

    But you need clarity from political leaders and I could not be clearer: I believe in the Peelian Principles of policing, I believe in investigating every crime, and I believe in keeping the public safe by catching criminals.

    Anything that distracts from this is unwelcome – whether that’s enforcing non-existent blasphemy laws, unnecessarily recording a non-crime hate incident or joining in with political demonstrations.

    Now, I understand that you as officers must make difficult operational decisions. But the public expects more than just a crime number.

    They want to see the police taking visible action in communities and thoroughly investigating crime.

    I am therefore delighted that the police have agreed to follow all reasonable lines of enquiry for all crime types.

    And when I visited Greater Manchester Police, I saw how Chief Constable Steve Watson transformed that force by following that approach.

    So I expect to see significant improvements in the way police approach crimes like phone theft, car theft, shoplifting, and criminal damage – in order to solve more crimes and restore public confidence in local policing.

    Crime investigations should not be screened out solely on the basis that they are perceived as “minor” and all crimes merit investigation where there is a reasonable line of enquiry to follow up.

    I’m also pleased that the police have all committed to attending the scene of every domestic burglary.

    It’s a terrible crime which causes misery and fear for victims.

    Nor must we ignore the havoc wreaked by anti-social behaviour, and the government’s action plan takes the fight to perpetrators, including through the dispensation of immediate justice.

    And I was pleased to visit Essex police and Derbyshire police to see the rollout of some of the pilots.

    Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of keeping the public safe and making sure they feel safe too.

    We must never forget that the fear of crime inhibits people hugely and diminishes the ability of communities to flourish.

    So we need to continue to build trust between the police and the public. It is crucial that the police are accessible and accountable to communities.

    I am grateful to PCCs and Chief Constables throughout England and Wales for sharing with me their plans to improve confidence in local policing and police visibility, and I will digest all this and look forward to receiving the results of these plans next March.

    We also listened when you said that officers were having to spend too much time taking responsibility for people suffering mental health crises.

    Make no mistake, mental health care really matters. This is about getting the right professionals to undertake the right tasks.

    July saw the announcement of the new National Partnership Agreement, which will see a ‘Right Care, Right Person’ model rolled out throughout England – having been thoroughly achieved in Humberside.

    Humberside Police estimate that this system has saved them over 1,400 hours per month of police time, and similar results across the English forces could save around one million hours.

    The police will only be expected to attend mental health incidents if there is a real and immediate risk of serious harm or where there may be criminal activity.

    Because, the truth is anyone suffering a mental health crisis needs the right support in the most appropriate setting. That is not a police cell.

    Meanwhile, the Public Order Act has given the police greater powers and legal clarity for combatting disruptive protests, which have caused such chaos and eaten up so much police time and money.

    Now, I will always back tried and tested ways of driving down crime.

    We have trialled serious violence reduction orders, which allow the police to stop and search those with convictions for knife crime, to see if they are carrying a weapon.

    Earlier this year, I saw for myself how well this is working in Merseyside.

    And this government has made it easier than ever before for the police to make legitimate use of their stop and search powers.

    At the same time, we have made the use of such powers more transparent and accountable.

    And so, following a consultation earlier this year, the government will introduce a ban on certain types of large knives such as zombie-style knives and machetes. We will legislate when parliamentary time allows.

    And from a personal perspective, having met knife crime campaigners in several forces, for example in Hertfordshire, I have seen the impact that knife legislation can have on saving lives.

    Now technology is vital to enable you to achieve operational success.

    Whether it is in Kent, where they are pioneering the use of technology to support domestic abuse victims, or in South Wales police through the use of facial recognition technology.

    And I want to ensure that you have the best technology available.

    Taser is a valuable tool for the police, and I have received a request from police leaders to approve a new Taser device, the T10, for use in the UK.

    I want you to have the very best kit available, and so I hope to be able to approve the T10 after testing by scientists next year.

    My officials will also continue to review markets to identify any new suppliers and ensure the best technology and the best value for money.

    Now since March 2010, neighbourhood crime including burglary, robbery, and vehicle-related thefts are down by 51 per cent and violent crime down by 46 per cent.

    So we, collectively, are making real progress in tackling high-harm crimes, and I thank you for your work. But there are always tragic reminders that a life can be snatched away in an instant.

    So as part of the government’s commitment to tackle homicide, I will work with the police this winter to put particular focus on the prevention of homicides involving men aged over 25 killed in public.

    Because, too often we have heard about a group of friends on a night out over Christmas ending in tragedy, with an argument escalating into a one-punch homicide.

    We are investing in the police’s national communications campaign to raise awareness of the danger of this appalling phenomenon and in local police-led activity to make pubs, other licensed premises, and the night-time economy safer this winter.

    Now another atrocious crime is rape. Getting police officers with the right skills is critical in the effort to progress and effectively manage cases.

    Operation Soteria has highlighted the importance of specialist knowledge.

    The National Operating Model is now being implemented by all police forces in England and Wales. This innovative approach has brought about real change in the pioneering force, Avon and Somerset.

    It has given officers better tools to improve their decision-making processes, and I have heard first-hand from those supporting victims locally how Chief Constable Sarah Crew’s force is ensuring victims’ needs and rights are front and centre.

    2,000 police investigators will receive new specialist training in rape and sexual offences by next April. And it will be compulsory for all new recruits to undertake rape and sexual offences training.

    Rape is one of those crimes that make your job incredibly demanding emotionally and psychologically.

    It cannot be repeated often enough that you do a job that makes unique – and enormous – demands upon you, and I am determined that government does all it can to support you.

    The Police Covenant is this country’s promise to you and to your families that we will do right by you. Its creation was a vital step, but it is only a starting point. Supporting police officers is an ongoing project that requires constant vigilance, and I promise that I will always listen to you very carefully.

    We are grateful to the Federation for your support of the National Policing Board, championing police welfare and other frontline issues.

    Police Treatment Centres play a vital role in providing essential help to those of you who suffer physical or mental injury as a result of your service.

    The Federation has raised concerns with the way Police Treatment Centres are being funded, and we have asked the National Police Wellbeing Service to conduct a review of the PTCs, to understand the demand on this service and how to best support and utilise it.

    It is perfectly understandable that you are worried about levels of fatigue in policing and its effect on your wellbeing.

    Long, irregular, and uncertain hours doing an exceptionally demanding job are inevitably challenging – but that doesn’t mean we should just accept that it will take a terrible toll.

    Police officers are so admirable precisely because you are human beings and not robots.

    I am interested in the Phase 2 of the fatigue project, led by the National Police Wellbeing Service in partnership with Liverpool John Moores University.

    It will be incredibly helpful to see the results, with 10 to 12 forces due to take part.

    I am very grateful to the volunteers – officers from a number of ‘high-fatigue’ front line roles, such as investigators, response, and firearm teams.

    The government is funding this project as part of the Police Covenant. It uses the latest biometric technology anonymously to capture fatigue levels and deliver an expert-led, 120-day programme to support officers with fatigue recovery.

    It is a unique research project, not just in UK policing, but in the world, and we are already seeing significant improvements in those involved in the study, with improved sleep, reduced fatigue, and better recovery.

