Tag: Theresa May

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on 11 July 2016.

Two weeks ago, I launched my candidacy to become the Leader of the Conservative Party – and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

And last week, I won the overwhelming support of my colleagues in the House of Commons. Nearly two thirds of the Conservative Party in Parliament. Left and right. Leavers and remainers. MPs from the length and breadth of Britain. The result showed that, after the referendum, the Conservative Party can come together – and under my leadership it will.

I am here today – in the great city of Birmingham – to launch my national campaign, in which I will make my case to the Conservative Party membership – and the country as a whole.

That case comes down to three things.

First, our country needs strong, proven leadership – to steer us through this time of economic and political uncertainty, and to negotiate the best deal for Britain as we leave the EU and forge a new role for ourselves in the world. Because Brexit means Brexit and we’re going to make a success of it.

Second, we need to unite our Party and our country.

And third, we need a bold, new, positive vision for the future of our country – a vision of a country that works not for a privileged few but for every one of us.

My vision of a country that works for everyone

It is about that vision that I want to talk to you today. Because if we’re going to govern in the interests of the whole country, we cannot become defined exclusively by the process of our withdrawal from the EU. That is an important job and we’re going to get it done. But we also need a Government that will deliver serious social reform – and make ours a country that truly works for everyone.

Because right now, if you’re born poor, you will die on average nine years earlier than others. If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white. If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you’re at a state school, you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately. If you’re a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there’s too often not enough help to hand. If you’re young, you’ll find it harder than ever before to own your own home.

But, as I have said before, fighting these injustices is not enough. If you’re from an ordinary, working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise. You have a job, but you don’t always have job security. You have your own home, but you worry about mortgage rates going up. You can just about manage, but you worry about the cost of living and the quality of the local school, because there’s no other choice for you.

These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself – completely, absolutely, unequivocally – at the service of ordinary, working people. It is why we will make Britain a country that works for everyone:

An economy that works for everyone, so we don’t just maintain economic confidence and steer the country through challenging times – but we make sure that everyone can share in the country’s wealth.

A society that works for everyone, so we can bring people back together – rich and poor, north and south, urban and rural, young and old, male and female, black and white, sick and healthy, public sector, private sector, those with skills and those without.

A democracy that works for everyone, so we can restore trust and confidence in our most important institutions – and the political process itself.

And a party that works for everyone – because we can’t build a country that works for all unless we, the Conservatives, are truly a party that works for all.

An economy that works for everyone

In the coming weeks, I will set out my plans to take our economy through this period of uncertainty, to get the economy growing strongly across all parts of the country, to deal with Britain’s longstanding productivity problem, to create more well-paid jobs, to negotiate the best terms for Britain’s departure from the European Union – and to forge a new role for ourselves in the world.

But today, I want to talk about my plans to reform the economy so that it really does work for everyone. Because it is apparent to anybody who is in touch with the real world that people do not feel our economy works that way at all. Talk to almost any ordinary member of the public, and the frustration they feel about the loss of control over their day-to-day lives is obvious.

They are the ones who made real sacrifices after the financial crash in 2008. Some lost their jobs, some reduced their hours, others took a pay cut. Wages have grown, but only slowly. Taxes for the lowest paid went down, but other taxes, like VAT, went up. Fixed items of spending – like energy bills – have rocketed. Monetary policy – in the form of super-low interest rates and quantitative easing – has helped those on the property ladder at the expense of those who can’t afford to own their own home.

There isn’t much job security out there. Some find themselves exploited by unscrupulous bosses. And, yes, some have found themselves out of work or on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration. It’s harder than ever for young people to buy their first house. There is a growing divide between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation. And there is a gaping chasm between wealthy London and the rest of the country.

When you add all of these things up, the only surprise is that there is so much surprise in Westminster about the public’s appetite for change. And make no mistake, the referendum was a vote to leave the European Union, but it was also a vote for serious change.

Yet so many of our political and business leaders have responded by showing that they still don’t get it. There are politicians – democratically-elected politicians – who seriously suggest that the Government should find a way of ignoring the referendum result and keeping Britain inside the European Union. And there are business leaders whose response has not been to plan for Britain’s departure or to think of the opportunities withdrawal presents – but to complain about the result and criticise the electorate.

Well, I couldn’t be clearer. Brexit means Brexit. And we’re going to make a success of it. There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it by the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and as Prime Minister I will make sure that we leave the European Union.

And I am equally clear about the need for change. I am not going to ignore the public when they say they’re sick of politics as usual. I am going to make sure that the motives of the Government will never be in any doubt. We, the Conservatives, will put ourselves at the service of ordinary, working people and we will make Britain a country that works for everyone – whoever you are and wherever you’re from.

The Government has made great strides in the last six years, dealing with the debt crisis, reducing the deficit, and presiding over an economic recovery. But if we are going to make sure our economy truly works for everyone – if we are going to help people to take control of their lives – we need to take action in four different ways. We need to reform the economy to allow more people to share in the country’s prosperity. We need to put people back in control of their lives. We need to give more people more opportunity. And we need to get tough on irresponsible behaviour in big business.

Reforming the economy for greater shared prosperity

I will start with economic reform. Because for a Government that has overseen a lot of public service reforms in the last six years, it is striking that, by comparison, there has not been nearly as much deep economic reform. That needs to change for a simple reason. If we want to increase our overall prosperity, if we want more people to share in that prosperity, if we want bigger real wages for people, if we want more opportunities for young people to get on, we have to improve the productivity of our economy.

Yet we have long had a problem with productivity in Britain. So I want to make its improvement an important objective for the Treasury. I want to see an energy policy that emphasises the reliability of supply and lower costs for users. A better research and development policy that helps firms to make the right investment decisions. More Treasury-backed project bonds for new infrastructure projects. More house building. A proper industrial strategy to get the whole economy firing. And a plan to help not one or even two of our great regional cities but every single one of them.

Putting people back in control

If we are going to have an economy that works for everyone, we are going to need to give people more control of their lives. And that means cutting out all the political platitudes about “stakeholder societies” – and doing something radical.

Because as we saw when Cadbury’s – that great Birmingham company – was bought by Kraft, or when AstraZeneca was almost sold to Pfizer, transient shareholders – who are mostly companies investing other people’s money – are not the only people with an interest when firms are sold or close. Workers have a stake, local communities have a stake, and often the whole country has a stake. It is hard to think of an industry of greater strategic importance to Britain than its pharmaceutical industry, and AstraZeneca is one of the jewels in its crown. Yet two years ago the Government almost allowed AstraZeneca to be sold to Pfizer, the US company with a track record of asset stripping and whose self-confessed attraction to the deal was to avoid tax. A proper industrial strategy wouldn’t automatically stop the sale of British firms to foreign ones, but it should be capable of stepping in to defend a sector that is as important as pharmaceuticals is to Britain.

And I want to see changes in the way that big business is governed. The people who run big businesses are supposed to be accountable to outsiders, to non-executive directors, who are supposed to ask the difficult questions, think about the long-term and defend the interests of shareholders. In practice, they are drawn from the same, narrow social and professional circles as the executive team and – as we have seen time and time again – the scrutiny they provide is just not good enough. So if I’m Prime Minister, we’re going to change that system – and we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but employees as well.

There are other ways, too, in which we need to put people back in control. As the Government reforms public services, we should encourage public sector workers to set up mutuals. As we take infrastructure decisions – like with new housing, roads, or exploration for oil and gas – the benefits should be shared not just with local authorities but with local people themselves.

Giving people more opportunity

And this brings me on to the third way in which we need to make our economy work for everyone – which is by giving people more opportunity. This, to me, is what the Conservative Party is all about. In the name of equality, Labour end up holding people back – but we believe in setting people free to go as far as their talents will take them.

That is why school reform is such a passion for so many Conservatives – and I will be setting out my own plans for schools policy in the coming weeks. But it is also why housing matters so much, and why we need to do far more to get more houses built.

Because unless we deal with the housing deficit, we will see house prices keep on rising. Young people will find it even harder to afford their own home. The divide between those who inherit wealth and those who don’t will become more pronounced. And more and more of the country’s money will go into expensive housing instead of more productive investments that generate more economic growth.

Getting tough on corporate irresponsibility

The fourth way in which I want to make our economy work for everyone is by getting tough on irresponsible behaviour in big business. Because yes, we’re the Conservative Party, and yes we’re the party of enterprise, but that does not mean we should be prepared to accept that “anything goes”.

The FTSE, for example, is trading at about the same level as it was eighteen years ago and it is nearly ten per cent below its high peak. Yet in the same time period executive pay has more than trebled and there is an irrational, unhealthy and growing gap between what these companies pay their workers and what they pay their bosses.

So as part of the changes I want to make to corporate governance, I want to make shareholder votes on corporate pay not just advisory but binding. I want to see more transparency, including the full disclosure of bonus targets and the publication of “pay multiple” data: that is, the ratio between the CEO’s pay and the average company worker’s pay. And I want to simplify the way bonuses are paid so that the bosses’ incentives are better aligned with the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders.

I also want us to be prepared to use – and reform – competition law so that markets work better for people. If there is evidence that the big utility firms and the retail banks are abusing their roles in highly-consolidated markets, we shouldn’t just complain about it, we shouldn’t say it’s too difficult, we should do something about it.

And tax. We need to talk about tax. Because we’re Conservatives, and of course we believe in a low-tax economy, in which British businesses are more competitive and families get to keep more of what they earn – but we also understand that tax is the price we pay for living in a civilised society. No individual and no business, however rich, has succeeded all on their own. Their goods are transported by road, their workers are educated in schools, their customers are part of sophisticated networks taking in the private sector, the public sector and charities. It doesn’t matter to me whether you’re Amazon, Google or Starbucks, you have a duty to put something back, you have a debt to your fellow citizens, you have a responsibility to pay your taxes. So as Prime Minister, I will crack down on individual and corporate tax avoidance and evasion.

It is not anti-business to suggest that big business needs to change. Better governance will help these companies to take better decisions, for their own long-term benefit and that of the economy overall. Under my leadership the Conservative Party will resolutely remain the party of enterprise and we will help British businesses to stay competitive and create more well-paid jobs.

This is a moment of great national change – and we must rise to the occasion

This is a different kind of Conservatism, I know. It marks a break with the past. But it is in fact completely consistent with Conservative principles. Because we don’t just believe in markets, but in communities. We don’t just believe in individualism, but in society. We don’t hate the state, we value the role that only the state can play. We believe everybody – not just the privileged few – has a right to take ownership of what matters in their lives. We believe that each generation – of politicians, of business leaders, of us all – are custodians with a responsibility to pass on something better to the next generation. Above all, we believe in Britain – and in the British people.

From Robert Peel to Lady Thatcher, from Joseph Chamberlain to Winston Churchill, throughout history it has been the Conservative Party’s role to rise to the occasion and to take on the vested interests before us, to break up power when it is concentrated among the few, to lead on behalf of the people. It has been our strength as a Party that at moments of great national change, we have understood what needed to be done. And believe me, nobody should doubt that this is another of those moments of great national change.

We must leave the European Union – and forge a new role for ourselves in the world.

And we must make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few but for every single one of us.

To do those things we need to come together – as a Party and as a country – under strong and proven leadership.

And then together, we will build a better Britain.

Below is the text of the statement issued by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, after the first round of voting in the Conservative Party leadership contest on 5 July 2016.

I am pleased with this result, and very grateful to my colleagues for their support today.

There is a big job before us: to unite our party and the country, to negotiate the best possible deal as we leave the EU, and to make Britain work for everyone.

I am the only candidate capable of delivering these three things as prime minister, and tonight it is clear that I am also the only one capable of drawing support from the whole of the Conservative party.

I look forward to continuing the debate about Britain’s future – in parliament and across the country.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May to Reform on 3 September 2014.

Thank you, Andrew. This is a busy time for the Home Office and for those working on national security. It’s a pleasure to be here again with this country’s leading think tank on public service reform.

When I hear people say there isn’t much difference between the political parties these days, I always think about an announcement made by David Blunkett when he was Home Secretary. In March 2002, he created five “policing priority areas”. These places were as small and specific as Camberwell Green in Southwark, the Grange estate in Stoke, Little Horton and Canterbury in Bradford, the West Ward in Rhyl and Stapleton Road in Bristol. The police in these places, Labour decided, couldn’t cope with high levels of crime and anti-social behaviour. So the solution was obvious. If the police couldn’t do the job, the Home Office would. If you lived on Stapleton Road in Bristol, you could stop worrying because help was at hand. A civil servant sitting in Queen Anne’s Gate in London was ready to take charge.

The “policing priority areas” were not an aberration. The 2002 Police Reform Act required the Home Secretary, at the beginning of each financial year, to prepare a “National Policing Plan”. The Act said the National Policing Plan must set out “the strategic policing priorities generally for the … police areas in England and Wales for the period of three years beginning with that year”. You heard me correctly. The Home Secretary and officials weren’t just expected to know how to fight crime on Stapleton Road in Bristol, they were expected to know precisely what local needs would be for every other community in the country, and – more than that – they needed to know what those needs would be three years into the future.

That was, of course, complete nonsense, and it couldn’t be further removed from the approach we have taken to police reform in the Home Office since May 2010. So today I want to talk to you about my programme of police reform. I want to use it to show that it is possible to deliver more with less. And I want to use it to talk about how we meet an even tougher challenge – the challenge of how we can reduce demand for public services through smarter policy.

Police reform proves you can do more with less.

I just told the story about the policing priority areas and the National Policing Plan, but I want to say a little more about what we inherited in policing back in May 2010.

The institutions of policing were hopelessly inadequate. In theory, unelected police authorities were supposed to hold local forces to account on behalf of the public. In practice, only seven per cent of people even knew they existed. The Serious and Organised Crime Agency – which according to rumour Tony Blair wanted to call MI7 – failed to get to grips with organised crime because it lacked the powers and clout to do so. Police training and standards were in the hands of a £400 million-per-year quango called the National Policing Improvement Agency. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary was as a matter of course always a former chief constable, which meant the Inspectorate was too close to the police to do its job properly.

There was an unaccountable, centralised, corporatist system of governance, known as the tripartite, in which policing across the whole country was run by the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.

Police productivity was held down by the targets, performance indicators, reporting requirements, regulations and red tape made necessary by a system of bureaucratic accountability as the Home Office tried to keep tabs on everything forces were doing.