    Likewise, as part of our Police Covenant, next month will see the launch of the first national family support package through Oscar Kilo, the National Police Wellbeing Service.

    It includes a range of advice and practical tips for family health, nutrition, and sleep – as well as a book that helps to explain to children what policing is all about.

    I am very grateful to the Police Federation for your input into this work.

    The demands placed on police officers are unique. That’s why the support for you must be bespoke.

    Mental health matters just as much as physical health.

    Indeed, mental ill health can, tragically, claim lives – as some of you know all too well.

    And I am very pleased to be able to announce that we will provide additional funding to set up a 24/7 Mental Health Crisis Support Line for current and former members of the police workforce.

    There are employee assistance programmes in a number of forces, with telephone counselling available, but there is no national 24 hour, 7 day a week suicide prevention line. That needs to change.

    Fire and Ambulance have recently established their own 24/7 crisis lines. The police need and deserve no less.

    So as I said at the Conservative Party Conference earlier this month, I want to ensure that when police are called upon to use force or conduct pursuits in the line of duty, officers are able to use their powers with legal certainty and clarity.

    That is why I have announced a review, to report to me by the end of the year, to ensure that the legal and operational frameworks in which they operate are robust and command the confidence of officers and the public.

    I want you to know that I have heard your concerns that you are not being treated fairly, and that processes overlap and take too long.

    Steve, you mentioned pay.

    I was very pleased that we were able to give police officers a 7 per cent pay rise.

    We are in a tough economic climate but prioritising a rise for some of the most selfless, outstanding professionals among us was absolutely right.

    Decent police officers suffer hugely when a minority fall short of the standards required, and in recent years, some have fallen spectacularly short.

    The culture in policing does need significantly to improve. That is one of the areas of focus of Part 2 of the Angiolini Inquiry. The National Centre for Police Leadership, being developed by the College of Policing, is another big step forward.

    Now, I know that every responsible police officer accepts that they must be held accountable for their actions.

    It was right to take action to make it easier for chief constables to remove officers who are not up to the job, right for the public and right for the majority of officers who do the job bravely and well – and who need to able to rely on their colleagues.

    Nor does our duty to you end when you leave the force. The last thing I want is for you to be left adrift.

    In order to help you transition out of policing when the time is right for you and your family, the College of Policing has developed a leavers toolkit, to be launched later this year.

    It will provide practical support such as training and guidance on CV writing and interview skills.

    That said, your chiefs have the option to bring back officers after you have retired, under the NPCC Retire and rejoin guidance.

    Leveraging talent and expertise back into our police force is highly desirable. I encourage all chiefs to think carefully about the balance of their workforce and make sure they are making use of this option to retain the experience and skills the force needs.

    You have chosen a job that is never easy. But it is also immensely worthwhile. Indeed, it is essential – the consequences of not having a world-class police force are too terrible to contemplate.

    And so my final message is a simple one: thank you so much for everything that you do.

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in Manchester on 3 October 2023.

    Let me start ladies and gentlemen by thanking a few people. First of all my brilliant ministerial team. They’re here. Chris Philp, Robert Jenrick, Tom Tugendhat, Sarah Dines, Simon Murray, Andrew Sharpe, and also my Parliamentary team, James Sunderland, Shaun Bailey, Kieran Mullan, Scott Mann and Byron Davies. Thank you for your fantastic work.

    I’d also like to thank all the Home Office civil servants who work flat out to keep this country safe.

    And of course, the Greater Manchester Police and all the officers from around the country who are doing their duty here.

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed but as Home Secretary, I do occasionally receive a modicum of criticism.

    Sometimes I’m asked if I ever read what my critics say about me.

    Well, the answer is: yes, I do.

    I’m made of strong stuff, so I’m prepared to wade through the personal abuse, the wild invective, and the wilful misrepresentation.

    Because I believe that all of us should strive for improvement.

    And if we close our ears to anyone who disagrees with us…we are less likely to identify our mistakes.

    One of the reasons why the Conservative Party has survived and thrived for so long…it is because we are not afraid to admit when we get it wrong…and adapt accordingly.

    We listen, we learn, and we renew ourselves.

    And that’s what we are doing this week in Manchester.

    We are raising our game.

    Because next year, this country will face a clear choice at the general election.

    Who do people trust to deliver the change that Britain needs?

    There are huge challenges ahead.

    The world is being transformed by powerful forces.

    I think the British people see that.

    Perhaps more clearly than some of those in Westminster who live in a bubble of complacency.

    I also think most British people have a pretty good sense of how they expect their government to respond to those challenges.

    And I’m confident that when push comes to shove the voters will realise that they are much more likely to get the change they really want from Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives…..Than from any of the left-wing parties.

    And the reason is simple…And I’ll explain it with an example from my responsibilities as Home Secretary.

    Now one of the most powerful forces reshaping our world is unprecedented mass migration.

    The wind of change that carried my own parents across the globe in the 20th century was a mere gust compared to the hurricane that is coming.

    Because today, the option of moving from a poorer country to a richer one is not just a dream for billions of people.

    It’s an entirely realistic prospect.

    Every human, every single person, has the right to aspire to a better life.

    As Conservatives, that is one of the cornerstones of our philosophy.

    And, indeed, without that dream, I wouldn’t be standing before you today.

    But Conservatives are also practical and realistic.

    Nobody can deny that there are far, far more people in poorer countries who would love to move to Britain than could ever be accommodated…

    Even if we concreted over the countryside….

    Turned our cities into one vast building site…

    And erected skyscrapers from Eastbourne to Elgin and from Hull to Holyhead…

    …It still wouldn’t be enough.

    Demand will always outstrip supply.

    I know it.

    You know it.

    And the voters know it.

    This country has been generous in taking in refugees from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, and Hong Kong.

    The decency of the British people cannot be questioned.

    But they also care deeply about overall numbers.

    In poll after poll, the British public have been clear: immigration is already too high.

    And they know another thing. That the future could bring millions more migrants to these shores…

    …uncontrolled and unmanageable, unless the government they elect next year acts decisively to stop that happening.

    We are the only Party that will take effective action.

    I can’t pretend that politicians have done a great job of managing immigration for the last thirty years.

    We were too slow to recognise the scale of the problem.

    Too unwilling to accept that our legal framework needed to be updated.

    And, let’s be honest, far too squeamish about being smeared as racist to properly bring order to the chaos.

    But under Rishi Sunak’s leadership things are changing.

    We are raising our game.

    For years, too many overseas students were bringing their dependents here to the UK.

    So we’ve changed the rules to ensure that a student visa is not a route for whole families to come and live and work in the UK.

    When I stood before you at Conference last year, we were dealing with a surge of Albanian illegal migrants coming on small boats. Over 12,000 in 2022 alone.

    Fast forward a year, and thanks to the returns deal with Albania that we put in place, and changes that we made to our rules, those numbers are now down by 90%.

    Indeed, against a backdrop of increasing illegal migration into Europe, small boat crossings to the UK are down by 20% compared to last year.

    And Conference we will soon begin closing down asylum hotels.

    That is not nearly enough. I accept that. But it is a start.

    And it’s a hell of a lot more than Labour would do.

    I said at Conference last year that we had to change our laws. And we did.