Police procurement was a pitiful joke. 43 police forces buying different sets of uniforms and running separate and uncoordinated procurement policies. £1 billion per year spent on inadequate ICT, with 4,000 staff working on 2,000 separate systems across 100 data centres. Each police force in the country trying to run its own air service, or at best collaborating with just a couple of others.

There was a pay structure worth £11 billion – three quarters of total police spending – that was designed more than thirty years before. In those three decades, policing changed dramatically while the pay system failed to keep up. But every attempt to change terms and conditions were resisted bitterly by the Federation and successive Home Secretaries were forced to back down.

So that was policing as we inherited it just a little more than four years ago. And yet, when I first launched our programme of police reform, the response from ACPO, the Police Federation and the Labour Party was to deny the need for change. Likewise, when we announced that we would cut central government police funding by twenty per cent in real terms over four years, the same people were united – the frontline service would be ruined and crime would go shooting up. Labour called it “the perfect storm”. The Federation predicted that the cuts and our reforms would destroy policing as we know it. But no such thing happened. According to both recorded crime statistics and the independent crime survey, crime is down by more than ten per cent since the election. Police reform is working and crime is falling.In addition to our work to improve ethical standards in policing, which I spoke about at the Police Federation conference and will not repeat today, police reform amounts to a sustained assault on each of the five problems we identified upon arrival at the Home Office. Inadequate institutions and structures. An unaccountable system of governance. Poor productivity undermined by bureaucracy and centralisation. Wasteful procurement. And a hopelessly out-of-date system of pay.

So we have systematically reformed the institutions of policing. Invisible police authorities have been abolished, and police forces have been made accountable – through beat meetings, crime maps and elected police and crime commissioners – to their local communities. The Serious and Organised Crime Agency is gone, and replaced by a National Crime Agency which has the power to task and command other law enforcement assets and a capability that reaches from local to international crime networks. The NPIA has been scrapped, and the College of Policing has been established to develop an evidence base, set standards and deliver training. HMIC, the Inspectorate of Constabulary, has remained – but it’s now led by the first ever chief inspector not to have served as a chief constable.

The tripartite system of police governance has been consigned to history. The Home Office no longer believes it runs policing. The Association of Police Authorities is no more, while the membership of the Association of Chief Police Officers has just voted overwhelmingly in support of its closure whilst many of its responsibilities have passed to the College. Meanwhile, the Police Federation, for years the roadblock to police reform, has also voted to reform itself.

Police productivity has improved and the frontline service has been reconfigured in different ways in different forces across the country. We’ve scrapped all government targets and much of the bureaucracy created by the Home Office. In doing so, we have saved up to 4.5 million police hours – the equivalent of 2,100 full-time officers.

We’ve got on with the gritty and unglamorous work of sorting out police procurement. We’ve still got a long way to go – the price forces are paying for items like boots and handcuffs still varies enormously and police ICT is going to take a long time to fix – but we are at least on the way.

And this Government has succeeded where others have failed before in successfully reforming terms and conditions. We didn’t get everything through the Police Arbitration Tribunal – which itself is a relic from the past that we are scrapping – but at last, we will have a system of police pay that encourages and rewards skills and frontline service, not just time served. Police forces will soon be able to recruit talented outsiders to senior ranks. And PCCs will be able to recruit chief constables from other common law jurisdictions.

There is still a long way to go but our reforms are already bearing fruit. Chief constables have responded to the freedom we have given them by reshaping their forces and maintaining the frontline service. Police and crime commissioners have shown their reforming power by sharing core services with other forces, other emergency services and other parts of the public sector.

The police leadership is becoming more accountable to the public. The National Crime Agency has made a good start going after organised criminal groups. The College is building a proper evidence base. HMIC has shone a light on the abuse of stop and search powers, the poor response to domestic violence and the under- recording of crime. Police productivity has improved and the proportion of officers in frontline roles is up to 91 per cent. Police procurement is gradually getting smarter and more collaborative. Direct entry and schemes like Police Now are opening up policing to new people and new ideas. And the new system of police pay will give chief constables more flexibility to lead their forces into the future.

What’s striking is that we have been able to make many of these changes not despite spending cuts but because of them. This is important, because the need to go on reforming will not end with this parliament. With a still-large deficit and a record stock of debt, there will need to be further spending cuts, as even Labour acknowledge. So in policing in the future, I believe we will need to work towards the integration of the three emergency services. We should use schemes like the Police Innovation Fund to promote capital investment that produces efficiency savings. We should go further with direct entry. We should use technology – like body-worn video, smart phone apps and other mobile devices – to save time and improve outcomes, and it remains our aim to make all forces fully digital by 2016.

And while we should continue to bear down on bureaucracy we should come up with more transformative solutions – like drastically reducing the unnecessary use of stop and search, reforming the wider criminal justice system and improving how we care for people with mental health problems – to save police time.

The drivers of crime

As I told the story of police reform you might have noticed that I omitted to mention the role of the Home Office. If responsibility for operational policing now lies squarely with chief constables, unimpeded by the Home Office, if responsibility for providing accountability now lies with police and crime commissioners, unimpeded by the Home Office, if HMIC scrutinises police performance and the College of Policing provides training, sets standards and develops an evidence base, what is the role of the Home Office? The answer is emphatically not to duplicate, cut across or undermine chief constables, PCCs, HMIC or the College. The answer, I believe, lies in three parts.

First, when it comes to the fight against serious and organised crime, the Home Office needs to build a relationship with the National Crime Agency similar to its relationship with the Security Service in the fight against terrorism. That means the department needs to provide a combination of policy work, operational support such as the provision of legal warrants, and oversight of the NCA. The Government’s Serious and Organised Crime Strategy – which is the first of its kind and is modelled on our Counter Terrorism Strategy, CONTEST – is evidence of this kind of approach.

Second, the Home Office has an important duty to make sure national systems like the Police National Computer work effectively, and an equally important role in coordinating things like police procurement.

But it’s the third responsibility for the Home Office to which I want to turn now. And that is the responsibility to develop genuine knowledge and harness existing expertise on matters of crime and policing. Home Office officials need to know in detail about specific crime trends, about policing methods and about what I call the drivers – not causes, as somebody once called them – of crime.

Overall, crime is down and it continues to fall. The Crime Survey for England and Wales – regarded by most academics as an international gold standard in measuring crime trends – shows that crime has fallen by sixty-two per cent since it peaked in 1995. And I note that the debate in the media has now mainly shifted from whether the crime figures are true to the reasons why crime is falling.

Some crime types – including sexual offences, shoplifting and fraud – have shown increases in the most recent recorded crime statistics. The truth is that the experts can come up with partially informed explanations as to why these crime types might be increasing – the increase in recorded sexual offences is likely to be driven by historical allegations coming to light while the increase in recorded fraud is likely to be caused by better recording – but we do not know enough about why crime overall is falling, why certain crime types are rising or why there might be different crime trends in different parts of the country. And if we can understand those things better, then we can come up with smarter crime prevention policies.

That is why I have set up a team called the Crime and Policing Knowledge Hub inside the Home Office. Understanding that overall crime levels are only the net result of millions of individual decisions in millions of different contexts, officials have been working to identify and understand the six main drivers of crime in this country. We believe they are alcohol, drugs, opportunity, the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, character and profit.

If we can understand each of these drivers better, if we can understand how they relate to one another, we should be able to devise better policy to prevent crime occurring in the first place.

In the light of police reform, I believe that this is now the most important responsibility for the Home Office on matters of crime and policing.

We already know that alcohol-related crime is believed to cost around £11 billion per year in England and Wales, while in half of all incidents of violence the victim believed the perpetrator was drunk. Labour liberalised licensing laws and promised us a café culture, but all they did was unleash booze-fuelled violence. So we have radically reformed Labour’s Licensing Act, empowered local communities to tackle problem drinking and banned the below-cost sale of alcohol. We did not proceed with the introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol or banning multi-buy discounts because we were not satisfied that it would reduce alcohol-related violence without penalising sensible drinkers and responsible businesses. But a better and deeper understanding of how drinking and crime relate to one another will enable us to take targeted action to prevent alcohol-related crime.

Drugs are also a significant driver of crime. For example, the number of opiate and crack cocaine users is believed to have risen by a magnitude of ten between 1982 and 1992. New Home Office research, published in July, suggests that these people had a much greater impact on the increase in acquisitive crime up until 1995, and the fall since, than we had realised and we still believe that opiate and crack cocaine users are responsible for as much as 45 per cent of acquisitive crime in England and Wales. There remains a long term downward trend in drug use, but understanding in greater detail the effects that drugs can have on crime rates is vital as we develop our drugs strategy, as the debate about legalising and regulating drugs continues, and – when 95 per cent of the heroin on our streets is from Afghanistan – as our military is in the process of withdrawing from that country. This is, incidentally, a very good example of why the National Crime Agency needs a powerful international reach – because more than ever crime is a cross-border phenomenon.

I called the third driver of crime ‘opportunity’. This does not mean that given the opportunity anyone would commit a crime. Rather it means that those who do lead a life of crime are likely commit a greater number of offences when there are more opportunities to offend.

I’m talking about things from product design to town planning and architecture, but the most obvious and pressing example is the criminal opportunities provided by new technology. I want to emphasis again that the role of the Home Office in fighting cyber crime is not to cut across what law enforcement does, or try to do the job of the College by setting standards or targets. The Home Office must develop an understanding of cyber crime in its entirety and develop a policy response. For example, working with the Metropolitan Police we have discovered that more than a third of vehicles stolen in London do not involve taking the owner’s keys. Instead, car thieves might break into a car and programme a new electronic key. They might use sophisticated devices to ‘grab’ the security coding when the owner uses their key so they can use it themselves. And there have been reports that they could even use ‘malware’ to commandeer vehicle systems via satellites and issue remote demands to unlock doors, disable alarms and start car engines. Because we have this understanding, we can now work with industry to improve electronic resilience, include this kind of resilience in the vehicle’s overall security ratings, and work out the extent to which the same threat applies to other physical assets such as building security systems.

Then there is the role of the police and criminal justice system. And here, if we think of Operations Yewtree, Pallial, Bullfinch and others, it is clear that there have been systemic failures over the years to protect vulnerable young people from sexual exploitation. My colleagues in the Home Office, Mike Penning and Norman Baker, are leading work with ministers from other departments to improve the response not just of the police but the wider public sector. The solutions will be a mixture of legislation – we have already supported in Parliament Nicola Blackwood’s campaign to protect vulnerable children– and operational improvements – for example we need to make sure we have Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs across the whole country – but the solutions will all be based on a detailed grasp of the facts.

The fifth driver of crime I mentioned was character. I should be absolutely clear here that there is nothing inevitable about criminality and most people who grow up in circumstances exposed to what criminologists call ‘risk factors’ do not go on to commit crime. But – remembering in the end the only cause of a crime is a criminal – there are still common factors that make it more likely that somebody might become a criminal. Of course there are many ways of looking at this, and Government policies including school reform, welfare reform and the troubled families programme are all relevant. So too is our work to prevent domestic violence. It is well known that children who are brought up in violent households are more likely to become violent themselves later in life, so domestic violence – as well as being a serious crime in its own right – is also a significant driver of crime. But unfortunately, we know from the HMIC inspection I commissioned last year that the police response to domestic violence is not good enough. So I have written to every chief constable making it clear they must have a domestic violence action plan in place this month, and I am chairing a national oversight group to make sure HMIC’s recommendations are implemented quickly.

The last – but perhaps most important – driver of crime is profit. The more we understand the nature of organised crime and organised criminal gangs, the more it is apparent that the majority are motivated by money, they act rationally and they seek and exploit commercial opportunities.

Police forces tell us that recent rises in theft from the person, for example, were in part driven by the theft of smart phones by organised criminal gangs. These gangs targeted specific venues, like concerts and festivals, to steal smart phones on a massive scale. The phones were then often sent overseas where they are reactivated and sold. There is of course an operational response to this kind of criminal activity, which should be left to the police, but the Home Office has also been working with industry to find new ways to stop the reactivation of phones overseas, thereby killing the criminals’ export market.

And we can go further. More than 15 years ago, the Car Theft Index contributed to a fall in vehicle theft by allowing consumers to make informed choices about which models of car to buy based on their likelihood of being stolen. Today I want to announce my intention to do the same with mobile phone theft.

Working with industry and the Behavioural Insights Team at the Cabinet Office, the Home Office is developing proposals to further prevent mobile phone theft. These include steps that consumers can take to improve personal security, industry innovation to develop new security features – such as the new iOS7 operating system introduced by Apple – and the publication of a new Mobile Phone Theft Ratio to inform the public about the handsets which have been most at risk of being targeted by thieves. We will publish further details of this work imminently, but I am encouraged that the security improvements that industry has already introduced have contributed to recorded theft from the person falling by 10% in the last year, according to the most recent crime statistics.

The examples I have just given are very specific and there are of course many other ways in which the Home Office, having developed this expertise, can work to prevent crime. This work is in its infancy and I expect it to become much more sophisticated over time. But the point is clear – it must surely be better to prevent crime occurring in the first place than responding to it afterwards. But if we are to do that, we need a deep understanding of what the drivers of crime are. And that is precisely what we are doing in the Home Office.

What is true in the Home Office is true in other departments too. Chris Grayling’s reforms in the Ministry of Justice are about breaking the cycle of reoffending and therefore reducing demand in the criminal justice system. Andrew Lansley and Jeremy Hunt have been clear that the role of the Department of Health is not to run the NHS but to develop better public health policy. Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms are all about helping people out of benefits and into a life of work, which in the end is the only sustainable way to reduce poverty. And we must think in creative terms about how we take this approach not just within individual departments but across government as a whole.

In the last four years, we have achieved something no modern government has achieved before. We have proved that, through reform, it is possible to do more with less. We will need to go on doing more with less for many years into the future. But, looking ahead to the next Parliament, the next great challenge will be the need to reform to reduce the huge demand for public services in the first place. And I look forward to Reform leading that debate.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May to the House of Commons on 15 June 2016.

The final Justice and Home Affairs Council of the Dutch presidency took place on 9 and 10 June in Luxembourg. The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire) attended the justice day and I attended the interior day.