    Our Illegal Migration Act which will come into force in the coming months, now means that the only route to asylum in the UK is a legal route.

    The Act means that those arriving illegally, will be detained and removed, back to their home country if possible, or to a safe third country like Rwanda.

    All of this is ultimately a question of political will.

    And be under no illusion, we will do whatever it takes to stop the boats and deter bogus asylum seekers.

    We will also ensure that legal migration comes down to reasonable levels… and that it occurs only when there is a clear benefit to the British people.

    That’s our pledge. That’s our plan.

    And I believe the public will back it.

    Because everybody knows what Labour will do on migration.

    Labour will do what Labour always does: Open our borders.

    At heart, Labour doesn’t believe that we have the right to keep people out.

    Sure, they may mouth a bit of occasional rhetoric about controlling our borders… but that’s not what the Labour Party has ever done in government.

    And it’s not just negligence or incompetence… although you can be guaranteed of plenty of that if Labour wins.

    It’s actually deliberate.

    The biggest reason why Conservative governments have struggled to get illegal migration under control is because Labour governments passed laws that inhibit effective action.

    Because the truth is we struggle to remove foreign criminals;

    We struggle to get accurate data on the ages of the asylum seekers;

    We struggle even to confiscate their phones when they arrive on our beaches.

    Our country has become enmeshed in a dense net of international rules that were designed for another era.

    And it is Labour that turbocharged their impact by passing the misnamed Human Rights Act.

    I am surprised they didn’t call it the Criminal Rights Act.

    Each time I have gone to Parliament to improve the law on immigration, Labour has tried to block us.

    Always aided by their allies in the third sector.

    Some of whom openly declare that they oppose national borders merely on principle.

    And all of them bleating the same incessant accusation:

    Racist. Racist. Racist.

    They’ve always used that smear.

    They tried it against Margaret Thatcher… It didn’t work.

    They tried it against David Cameron… It didn’t work.

    A couple of years ago they even tried it against Winston Churchill… Our greatest ever leader… And it didn’t even work then.

    And I can promise you this… it won’t work against Rishi Sunak… and it won’t work against me.

    The truth is every one of us in this room should be proud of their roots, and proud of our Conservative values.

    We believe that Britain has the right to secure borders…

    To decide who gets in to our country… and who does not.

    We are the Party to confront the challenge of global migration in the years ahead.

    Not a Labour Party that will open the borders and then cry racism to anyone who objects.

    Let’s be clear… The choice between Conservatives and Labour is the choice between strong borders and no borders.

    The next election will also be fought on law and order.

    Between a Conservative government that wants the police to focus on criminal justice…

    … And a Labour Party that thinks the police should focus on social justice.

    Between a Conservative government that stands up for the police…

    … And a Labour Party that wants to see them take the knee.

    Between a Conservative government that wants to help ordinary people go about their lives unimpeded…

    …And a Labour Party that sympathises with the eco idiots that block roads and stop mums from taking their kids to school…

    …Stop workers from getting to their jobs…

    …And stops ambulances from getting to hospitals.

    Because when it comes to Just Stop Oil, Labour’s lawyers advise them – and Labour’s donors fund them.

    That’s exactly why Labour resisted the legislation that we passed to crack down on this madness.

    Thanks to our new laws, the police can now get these clowns off our streets and get traffic moving in a matter of minutes.

    The Prime Minister and I are firmly on the side of the law-abiding majority.

    That’s why we have backed our police officers with one of the largest ever rises in police pay…

    It’s why we ensured we hit our target of 20,000 additional police officers – so that we now have more officers in England and Wales than ever before.

    It’s why we’ve backed the police’s use of stop and search as an effective way to get knives off our streets.

    It’s why we’ve secured agreement from the police to investigate all burglaries and follow all reasonable lines of inquiry when someone reports a crime.

    It’s why we’ve reformed hate crime guidance so that officers aren’t wasting hours of valuable police time investigating squabbles on Twitter.

    It’s why we’re making sure that police are not inadvertently helping mobs to enforce non-existent blasphemy laws.

    It’s why we’ve prioritised tracking down grooming gang perpetrators and getting justice for their victims after authorities turned a blind eye.

    And it’s why we’ve made sure that Prevent – the government programme that stops people from sliding towards terrorism – is focused on the main security threat to the British public, Islamist extremism.

    In all of this we have been assisted by some truly excellent Police and Crime Commissioners who share our commitment to common sense and law and order.

    There is so much more to do…and the public knows that but Labour certainly won’t do it.

    There’s more to do to reform our vagrancy laws, because we cannot let British cities go the way of San Francisco or Seattle.

    There’s more to do to ensure that Foreign National Offenders aren’t clogging up our prisons for less serious crimes. But are booted out of Britain as soon as soon as possible.

    There’s much more to do to end the scandal of rapists and paedophiles changing their names to evade sanctions and criminal record checks.

    And so, we will bring forward legislation to prevent registered sex offenders from changing their identities, and we will work to strengthen background checks so that they can catch undisclosed changes of identity.

    Let me tell you something. I don’t care if anyone thinks this is interfering with their human rights. It’s time to worry less about the rights of sexual predators and more about the rights of victims.

    I want to thank the Safeguarding Alliance for their tireless campaigning on this issue.

    And let me go on and say this. I have a particular message to those brave police officers who risk their lives to protect the rest of us by carrying firearms into situations where they could be harmed or even killed.

    You are the thin blue line. You have our support. We are grateful for the vital work that you do, day in, day out.

    That is why I announced a review, to report to me by the end of the year, to ensure that the legal and operational framework in which they operate is robust and commands the confidence of both officers and the public.

    And to those who ask whether Labour can be trusted to fight crime. I have a two-word answer: Sadiq Khan.

    If there’s any justice in this world, Susan Hall is going to wipe the floor with him in May.

    They’ve already started the character assassination against Sue.

    The distortions. The insults. The lies.

    That’s what the Labour Party always does:

    It prefers smears to debate.

    Personally, I take their abuse as a compliment.

    I know they have tried to make me into a hate figure because I tell the truth.

    The blunt, unvarnished truth about what is happening in our country.

    And I know there are some who think that emphasising the importance of law and order or secure borders, is unedifying.

    They look down on those of us who care about such things.

    Of course, they are entitled to their beliefs.

    But let’s be honest.

    These are luxury beliefs.

    What do I mean by that?

    Our politically correct critics have money. They have status. They have loud voices.

    They have the luxury of promoting seductive but irresponsible ideas safe in the knowledge that their privilege will insulate them from any collateral damage.

    The luxury beliefs brigade sit in their ivory towers telling ordinary people that they are morally deficient because they dare to get upset about the impact of illegal migration, net zero, or habitual criminals.

    And you can be sure of one thing.

    People with luxury beliefs will flock to Labour at the next election because that’s the way to get the kind of society they want.

    They like open borders. The migrants coming in won’t be taking their jobs. In fact, they are more likely to have them mowing their lawns or cleaning their homes.

    They love soft sentences. The criminals who benefit from such ostentatious compassion won’t be terrorising their streets or grooming their children.

    They are desperate to reverse Brexit. They think patriotism is embarrassing and have no use for a British passport unless it is taking them to their second homes in Tuscany or the Dordogne.