Justice day (9 June) began with a progress report on the draft directive on the supply of digital content. The proposal aims to advance the growth of cross-border e-commerce in the EU by setting common rules for governing the supply of digital content.

The Council then discussed four files in which the UK does not participate: matrimonial property regimes; registered partnerships; the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO); and the directive on protection of the Union’s financial interests. Ministers agreed general approaches on both matrimonial property regimes and registered partnerships, enabling negotiations with the European Parliament to begin. Ministers secured broad conceptual support on a number of issues relating to the internal functioning of the EPPO, and on the directive on protection of the Union’s financial interests, Ministers did not reach agreement on a number of compromise options. The presidency then presented a progress report on negotiations to extend the European criminal record information system (ECRIS) to third country (non-EU) nationals. The Immigration Minister intervened to support the principles behind the ECRIS proposal and to emphasise the importance of finding a suitable technical solution to data sharing.

Over lunch, the presidency facilitated a discussion on compensating victims of crime, focusing on improving co-operation and sharing best practice. The Commission committed to look at practical steps to support improved co-operation.

After lunch, the presidency sought a steer from Ministers on work to improve criminal justice in cyberspace. The Immigration Minister intervened to agree the importance of tackling cybercrime and to stress that best use should be made of existing tools.

Under any other business, the Commission informed Ministers that a code of conduct to combat hate speech online had been developed with the IT industry and the Commission will present an impact report to Council in December. The presidency also updated Ministers on outcomes from the recent EU-US JHA ministerial meeting on 1 and 2 June. Finally, the incoming Slovakian presidency presented its justice and home affairs priorities. The A points were then adopted.

Interior day (10 June) began with a discussion on the draft weapons directive, which relates to control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. Supported by other member states, I intervened to welcome the progress made, but underlined the potential to go even further in ensuring appropriately high standards of regulation. The presidency concluded that there was support for a general approach and trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament will now begin.

The Council then turned to the presidency’s data sharing road map. The road map contains a number of practical proposals aimed at enhancing data sharing between member states to enhance security and law enforcement, which reflects in particular proposals made by the UK and France. I fully supported the presidency’s prioritisation of this work to enhance internal security across Europe, particularly the sharing of data between Schengen and non-Schengen member states. Several member states supported both my position and the objectives and actions set out in the road map.

The discussion on the fight against terrorism focused on a paper from the European Counter Terrorism Coordinator (EUCTC) which made a number of recommendations to advance work to tackle the terrorist threat. I welcomed the role of the EUCTC in supporting member states in tackling terrorist finance, online radicalisation and firearms, and stressed the clear difference in mandate and competence between the work of Europol and that of the member state-driven Counter Terrorist Group (CTG). The CTG, which has provided a multilateral platform to enhance co-operation between independent European intelligence services, also gave a presentation.

The Council noted a report on the implementation of the renewed internal security strategy and the presidency updated Interior Ministers on the outcomes of the EU-US JHA ministerial meeting on 1 and 2 June, and the outcomes from the high-level meeting on cyber security on 12 and 13 May.

Over lunch, there was a discussion on migration through the central Mediterranean route and the Commission presented its communication on external migration. After lunch, the Council discussed the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement of 18 March. Supported by the Commission, I intervened to ensure a continued focus in the Council on the effective and full implementation of the statement by leaders.

The Council then discussed proposals concerning the relationship between the Schengen states and Georgia, Ukraine, Kosovo, and Turkey. There was an exchange of views on these proposals and the Council did not agree a general approach on Georgia. The UK does not participate in these measures.

Next on the agenda was the European border and coast guard, where the presidency provided a progress update on negotiations with the European Parliament. The UK does not participate in this measure.

The Commission then presented its proposals to the Council on reform of the common European asylum system. Finally, the incoming Slovakian presidency presented its justice and home affairs priorities to Interior Ministers.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioner Meeting on 24 May 2016.

Thank you. I am delighted to be at this first Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) general meeting since the elections in May.

As I look about the room, I can see some familiar faces. But some new faces as well. Together you represent policing in towns, cities, villages and rural areas across the country and you represent a broad spectrum of views and a range of parties. So I am delighted to be with you all here today – and I look forward to hearing about your plans for ensuring the police can continue to cut crime and keep communities safe.

Now first of all, I want to begin by saying congratulations to you all. You put yourselves forward to stand as police and crime commissioners on 5 May and the public went to the polls and placed their votes at the ballot box. They elected you to represent their interests; to reflect their policing and crime priorities; and to hold their police force to account on their behalf.

And that is an immense privilege and a great responsibility. Whether you are new to the role or have just been returned for a second term, I am sure that you will take that responsibility seriously, and bring new perspectives and new leadership to policing in your area.

New perspectives and leadership

Now 2 weeks ago, I attended an event which clearly demonstrated the value of new perspectives and leadership in policing – and that was the graduation ceremony for the first cohort of Direct Entry superintendents.

Now there are only 8 of them in the first year, but they represent something that is ground-breaking in policing. They are the first senior leaders recruited from outside policing in the modern era, they’re bringing with them skills and experiences from the worlds of finance, the military, the civil service and industry. In the process, they are opening up a career that for too long meant starting as a constable and working your way up, they’re disrupting a culture which too often respects time served over skills gained or results delivered.

And I think those skills and experiences are breathing new life into police leadership. As one police constable (PC), whose testimony was shared at the event, made clear, their Direct Entry superintendent had inspired them to carry on in the job. After years of having their ideas rejected and being told that “this was just the way things are”, the constable was ready to quit policing. But the Direct Entry superintendent, herself frustrated by the system but committed to changing it, convinced the PC to be part of that solution. As she said, policing needs people like that constable – people with new ideas and the energy to follow them through – if it is going change for the better.

And the same is true of course of Police Now, which is a flagship scheme to bring the brightest and best university graduates into policing. It was just 2 years ago that I announced some seed funding for Police Now at the 2014 Police Federation conference but last summer, 69 graduates from some of the UK’s top institutions left university and entered the first Police Now summer academy. Within 6 weeks, they were on the beat as dedicated ward officers in neighbourhood teams, and the early results are extremely positive.

It has proved so popular that this year nearly 2,500 students applied for the 100 places available, with 7 police forces signed up. Of those who are expected to start their training in July, 55% are women and 21% are from a black and ethnic minority (BME) background, compared to 30.9% and 9.3% respectively for regular recruitment schemes. And with the help of Home Office funding, Police Now has now spun out of the Metropolitan Police to become a national social enterprise, available to all police forces in England and Wales.

It was only when I sat listening to the story of that Direct Entry superintendent, and when I met the outstanding group of individuals graduating Direct Entry, that it truly struck me. The tired, closed culture of policing is being opened up for the first time in its history. Innovative thinking is being injected into police practice and new leadership are being marshalled in the fight against crime, and I think it is benefiting existing police officers as much as the new recruits themselves.

So I hope each of you will encourage your forces to take up these schemes and accelerate that pace of change. Because, as police and crime commissioners, you also embody new leadership in policing, and you bring with you the new perspectives, skills and expertise that has been lacking for too long.

The importance of police and crime commissioners

Six years ago, when I first became Home Secretary and set about the task of introducing police and crime commissioners (PCCs), there were many who denied the need for new leadership. I was met with criticism, scepticism and doubt, and, looking back, it is easy to forget the strength of feeling we faced at the time.