    For these people, I have a simple message: You are entitled to your luxury beliefs, but the British people will no longer pay for them.

    There’s another reason I think that we will win the next election.

    We have a secret weapon.

    Well, not that secret.

    Everyone in this hall knows it.

    I think everyone who will be at Labour conference knows it too.

    And our friends in the media definitely know it.

    Our secret weapon is…Sir Keir Starmer.

    The British people have no enthusiasm for Sir Keir Starmer.

    They know that he believes in nothing…

    They know that he will say anything to anyone… And then change his mind at the first sign of trouble.

    Keir Starmer lacks the personality to lead this country effectively.

    Imagine what would happen if he became Prime Minister.

    Luxury beliefs would reign supreme.

    Britain would go properly woke.

    Things are bad enough already.

    We see it in parts of Whitehall, in museums and galleries, in the police, and even in leading companies in the City.

    Under the banner of diversity, equity, and inclusion, official policies have been embedded that distort the whole purpose of these institutions.

    Highly controversial ideas are presented to workforces and the public as if they are motherhood and apple pie.

    Gender ideology.

    White privilege.

    Anti-British history.

    The evidence demonstrates that if you don’t challenge this poison, things just get worse.

    Whole institutions become captured.

    And of course, as always happens when the left gets the upper hand, those who fail to conform are persecuted.

    Chased out of their jobs for saying that a man can’t be a woman.

    Scolded for rejecting that they are beneficiaries of institutional racism.

    Disciplined for using the wrong words.

    This Conservative government has begun the task of clearing out this pernicious nonsense.

    The British people will get to decide if they want to curb woke with Rishi Sunak…

    …Or let it run riot with Keir ‘take the knee’ Starmer.

    Labour is the party of pressure groups, rich zealots, and trade union activists.

    But, you know, the Conservative Party is also a kind of trade union.

    Because we are the trade union of the British people.

    And I think we should adopt as our motto these lines from the poet Shelley…

    …Which I’m shamelessly taking back from Labour:

    Rise like lions after slumber
    in unvanquishable number.
    Shake your chains to earth like dew:
    Which in sleep had fallen on you.
    You are many, they are few!

    We stand with the many…

    The law-abiding…

    Hard working…

    Common sense majority.

    Against the few…

    the privileged woke minority…

    … with their luxury beliefs…

    … who wield influence out of proportion to their numbers.

    Our message to the people is clear.

    We are raising our game.

    We are fighting for a Britain that puts you first.

    We are on your side.

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Speech at the Public Safety Foundation [redacted version]

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Speech at the Public Safety Foundation [redacted version]

    The speech made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, on 26 April 2023. This is the redacted version issued by the Government press release which has removed political content. We asked the office of Suella Braverman for the complete text, but they didn’t respond.

    Thank you, Rory for that introduction. You know better than most, from your own experience on the beat, the realities that our brave police officers face when going up against violent thugs and other criminals, and the damage that crime can do to people and communities.

    And that’s why it’s wonderful to be here welcoming the launch of The Public Safety Foundation, an organisation committed to making the UK the safest place to live, work, and raise a family.

    This really is the perfect forum for setting out my ethos for common sense policing.

    Everything that our police officers do should be about fighting crime, catching criminals, and keeping the public safe.

    My mantra at the Home Office is simple: common sense policing.

    Common sense policing means more police on our streets.

    It means better police culture and higher standards.

    It means giving the public confidence that the police are unequivocally on their side, not pandering to politically correct preoccupations.

    It means measuring the police on outputs such as public response times, crimes solved, and criminals captured.

    It means police officers freed up to spend their time on proper police work.

    It means police prioritising the highest harm crimes and those that matter most to the public.

    It means the police making use of powers like stop and search that have proven effective in taking weapons off our streets.

    And above all else, common sense policing means officers maintaining a relentless focus on fighting crime, catching criminals, and keeping the public safe.

    I am going to speak to each of these themes in turn today.

    Firstly, the public wants to see more bobbies on the beat and so do I.

    It is central to common sense policing.

    Everyone who has been part of the government’s Police Uplift Programme should be immensely proud of what we’ve achieved in the last few years.

    […]

    We’ve delivered an additional 20,951 officers into policing over the past three years.

    There are now almost 150,000 police officers across England and Wales. The highest number ever.

    24 forces now have more police officers than they ever had before the programme.

    I am extremely grateful to police chiefs for leading this drive.

    And to those men and women who have signed up: you are now part of a policing family epitomised by bravery, and dedicated to public service and safety.

    As part of the new generation of policing, you will help to raise standards, refocus priorities, and maintain our world-leading place in policing.

    Policing must remain open to the best and the bravest – whether or not they have a degree. And common sense policing means encouraging the recruitment of officers that come from and live in the communities they serve, familiar with local challenges, and familiar to local people.

    That’s why I have widened the pool from which we can recruit, by enabling non-degree holders to be part of policing. It’s not about how many exams you sit or essays you can write – important skills though those are. It’s about common sense, problem-solving, strength- of character and strength of physique.

    20,000 officers is not just a statistic in a press release.

    The uplift is already delivering improved outcomes for policing and the communities they serve.

    All forces now have a named officer and contact information on their websites, meaning our commitment to greater local accountability as set out in the Beating Crime Plan.

    More police, means more flexibility for forces to do what makes sense locally, which goes to the very heart of common sense policing.

    A Police and Crime Commissioner recently explained how the uplift is making a difference in their patch: They said: “Additional officers have been deployed into our more rural communities, which allows response times to lessen and takes pressure off urban-based officers from covering a wider area allowing them to focus on localised crime.”

    In one force, much of uplift has been reinvested in to tackling rape, with the creation of an additional 119 roles.

    Another force has used the uplift to double the size of its knife crime team, boosting its capacity to seize dangerous weapons and keep people safe.

    Recruiting officers is crucial to getting more bobbies on the beat. But retention of existing officers is similarly important.

    Every force must focus on retaining the essential skills and experience of existing officers.

    We are driving forward work to support this, whether that’s through the College of Policing’s Leadership Centre, the NPCC’s Productivity Review, or introducing a statutory Police Covenant, which is already delivering tangible benefits for the police.

    For the first time, new officers are given pre-deployment mental health training to ensure they are able to manage the rigors of frontline policing.

    And welfare standards covering the entire workforce are now assessed as part of the regular force inspection programme.

    It is also vital that policing can offer a pathway back for those who do leave, to ensure that experience doesn’t only ever leave the building.

    Whilst many forces have deployed rejoiner schemes at entry level, I am not convinced that all forces are doing enough to encourage more senior people back into policing.

    There is scope to expand these schemes to focus on key skills gaps using the standards and guidance developed by the College of Policing.

    […]

    This is a great success story. But what will really count is what an expanded police force – this new generation of policing – does next.

    More policing is necessary but not sufficient. Common sense policing must also mean higher standards, better culture, and more effective policing.

    Baroness Casey’s review into the Metropolitan Police makes for harrowing reading.

    As I said in the House of Commons, there have been serious failures of culture and leadership.

    I have the utmost confidence in the Met’s new leadership team. Sir Mark Rowley is right to make the restoration of public confidence in policing his top priority and I will give him every support as he pursues his turnaround plan.

    But I also expect those with direct political accountability for forces – PCC’s in general, and with respect to the Met, the Mayor of London in particular – to properly exercise their oversight functions.

    Baroness Casey’s review will inform the work of Lady Elish Angiolini’s inquiry which will look at broader issues of policing standards and culture.

    Steps have already been taken to ensure that forces tackle weaknesses in their vetting systems. I am currently reviewing the police dismissals process to speed up the removal of those officers who fall short of the high standards expected of them.

    That review is also looking at simplifying the process for dealing with poor performance and ensuring that the system is effective at enabling an officer who fails vetting checks in service to be removed.

    The law-abiding public must be able to know that they can trust any officer they see. Those who are not fit to wear the badge must never do so, and where they are exposed, they must face justice and be driven out of the force.

    I have seen examples of strong leadership transforming police forces up and down the country. So, I’m confident that policing can and will step up.

    Changing the culture doesn’t just mean addressing the sorts of issues that Baroness Casey identified and raising professional standards to the level that the public rightly expect. That is a pre-requisite.

    A common sense culture in policing must also mean that policing understands and reflects public expectations about the police’s proper focus and function.

    For too long, too many in authority have indulged a narrative that crime, rather than being a destructive option chosen by a criminal minority, is an illness to be treated.

    This narrative seeks to diminish individual responsibility and culpability by holding that criminals are themselves victims.

    This modern emphasis on the needs of delinquents, thugs and criminals, however cruel their intentions or damaging their behaviour may be, displaces the old fashioned and just retributive consideration of the criminal events themselves, and of the effect they have on the genuine victims.

    People want their government and their police to be unequivocally on the side of the victims, rather than making excuses for, or distracted by efforts to redeem the perpetrators.

    It’s something I hear a lot. On my travels around the country. On the doorstep. People everywhere tell me they want common sense, good old fashioned criminal justice.

    They want the police to turn up quickly when they’re called.

    They want to know that when a crime is reported it will be properly investigated – and, so I’m glad that all domestic burglaries now receive a police response, as I called for last autumn.

    They want hope that the police might even catch the crooks.

    And they want confidence that when someone is arrested, if they are found guilty, they will be appropriately punished.

    Because without risk of capture or of punishment, without an appropriate cost to those breaking the law, criminals will take advantage.

    That sense of mission must be reflected in police priorities if the police are to retain public confidence.

    Sometimes the police simply need to make better arguments. Most people recognise that smartphone clips of a contested incident circulating on social media only ever tell a fraction of the story. Where appropriate, forces should do more to share body worn video footage. It is vital to public confidence that the police can quickly demonstrate the legitimacy of action to counter spurious claims and trial by social media that may otherwise follow and allow dangerous narratives to take hold.

    Maintaining public confidence, also requires that the police be seen as politically impartial, and unequivocally on the side of the law-abiding majority.

    When police officers stood by as a statue was torn down; when the police were pictured handing cups of tea to protestors engaged in blocking a road; or when police chiefs spend taxpayers’ money that could have been spent fighting crime, on diversity training that promotes contested ideology like critical race theory; the reputation of policing as an institution, is damaged in the eyes of the public.

    Some forces have ‘equality’ teams that have completely abandoned impartiality in favour of taking partisan positions – sometimes even engaging in political argument on Twitter.

    Now I believe in the police. But the policing in which I believe isn’t riven with political correctness, but enshrined in good old-fashioned common sense.

    The perception – however unjustified or unrepresentative – that some police are more interested in virtue signalling, or in protecting the interests of a radical minority engaged in criminality, than they are protecting the rights of the law-abiding majority – is utterly corrosive to public confidence in policing. The police must be more sensitive to this and work harder to counter it.

    If police chiefs approached instilling a culture of political impartiality, with the same dedication which they approach instilling a culture of diversity and inclusion, I have no doubt that public confidence in policing would be materially improved.

    More police, and better police culture, is essential. But positive effects are blunted if the police are not free to properly focus on policing.

    That is why, over the last 6 months, I have led a broad programme of common sense policing reforms to reduce unnecessary and inappropriate burdens on police time.

    Chief amongst those burdens is the amount of time police spend responding to mental health call outs. I am frequently told about officers waiting 10-20 hours with patients who need medical attention. This is an unacceptable use of police time.

    We want frontline officers to be able to focus on fighting crime, and the work they are trained to do. Police officers are not mental health specialists, and the best place for people suffering a mental health crisis is a healthcare setting.

    This includes developing a National Partnership Agreement to ensure health calls are responded to by the most appropriate agency.

    The ‘Right Care Right Person’ approach sets out a threshold to assist police decision-making on responding to incidents. It is founded on the understanding that police should only be responding to health and social care incidents where there is an immediate risk of serious harm or criminality.

    A toolkit to assist forces in their implementation of the Right Care Right Person will be rolled out in the coming months, and guidance for the health sector is also being prepared.

    Whether it’s saving an estimated 400,000 police hours a year by reforming the Home Office Counting Rules (reducing them from 350 pages to almost 50 pages); or reforming the redaction process so officers spend less time stuck behind a computer screen; we are doing all that we can to support forces to ensure their officers spend as much time as possible on the beat.

    But it’s not enough merely to free up more police resource. Common sense policing means acknowledging that police resource is necessarily finite, and that it must therefore be deployed on the things that matter most to the public.

    It’s with this sentiment in mind that I recently introduced a new code of practice on non-crime hate incidents.

    Taking action for hurt feelings is not the job of our police.

    Curbing freedom of expression is not the job of our police.

    Enforcing non-existent blasphemy laws is not the job of our police.

    The new code makes clear that personal data should only be recorded if there is a real risk of significant harm and stresses the importance of giving proper weight to freedom of expression.

    The public want to see the police focussed on the highest harm crimes and those that are priorities to address in their communities.

    They want to see the police tackling violence against women and girls – a key priority to which we’ve committed nearly a quarter of a billion pounds in Home Office and wider government funding through 2025.

    They want to see the police focused on tackling child sexual exploitation which is why we launched a new Grooming Gangs Task Force, introduced mandatory reporting, and will be announcing further measures when responding to the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, next month.

    They want to see police cracking down on drugs and associated criminality. I’m proud to say that together with the police, we have done considerable damage to county lines gangs, seizing record amounts of drugs, making 20,000 arrests for drug related offences and disabling 1,600 organised crime gangs since 2021.

    They want to see the police tackling knife crime which is why I’m doubling down on stop and search and launching a public consultation on banning machetes and other large knives that should have no place on our streets but are readily available online.

    They want to see the police treating antisocial behaviour as a priority crime which is why we’ve just published a bold and ambitious action plan to address this blight on communities.

    And they want to see that the police are on their side when it comes to addressing highly disruptive protests which is why we strengthened police powers in this area. This has already supported the arrest of over 750 individuals by the Metropolitan Police alone since October 2022.

    By contrast, the public do not want to see the police turning up to residential addresses to police bad jokes on Twitter.

    And when it comes to delivering on the public’s priorities, common sense policing calls for the use of the most effective tools available, without regard to political correctness.

    Stop and search is a perfect example. It is a critical tool which I, and this government, fully support the police using to keep our streets safe.