There were those who claimed that the system of governance back then – police authorities – was working just fine. Others claimed that a single, directly-elected individual would lead to relationships with chief constables that were either too close or too adversarial. And many argued that politics had no place in policing and threatened the sacred principle of operational independence.

But the system was broken, and it had to change. And police authorities were not only unaccountable and invisible committees who no one knew existed; they were also ineffective. In 2010, only 4 of the 22 police authorities inspected by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) were judged to have performed well in 2 of their primary functions – setting strategic direction and ensuring value for money for taxpayers.

Chief constables held too much power and were not robustly held to account and I challenge any of you to find a chief constable formally dismissed for poor performance in the two decades prior to 2010. And politics of the worst kind plagued policing – through the system of distorting targets and bureaucratic requirements imposed on local police forces by the Home Office.

I introduced police and crime commissioners to change that. To properly hold chief constables to account for how well they are cutting crime and keeping communities safe. To ensure that each force’s priorities reflected the concerns of local people, not the whim of Whitehall. And to reinforce the British model of policing by consent through direct, democratic accountability.

And today when we consider how far we have come, I think we can say that many of the benefits are plain to see. And for me personally, I have to say that today it is tremendous to see how an idea – long in the making and hard fought to deliver – is now flourishing and bearing fruit.

This May around 9 million people went to the polls to elect you as their police and crime commissioners. Overall turnout was 27.4% across England and Wales, according to provisional analysis of police area returning officer certificates. The Electoral Commission will obviously confirm turnout later this summer, but it indicates a clear increase on the first elections in 2012, when 5.5 million votes were cast, and turnout was 15.1%. Now of course this year your elections were held alongside other local elections, but even in force areas where there were no other elections turnout increased. And I think these figures can – and should – improve in future years.

The achievements of PCCs so far

Police and crime commissioners have brought real democratic accountability, leadership and engagement to local policing in a way that never existed before. You’ve presided over a fall in crime of over a quarter since 2010, according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales. You have made efficiencies, which have helped us save hundreds of millions of pounds for the taxpayer and put this country’s finances back on a sustainable footing. You have increased the proportion of police officers on the front line, and brought new impetus to police volunteering freeing up police officers for roles only they can do.

And the achievements of PCCs in their first term demonstrate just what is possible in the second.

PCCs have engaged the public in ways that police authorities could never have imagined. Collectively your offices will receive upwards of 7,000 pieces of correspondence every month, and your websites are being visited by over 85,000 people, every month. Through webcasts and public accountability meetings, PCCs have involved the public in the practice of holding the chief constable to account. And in Sussex last year, Katy Bourne’s Youth Commission gathered the views of more than 2,000 young people from across the county to inform, support and challenge the priorities set out in her police and crime plan.

PCCs have relentlessly pursued efficiencies, not just to save money for the taxpayer but also to deliver operational benefits for officers. Some of you have invested in technology, like Martin Surl’s work with BAE Systems to analyse local data to identify ‘at risk’ children and young people; or Graham Bright’s work in Cambridgeshire to give thousands of officers mobile technology and to move to paperless policing to save time, money and improve the officers’ experience.

Others have driven much closer collaboration with other forces, both through the back office and in front line specialist teams. Warwickshire and West Mercia; Surrey and Sussex; Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire; Durham and Cleveland – a constellation of partnerships has sprung up in the last 4 years which I think we must build on in the future.

And of course some PCCs have used their mandate to drive change across other local services, despite not having direct oversight or budgetary control. In Staffordshire, Matthew Ellis has created a tri-service neighbourhood centre at the site of the existing fire station, with specific space for each service plus a shared service area. The project will enhance the effectiveness and integrated nature of the local emergency services provision while delivering cash and organisational benefits for each of their service partners, which equates to £1.18 million worth. While in Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd has worked with the Ministry of Justice to commission probation services to deliver intensive community orders over the next 18 months.

So these are just some of the examples, the positive examples, of what has been achieved in three and a half years under police and crime commissioners. But policing is not always positive. The issues you will deal with can be tough. The behaviour of officers and staff can be shameful. And the crimes you will have to contend with can be abhorrent. So I have been pleased that PCCs have not shied away from the difficult decisions either.

None more so than the recent verdict of the Hillsborough inquests. It was a momentous day for the families and campaigners who have fought for too long, in the face of hostility and obfuscation, for justice. As I said in my statement to Parliament, the conclusions of the inquests were clear on the role of South Yorkshire police officers on that day and the force must recognise the truth and be willing to accept it.

And I therefore welcome Alan Billings’s determination to take action and I am similarly heartened to see that he has been working with other policing leaders to find solutions that work for the people of South Yorkshire. I would like to pay tribute to Julia Mulligan, whose decision to allow chief constable Dave Jones to take temporary command of South Yorkshire Police has ensured that both forces have strong leadership in the interim. I continue to stand ready to support this process, and to help South Yorkshire Police confront the mistakes of the past and regain the confidence of their community.

Reform in the last Parliament

So police and crime commissioners have proved themselves. You have proved yourselves. And PCCs have been at the heart of the reforms I have put in place in policing since 2010. Because 6 years after the government was first elected, we now have a framework of institutions and processes to ensure policing is more accountable, more effective, and more professional than ever before.

The comprehensive annual inspection regime to scrutinise forces’ efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy, run by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate which is truly independent of the police and not afraid to ask difficult questions on your and the public’s behalf.

The College of Policing, to act as a proper professional body for police officers and staff, and to oversee training, create an evidence base of what works, and set clear professional standards, as I told the federation conference last week.

A National Crime Agency with the resources, international reach and powers to direct the fight against serious and organised crime, at home and abroad, and work with local forces on strategic threats.

A reformed National Police Chiefs’ Council, held to account by you – police and crime commissioners – with a much stronger emphasis on operational coordination.

A modern and independent evidence based process for pay and conditions.

A strengthened and reformed Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) being resourced so that it can take on all serious and sensitive cases, and, through the Policing and Crime Bill given the powers and structure to deliver it.

And a Home Office that no longer believes it runs policing and which no longer imposes targets and unnecessary bureaucracy on your forces.

So in the last Parliament, we rebuilt the institutions of policing and vested in them the powers, the clout and the legitimacy for them to work effectively. In the next 4 years, we will put you – PCCs at the heart of reform once again.

Putting PCCs at the heart of future reform

So in the Policing and Crime Bill that is currently going through Parliament, we are already taking steps to give you greater scope to reform policing locally, and drive improvements in the service to the public.

Over the last three and half years, many of you and your predecessors invested time, energy and resources in making the emergency services work better together locally, with impressive results. So we will help you go further, by legislating to enable PCCs to take on responsibilities for fire and rescue services locally, where a local case is made, and to place a statutory duty on all three emergency services to collaborate.

As I said yesterday at Reform, speaking largely to fire and rescue service chiefs, these reforms are central to a programme of reform in fire and rescue that I hope will be as urgent and as radical as that in policing since 2010.

We will help you reconnect your forces with the public by radically reforming the police complaints system, so that you – PCCs – can take a more active role in handling low-level complaints and appeals. Because as Vera Baird in Northumbria has shown, PCCs are well placed to deal with the public and ensure that the service they receive is more customer focused, responsive and accountable.

But, because the Home Office no longer believes it runs policing, I am not imposing these changes on you. I am not mandating you take on fire or all new functions regarding police complaints. You are in charge, and you can decide where the opportunities lie for your area and your communities.

Where you have an appetite for further devolution and greater responsibility, I am committed to working with you to deliver it. As I said in February, I have been working with the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, on what role PCCs could play in the wider criminal justice system. That’s something that I have long believed in and which a number of PCCs have shown an interest in. There is, after all, a reason why we included the words ‘and crime’ in PCC’s titles all those years ago.

This work is not yet complete, but I hope that in the coming months we can work with you to shape these proposals. So that PCCs can bring about direct accountability to the criminal justice system in the same way that you have for policing, and to further cut crime and improve rehabilitation in the process.

The Police Transformation Fund

So I am doing my bit to give you the powers for you to effect change at a local level, if you want them. But the real challenge is yours. As I told many of you last December, the next stage of reform is not something I will impose on you. It is something you must design and deliver for yourselves, using the fact that overall police spending will increase by up to £900 million in cash terms over the Spending Review period and this will include hundreds of millions of transformation funding.

And in doing so, you must be willing to act collectively and do so in the interests of what is best for policing as a whole, not just for your own force. Because as I said then, the debate in policing is no longer about structures, it is about which capabilities are needed in policing, where they best sit and how they are best delivered. That is not something I can prescribe; it must come from you – from PCCs – and chief constables, through the Police Reform and Transformation Board.

And that board is now up and running and I hope you will start proposing areas where funding is needed to deliver new and improved capability, following the decisions to improve police capability in firearms and digital policing which announced at the Spending Review. And I am grateful to Sara Thornton for the momentum that she has injected into this programme of work and for bringing chief constables together around common objectives for the future of policing. It is also absolutely right that the case for operational capability is developed by those with the operational expertise. Chief constables are the professionals, and there is no escaping the essential role they play in establishing what is needed and how it might be delivered.

But I know there have been some concerns that the process is overly reliant on chief constables and that PCCs have been squeezed out. I understand those concerns, and to some degree I share them. Police transformation and the investment in new capabilities cannot and should not happen without the input of police and crime commissioners. Collectively you are accountable for local policing, and I am clear that you should have a say on how this money is spent. At times you will all also need to look beyond your own force boundaries and your own force interests to work together to deliver it in the best interests of law enforcement as a whole. And I will not accept proposals that do not have the support of PCCs. But you must also take much greater ownership of the Police Reform and Transformation Board (PRTB) yourselves. There is a reason the board has as many PCCs on it as chief constables, and that the chair rotates between the APCC and the NPCC. You are equal partners, and you have an equal opportunity to shape it.

And to support you do that, I agree to the allocation of a small proportion of transformation funding to help support PCCs on the board. This role would coordinate oversight of the work of the PRTB on behalf of PCCs, link into your offices and provide day-to-day oversight of delivery to time and budget, reporting through the APCC chief executive of the APCC board. But I am only doing that because the APCC has requested this on your behalf. Because it’s your money, not mine. Determining how to use it to deliver transformation in policing is best done by you– policing as a whole – and not by the Home Office.

Conclusion

And if I could offer one message, one word of advice, to hold with you over the next 4 years, it would be this.

Do not seek permission. Don’t look to the Home Office. Do not rely on the words of ministers or the Home Secretary to justify your actions or provide cover for what you want to do. You’ve been elected to represent your constituents, not to represent the Whitehall view. Your police and crime plans should reflect their priorities, not mine.

Where I can help, I will do so. Where you believe the law needs to be changed, I will listen. When the Home Office or other parts of Whitehall are getting in your way, I will work to clear your path. But I gave up the power to appoint chief constables for good reason. Just as I ended the system of Home Office targets for good reason. Because policing and crime should be properly accountable to the communities they serve.

Police and crime commissioners are here to stay. You have the potential to safeguard the historic principle of policing by consent and restore the link between the public and the police and I look forward to working with you to do just that.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on 24 May 2016.

Introduction

Thank you very much, Andrew and Graham. It is a great pleasure to be here today to talk to one of Britain’s leading think tanks on public service reform. In my time as Home Secretary, Reform has consistently challenged government to be more radical and more urgent in its pursuit of accountability, value for money and transparency in public services. And it is a challenge I have taken to heart in my time at the Home Office, and I think our work to cut crime, control immigration, safeguard the vulnerable and protect against terrorism and extremism is more effective as a result.

So today I would like to talk about reform of another public service essential to keeping people of this country out of harm’s way. One with a fine tradition and a proud record. And one made up of individuals who command profound affection from the communities they serve – the fire and rescue service – which I now have the privilege of overseeing in the Home Office. But before I talk about that, I want to go back to 2010, to when I was first appointed Home Secretary and when I first began my programme of reform in policing.

The lessons of police reform

Back then, the problems in policing were painfully apparent. Police forces beset by an opaque system of governance and diffuse accountability. Productivity held back by targets and the systems which officers relied upon were inefficient and ineffective. And a closed culture which insulated failure and rewarded the wrong things. There was no question of the need for reform, or the urgency with which it was needed.

Yet when I first launched my programme of reform in policing, the response from Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Police Federation was to deny the need for change. For many in policing in 2010, the word ‘reform’ could mean only one of 2 things, top-down reorganisation of the 43-force model or the establishment of a royal commission – and the fact I intended to do neither was heresy. When I set out the government’s plans to reduce police budgets by over a fifth over the course of a Parliament, they were united: the frontline would be ruined and crime would go shooting up. The Police Federation predicted “Christmas for criminals”.

Today, those claims lie in tatters and no-one in policing can be in any doubt of the purpose of police reform. In the last 6 years, we have set about systematically reforming the institutions of policing – bringing real accountability for local people; modernising pay and conditions; transforming the approach to procurement and collaboration; and abolishing the system of targets and bureaucracy which undermined productivity and drove centralisation.

And these reforms are bearing fruit. We now have a framework of institutions and processes that works properly to ensure accountability and operational integrity. Policing is more diverse, more professional, and better qualified than ever before. Public confidence has been maintained and the proportion of officers on the frontline is up. And crime is down by well over a quarter, according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales, even as police budgets have fallen.

The experience of police reform shows what is possible. And over the course of this Parliament, I want to bring that same relentless focus to reform of the fire and rescue service – to improve the whole range of services provided to the public and to preserve the sustained falls in fire incidents and deaths we have seen in recent decades.

The achievements of fire and rescue

It is 15 years since the Home Office last oversaw fire and rescue services, and in that time the risk of fire has fallen considerably. Since 2001, the number of fires in England has been reduced by nearly two-thirds. Fire deaths have fallen by almost half and we have seen similar reductions in the number of non-fatal casualties. There are approaching 200,000 fewer false alarms each year, of which malicious incidents have fallen by nearly 90%. Buildings are safer, families and communities are more secure, and firefighters’ time is being wasted far less, freeing them up to focus on more effective activity locally.

But what is striking about those achievements is that they were achieved not by change imposed from above, but by reform driven from below.