    I’m proud to say that under this government, it has never been easier for the police to make legitimate use of stop and search powers.

    Stop and search has helped remove over 40,000 weapons from our streets and led to over 220,000 arrests since 2019.

    Stop and search acts as a deterrent by preventing offenders from carrying weapons in the first place.

    And Serious Violence Reduction Orders, currently being piloted in four police force areas, will provide the police with enhanced powers to stop and search adults already convicted of knife or offensive weapons offences – reducing violence and crucially saving lives.

    Common sense policing requires the police to use all available powers, without fear or favour, to keep the public safe and stop the misery caused by violence and drugs.

    That is why I intend to write to police chiefs in the coming days, to reiterate the importance of stop and search and the government’s full support for the police’s appropriate use of it.

    […]

    Domestic burglary and robbery are around half the level they were in 2010.

    Violence and vehicle theft are around 40% lower than in 2010.

    And fewer people are dying from drug and alcohol related deaths compared to 2010.

    But I also see policing at a turning point. With devastating events like the murder of Sarah Everard, forces in special measures, and the problems highlighted in the Casey report, we must all work towards rebuilding public trust and refocusing on the public’s priorities.

    Common sense policing is the way we will do that.

    More police on our streets.

    Better police culture.

    Higher standards.

    More effective policing.

    Focused on the public’s priorities.

    Making use of all appropriate powers.

    Pursuing good old fashioned criminal justice rather than social justice.

    Relentlessly focussed on fighting crime, catching criminals, and keeping the public safe.

    That is the policing that the decent, hard working, law-abiding majority, up and down this country, can get behind and have confidence in.

    Common sense policing we can all be proud of.

    Thank you.

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on the Illegal Migration Bill

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on the Illegal Migration Bill

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 7 March 2023.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill.

    Two months ago, the Prime Minister made a promise to the British people that anyone entering this country illegally will be detained and swiftly removed—no half measures. The Illegal Migration Bill will fulfil that promise. It will allow us to stop the boats that are bringing tens of thousands to our shores in flagrant breach of both our laws and the will of the British people.

    The United Kingdom must always support the world’s most vulnerable. Since 2015 we have given sanctuary to nearly half a million people, including 150,000 people from Hong Kong, 160,000 people from Ukraine and 25,000 Afghans fleeing the Taliban. Indeed, decades ago, my parents found security and opportunity in this country, for which my family are eternally grateful.

    Crucially, these decisions are supported by the British people precisely because they are decisions made by the British people and their elected representatives, not by the people smugglers and other criminals who break into Britain on a daily basis. For a Government not to respond to the waves of illegal migrants breaching our borders would be to betray the will of the people we were elected to serve.

    The small boats problem is part of a larger global migration crisis. In the coming years, developed countries will face unprecedented pressure from ever greater numbers of people leaving the developing world for places such as the United Kingdom. Unless we act today, the problem will be worse tomorrow, and the problem is already unsustainable.

    People are dying in the channel. The volume of illegal arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system. The backlog has ballooned to over 160,000. The asylum system now costs the British taxpayer £3 billion a year. Since 2018, some 85,000 people have illegally entered the United Kingdom by small boat—45,000 of them in 2022 alone. All travelled through multiple safe countries in which they could and should have claimed asylum. Many came from safe countries, such as Albania, and almost all passed through France. The vast majority—74% in 2021—were adult males under the age of 40, rich enough to pay criminal gangs thousands of pounds for passage.

    Upon arrival, most are accommodated in hotels across the country, costing the British taxpayer around £6 million a day. The risk remains that these individuals just disappear. And when we try to remove them, they turn our generous asylum laws against us to prevent removal. The need for reform is obvious and urgent.

    This Government have not sat on their hands. Since this Prime Minister took office, recognising the necessity of joint solutions with France, we have signed a new deal that provides more technology and embeds British officers with French patrols. I hope Friday’s Anglo-French summit will further deepen that co-operation.

    We have created a new small boats operational command, with more than 700 new staff; doubled National Crime Agency funding to tackle smuggling gangs; increased enforcement raids by 50%; signed a deal with Albania, which has already enabled the return of hundreds of illegal arrivals; and are procuring accommodation, including on military land, to end the farce of accommodating migrants in hotels.

    But let us be honest: it is still not enough. In the face of today’s global migration crisis, yesterday’s laws are simply not fit for purpose. So to anyone proposing de facto open borders through unlimited safe and legal routes as the alternative, let us be honest: there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. Let us be clear: they are coming here. We have seen a 500% increase in small boat crossings in two years. This is the crucial point of this Bill. They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed—back to your country if it is safe, or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.

    That is precisely what this Bill will do. That is how we will stop the boats. This Bill enables the detention of illegal arrivals, without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed. It puts a duty on the Home Secretary to remove illegal entrants and will radically narrow the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal. Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly or at real risk of serious and irreversible harm in the country we are removing them to—that is an exceedingly high bar—will be able to delay their removal. Any other claims will be heard remotely, after removal.

    When our Modern Slavery Act 2015 passed, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year. Last year, 17,000 referrals took on average 543 days to consider. Modern slavery laws are being abused to block removals. That is why we granted more than 50% of asylum requests from citizens of a safe European country and NATO ally, Albania. That is why this Bill disqualifies illegal entrants from using modern slavery rules to prevent removal.

    I will not address the Bill’s full legal complexities today. [Interruption.] Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been and continue to be involved in its development. But I must say this: rule 39 and the process that enabled the Strasbourg Court to block, at the last minute, flights to Rwanda, after our courts had refused injunctions, was deeply flawed. Our ability to control our borders cannot be held back by an opaque process, conducted late at night, with no chance to make our case or even appeal decisions. That is why we have initiated discussions in Strasbourg to ensure that its blocking orders meet a basic natural justice standard, one that prevents abuse of rule 39 to thwart removal; and it is why the Bill will set out the conditions for the UK’s future compliance with such orders.

    Other countries share our dilemma and will understand the justice of our position. Our approach is robust and novel, which is why we cannot make a definitive statement of compatibility under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Of course, the UK will always seek to uphold international law, and I am confident that this Bill is compatible with international law. When we have stopped the boats, the Bill will introduce an annual cap, to be determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. This will ensure an orderly system, considering local authority capacity for housing, public services and support.

    The British people are famously a fair and patient people. But their sense of fair play has been tested beyond its limits as they have seen the country taken for a ride. Their patience has run out. The law-abiding patriotic majority have said, “Enough is enough.” This cannot and will not continue. Their Government—this Government—must act decisively, must act with determination, must act with compassion, and must act with proportion. Make no mistake: this Conservative Government—this Conservative Prime Minister—will act now to stop the boats. I commend the statement to the House.

  • 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.

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on Fire and Rescue Services and the Consultation on Minimum Service Levels

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on Fire and Rescue Services and the Consultation on Minimum Service Levels

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    On 10 January, the Government introduced the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill in Parliament. This is part of the Government plan to ensure the ability of the unions and their members to strike whilst giving confidence to the wider public that they can retain access to key services during periods of strike action.

    The Bill gives Secretaries of State the power to use regulations to set a minimum service level in six specified sectors and also specify the “relevant services” to which they apply. Fire and rescue services are defined as one of the six sectors.

    The Bill sets out that where a trade union gives notice of strike action the employer may decide to issue a work notice, in accordance with the minimum service level set, ahead of the strike day(s). The work notice will specify the individuals required to work in order to meet the minimum service level and the nature of the work that they must carry out.

    Consultation

    Prior to using regulations to set minimum service levels for any of the sectors in scope of the Bill, the relevant Secretary of State is required to consult such people as they consider appropriate. The Secretary of State must also consult—before specifying in regulations—the particular services to which MSLs will apply.

    Today a public consultation has been published on gov.uk to fulfil these requirements in relation to the fire and rescue services. In addition, Home Office officials will continue to engage with key fire and rescue service stakeholders. The consultation will run for 12 weeks from 9 February to 3 May 2023.

    The consultation sets out that the essential services in scope of a minimum service level should be those required to deal with emergency incidents that pose an immediate risk to the public. This should include but not be limited to:

    • Firefighting.

    • Rescues (including, but not limited to, on the road network, water rescue or rescues at height). This includes actions to avoid further harm such as rectifying potentially hazardous situations to avoid future risk of fire and rescue, for example clearance of debris on motorways and major roads.

    • Dangerous substance clean-up.

    • Services necessary to carry out the above, including for example control room activities. Other activities undertaken by fire and rescue services, such as fire safety audits and domestic fire safety visits, remain vital but it is less arguable that there could be an immediate risk to life as a result of strike action by staff providing these services. We therefore do not consider that these services should be subject to a minimum service level at this time. However, the consultation asks respondents to consider any further services that should be brought into scope of the minimum service level, for example, in the event of prolonged strikes by fire and rescue service staff.

    The consultation invites comment on five potential approaches for setting a minimum service level for fire and rescue services. These are:

    • Requiring staffing levels or fire engine availability to remain above a specified percentage relative to business as usual.

    • Requiring staffing levels to be shaped by the minimum resources needed to respond to specific risks, such as a major incident.

    • Requiring business as usual staffing levels to be maintained during periods of peak demand on fire and rescue services. This could include days where we would expect greater demand on the service (such as Bonfire Night and its nearest weekends), periods of severe weather such as extreme flooding or wildfires, and/or periods when other emergency services are taking strike action.

    • Asking local leaders and organisational input to provide evidence to allow the Home Office to decide what the minimum service level in each of the 44 fire and rescue service areas should look like.

    • Setting a national minimum level of service to be provided by fire and rescue services during periods of strike action, and then providing flexibility for local leader and organisational input to decide whether to build on that minimum level in light of their local area’s needs and risk profile.

    The consultation sets out that there is flexibility to use elements from different options in combination, to cover essential services.

    This Government recognise the principle of workers and unions being able to negotiate over fair pay. However, the UK Government also have a duty to the public to ensure their safety, protect their access to vital public services and to help them go about their daily lives. The fire and rescue services provide a vital role in protecting the public and it is right that we seek to ensure the public can rely on these vital services during strike periods.

    I will place a copy of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review Recommendations

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review Recommendations

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, on 26 January 2023.

    Today I am updating Parliament on Home Office delivery of the recommendations set out in the Windrush lessons learned review, published in March 2020.

    Since my appointment as Home Secretary, I have made a commitment to resolving the outstanding issues related to Windrush and have met members of the Windrush Working Group both to hear their feedback and more formally at the most recent cross-government Windrush Working Group which I was honoured to co-chair with Bishop Derek Webley.

    Since the injustices of Windrush came to light, there has been a concerted effort across the Home Office to right the wrongs suffered by those affected. This work continues and we are making sustained progress delivering on the recommendations and the commitments made in our comprehensive improvement plan.

    In her report last year, Wendy Williams concluded that 21 out of 30 of her recommendations had been met or partially met. She acknowledged that the scale of the challenge she set the Department was significant and that change on this scale takes time.

    Since then, we have made further progress in delivering against Wendy Williams’ recommendations. For example, in June 2022, the “Serving Diverse Communities—Acting on Our Values” learning package was launched across the Home Office, starting with recommendations 24 (learning for senior civil servants) and 29 (diversity and inclusion). The learning package for recommendation 6—the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world, will be launched in the coming weeks.

    The Department continues to make progress on compensating those unfairly impacted. As of December 2022, the Windrush compensation scheme paid out or offered £64.08 million in compensation to Windrush victims across 1,417 claims. £53.98 million of this has been paid and over 59% of claims—3,025—have received a final decision.

    The Home Office regularly reviews the best way to deliver against the intent of Wendy Williams’ Windrush lessons learned review. As such, after considering officials advice, I have decided not to proceed with recommendations 3 (run reconciliation events), 9 (introduce a migrants commissioner) and 10 (review the remit and role of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration) in their original format. Extensive consideration has been given to how to deliver these recommendations in appropriate and meaningful ways: ensuring that individuals have opportunities to tell their stories; amplifying the voices of individuals engaging with the immigration system; and driving scrutiny of the Department.

    On reconciliation events specifically, on the balance of expert advice received on how to approach this incredibly sensitive subject, I am persuaded that there are more effective ways of engaging with those impacted.

    The Department has undertaken a significant programme of face-to-face engagement with the communities impacted by the Windrush scandal since 2018. Surgeries were held in community halls and places such as churches, mosques and care homes, as and where the need was identified. The engagement events were held in most major cities across the UK and including regions such as the west midlands, London and south-west. The events were hosted by senior members of the Windrush programme and provided individuals with the opportunity to speak to them about the impact the scandal had had on their and their family’s lives. Over 3,000 people were reached through these events.

    This engagement with communities is further supported by the £500,000 Windrush community fund which was launched in 2020 and provided funding to grassroots organisations and charities with grants of up to £25,000 each to promote the Windrush schemes in innovative ways. Regular dialogue hosted by senior officials are held in forums with external stakeholders from Windrush communities who provide feedback and scrutiny of our engagement and communication efforts. This type of engagement will remain an important part of our work. Further, I look forward to celebrating the contribution that the Windrush community has made to our country in the upcoming 75th anniversary celebrations.

    Recommendations 9 and 10 relate to the establishment of a migrants commissioner and a review of the role of the ICIBI. As Home Secretary I remain committed to the importance of scrutiny, both internal and external. There are a number of ways in which we are inviting this challenge and scrutiny in a more efficient way. In October 2022, the Department established the Independent Examiner for Complaints. This office will ensure that customers who are not satisfied with the final response to their complaints have an opportunity to have their case reviewed independently by the IEC, helping the Home Office to identify learning and wider lessons from complaints to improve its service.

    The IEC provides scrutiny of the Department’s complaints procedure. Beyond this, I remain committed to the importance of scrutiny. I welcome the insight and challenge that I and the wider Department have received from our colleagues in the Windrush Working Group. Professor Martin Levermore, in his role as independent advisor, has been constructively challenging and very supportive in the development of the Windrush compensation scheme. This has included proactively providing suggestions on improvements to the scheme, such as enhancing linkages between the compensation scheme and the Windrush status scheme, which the Department is now actively working on delivering.

    External bodies are not the only source of scrutiny. As Wendy Williams identified, the very culture of the Department needed a fundamental shift, bringing policy development and service delivery into contact with those who are impacted by it, including those who might not agree with it. This is how we shift culture and subject ourselves to scrutiny and this is how we are changing.

    I am proud of the efforts made by teams across the Home Office, but we know there is more to do. Many people suffered terrible injustices and the Department will continue working hard to deliver a Home Office worthy of every community served. Wendy Williams acknowledged that our ambition to achieve genuine cultural change requires ongoing reflection and a commitment to constant improvement. She acknowledged that the scale of the challenge she set the Department was significant and that change on this scale takes time. The Home Office keeps the Home Affairs Select Committee updated on progress against the recommendations and will continue to do so.

    An update on each of the recommendations is provided in the table available as an online attachment.

    Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-01-26/HCWS523/.

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on Migration and Economic Development

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on Migration and Economic Development

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the UK’s migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda.

    One hundred million people are displaced globally. Others want to move to a different country, often for economic reasons. This presents an enormous challenge for sought-after destinations such as the United Kingdom. Since 2015, this kind and generous country has welcomed nearly 450,000 people through safe and legal routes. The British people are eager to help those in need and they support controlled migration. They have opened their homes to refugees. But they do not want open borders.

    For decades the British people were told that this was immoral and that their concerns and opinions did not matter. Even today we see from certain quarters an unhealthy contempt for anyone who wants controlled migration. Such an attitude is unhelpful. Moreover, it is fanciful. We do not have infinite capacity. Already we are struggling to accommodate new arrivals, meaning that we spend millions every day in hotel bills alone.

    We cannot tolerate people coming here illegally. It is not legitimate to leave a safe country such as France to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. We have to break the business model of the people-smuggling gangs. Their trade in human cargo is evil and lethal, as we were tragically reminded very recently.

    There is a global migration crisis and it requires international solutions. In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), backed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), signed a ground-breaking migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda. They deserve enormous credit for their work on this. We agreed that people who come to the UK via dangerous, illegal and unnecessary means can be relocated to Rwanda to have their asylum claims considered there. Those in need of protection will be given up to five years of support, including education and employment training, along with help with integration, accommodation and healthcare.

    Being relocated to Rwanda is not a punishment but an innovative way of addressing a major problem to redress the imbalance between illegal and legal migration routes. It will also ensure that those in genuine need of international protection are provided with it in Rwanda. It is a humane and practical alternative for those who come here through dangerous, illegal and unnecessary routes. By making it clear that they cannot expect to stay in the UK, we will deter more people from coming here and make such routes unviable.

    There has been a great deal of misinformation about Rwanda. I visited Rwanda myself several years ago. She is a state party to the 1951 United Nations refugee convention and the seven core United Nations human rights conventions. It is a safe and dynamic country with a thriving economy. It has an excellent record of supporting refugees and vulnerable migrants. The UN has used Rwanda for the relocation of vulnerable migrants from Libya—and this was first funded by the European Union. Many migrants, including refugees, have already built excellent lives in Rwanda. Our partnership is a significant investment in that country and further strengthens our relationship.

    A myth still persists that the Home Office’s permanent secretary opposed this agreement. For the record, he did not. Nor did he assert that it is definitely poor value for money. He stated, in his role as accounting officer, that the policy is regular, proper and feasible, but that there is not currently sufficient evidence to demonstrate value for money. As he would be the first to agree, it is for Ministers to take decisions having received officials’ advice. Once the partnership is up and running, he will continue to monitor its efficacy, including value for money.

    In June, the first plane was ready to relocate people to Rwanda. Our domestic courts—the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—upheld our right to send the flight. However, following an order by an out-of-hours judge in the European Court of Human Rights, the flight was cancelled. The European Court of Human Rights did not rule that the policy or relocations were unlawful, but it prohibited the removal of specific people. This was a “without notice” order and the UK was not invited to make representations to oppose it. As a result, we have been unable to operate relocation flights pending ongoing legal proceedings, but we have continued to prepare by issuing notices of intent for those eligible for relocation, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently outlined a comprehensive new approach to illegal migration.

    A judicial review was brought against the Rwanda partnership by a number of organisations and individual asylum seekers. The first part of proceedings considered a case that the partnership is unlawful; the second part argued that UK domestic processes under the partnership are unfair; and the third part argued that the policy is contrary to data protection laws. Today in the High Court, in a judgment spanning more than 130 pages, Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift held that it is indeed lawful for the Government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom. The court further held that the relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with the refugee convention and with the statutory and other legal obligations on the Government, including the obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998.

    This judgment thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership. Earlier today, I spoke to my Rwandan counterpart, Minister Vincent Biruta, and we confirmed our joint and steadfast resolve to deliver the partnership at scale as soon as possible. It is what the overwhelming majority of the British people want to happen. The sooner it is up and running, the sooner we will break the business model of the evil gangs and bring an end to the illegal, unnecessary and unsafe channel crossings. Now that our courts have affirmed its legality, I invite the Opposition to get behind this plan. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on Enabling the Legitimate Movement of People and Goods

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on Enabling the Legitimate Movement of People and Goods

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    Passports are about to enter the busy period in January, and plans are well advanced in preparation for that and for a high level of demand forecast across 2023. There was record demand for passport applications this year, with approximately 7.4 million applications processed by the end of October. Service standards have remained high since November, and 99.9% of UK standard applications were completed within the 10-week service standard in the week ending 20 November. Every effort is being made to return to the three-week service standard.

    The visa service has faced significant demands post pandemic and following Ukraine, and higher than forecast levels of demand. Considering this, it is performing well under pressure and, through supportive contingency measures, standard applications have returned to service standards and we are on track for complex applications to also return to service standards in December.

    Despite these challenges, staff productivity has remained high, and we continue to manage staff flexibly across services to reduce work in progress to minimal levels for passport and deliver the visa recovery by the year end.

    Border Force has seen passenger numbers increase to near pre-pandemic levels by the end of summer and also managed the introduction of post-EU exit goods checks and the first full year of EU citizens requiring passports and additional checks. The eGates have performed well and IT resilience has been strong, enabling over 90% of passengers to cross borders within tolerance levels.

    Border Force also reached its annual target for cigarette and tobacco seizures within seven months of 2022-23. In October, £35 million-worth of cigarettes and tobacco were seized, bringing the year-to-date total to £255 million —101%—of the annual target of £252 million. On alcohol, Border Force seized £4.3 million, bringing the year-to-date total to £25.1 million—63%—of the annual target of £40 million.

    The FBIS programme has built up the expertise and capability to reduce significantly the time taken to launch a brand-new visa route or to amend criteria for existing visa applications.

    We have made significant progress in digitising the immigration system. We are increasingly replacing physical and paper-based products and services with accessible, easy-to-use online and digital services. This has provided applicants with an easy online application process, including providing biometrics and establishing or verifying identity using their smartphones. A fully digital application process has been delivered for the BN(O) route and some points-based system routes and now for Ukraine schemes.

    All these achievements have been delivered against a challenging background and represent a significant effort across the Home Office in continuing to deliver on the people’s priorities. The Home Office remains committed to keeping the public safe, protecting our borders, and countering hostile state threats.