Just as in policing before 2010, local services were weighed down by bureaucratic control, targets drove confusion and perverse outcomes, and taxpayers’ money was wasted. But unlike in policing, fire and rescue services seized the need for change at a local level and reformed themselves from the ground up. What began with the Bain Review in 2002 led to wholesale change in the culture and priorities of fire and rescue services, marshalled not by Whitehall but by chiefs and authorities themselves.

Most importantly, as Andrew referred to, fire services embraced prevention over response. Today, prevention work in communities is second nature to every firefighter and core business in every local fire and rescue service. Over 600,000 homes were visited by fire personnel in England in 2014 and 2015 and nearly 59,000 businesses were checked for compliance with fire safety laws and given tailored advice on prevention and fire safety.

At the same time, fire and rescue services worked to shift the balance of responsibility for fire protection onto industry and society more broadly. It is down to years of home safety visits, the successful Fire Kills awareness campaign and the continued pressure for building, furniture and fire safety regulations that fires are at an all time low and nearly 90% of all homes have a working smoke alarm, compared to only 8% a quarter of a century ago.

By working in partnership with other local services and using data more systematically, fire and rescue services have developed a deep understanding of the needs and the risks of the communities they serve. The elderly residents at risk of falls. The families whose chaotic lifestyles make them a cause for concern. The buildings with construction shortcuts and poor management standards. By understanding these risks, fire and rescue services have been able to better manage them – saving countless lives as a result.

And recent events remind us of the increasingly varied job that our fire and rescue services do. The crash at the Shoreham Air Show in August last year that left 11 dead and 16 injured. Widespread flooding in large parts of Cumbria and the Lake District in December. The collapse of part of Didcot Power station in March. Today firefighters do not just fight fire, they protect their communities from a range of dangerous situations.

The continuing need for reform

But as impressive as these achievements are, there remains much more to do. Families, businesses and property in this country remain at risk of fire. Last year there were more than 150,000 fire incidents in England. A total of 263 people lost their lives to fire and 7,500 more were injured. The insurance industry tell us that fire costs industry hundreds of millions a year, and we know that many businesses never recover from the ashes. These are not statistics we can or should ignore.

Nor should we forget that, whilst fire does not discriminate, those most at risk are not those living in modern houses with expensive appliances and insurance to protect them when things go wrong. The victims of fire, too often, are the vulnerable within our society – older people, those living alone, and those whose behaviours, lifestyles or housing puts them at greater risk.

And when I look at the fire and rescue service, I see a service that has succeeded in spite of the framework it operates in, not because of it. A fire and rescue landscape still beset by poor governance and structures. A workforce lacking diversity and still bound by many of the old ways of working. A service that requires further reform to improve accountability, bring independent scrutiny and drive transparency. And efficiencies and savings which could be made to improve the working lives of fire service employees and to reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

So, over the course of this Parliament, I intend to work with fire and rescue services to deliver a programme of reform that is as radical and ambitious as I have delivered in policing since 2010. The job of police reform is not yet finished and I am not going to pretend that reform in fire and rescue will be easy or straightforward. Meaningful and lasting reform never is. But with fire and rescue in the Home Office and with – I sense – a real appetite for change, I believe now is the time to deliver the change that is needed.

Efficiency and collaboration

In the last 6 years, fire and rescue authorities have shouldered their fair share in delivering savings to bring the public finances back onto a sustainable footing. And over the next 4 years, further savings will need to be made, including a 1.6% cash reduction in spending power for single purpose fire authorities this financial year, as we continue to bring the public finances onto a sustainable footing.

But we should be in no doubt that such efficiencies are possible. And nowhere is the scope for savings more apparent than in closer working between emergency services.

The development of much closer collaboration between emergency services was one of the great unsung successes of the last Parliament. This takes many forms, from basic practical steps, like sharing headquarters or back office services, to radical reform, such as the integration of command and control or response teams, but those areas that have worked together have realised savings and operational benefits. The Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme has developed a common approach to how the 3 bluelight services are trained for, and respond to, major or complex incidents, such as flooding or terrorist attacks.

And new ways of working between services have cut duplication and enhanced the response to incidents. Initiatives like the introduction of rural intervention vehicles, jointly crewed by police and fire officers, to serve hard to reach locations in Northamptonshire. Or the establishment of a joint station in Norfolk that houses not just police and fire, but ambulance crews and the coastguard too. Or the development of Community Risk Intervention Teams in Greater Manchester, which deliver prevention services on behalf of all bluelight services and respond to high volume, low priority calls. Since 2013, the government has invested over £88 million in fire transformation schemes such as these, with expected savings estimated in the hundreds of millions of pounds over the next 10 years.

But progress is patchy and collaboration remains the exception, not the rule. In this Parliament, I want to see much deeper collaboration between fire and rescue and other local services, to improve the service to the public and deliver savings. And that is why we are legislating in the Policing and Crime Bill to put a statutory duty on the police, the emergency ambulance and fire and rescues services in England to collaborate whenever it is in the interests of their efficiency or their effectiveness to do so.

And it is why I am committed to ending the narcissism of small differences between local fire and rescue services, which make no sense in principle and which frustrate joint working in practice.

Two weeks ago, progress was made when the Chief Fire Officers’ Association, the Fire Service College, the Fire Industry Authority and others agreed to unify research and development so that equipment is only tested once, rather than by each local service. And I welcome the Chief Fire Officers’ Association’s proposals to develop a coherent and comprehensive set of professional standards, building on the work of the National Operational Guidance Programme. There are many legitimate reasons why collaboration can fail – competing aims, conflicts of leadership, differing financial positions – but a lack of consistent professional standards is not one of them.

And to help services work together to buy equipment and services, I will publish comparable procurement data from every fire and rescue authority in England, to show how much each is paying for common items like uniform, operational kit, and vehicles. As we have seen in policing, local services can deliver significant savings just by pooling their purchasing power and buying the same equipment collectively – and there’s no good reason not to do so.

Reform of the fire and rescue workforce

These changes will lead to better use of resources and more thoughtful deployment of assets. But there is one resource, which comprises the majority of fire and rescue budgets, where there is still work to do: the fire and rescue workforce.

In the last 10 years, the overall size of the fire workforce has not changed significantly despite the number of incidents attended falling by 42%. The challenge facing senior fire officers is therefore how to reform the workforce to meet a completely different risk and demand model, and how to build in the flexibility to deploy resources in different ways as demand changes again in the future. But, let me be clear, this does not and should not mean a reduction in the quality of frontline firefighting. Just as we have seen in policing, it is possible to protect the frontline and increase the proportion of officers deployed in frontline roles even as savings are made.

These matters are rightly operational decisions for fire professionals, not for politicians. But already the characteristics of a future workforce are visible from changes the best chief fire officers have introduced. New and flexible shift patterns so that firefighters are available at times when risk or demand is greatest. The recruitment of dedicated fire prevention staff to conduct prevention work in communities and businesses and free up firefighters for specialist tasks. And increased use of on-call firefighters to increase flexibility and generate savings, not just in rural areas but in major metropolitan areas too, as Sir Ken Knight and the retained firefighters’ union have powerfully argued.

Now I know there are those in the audience who will say that the National Joint Council (NJC) acts as a barrier to some of these changes and to a flexible workforce more broadly. The fact that, after 15 years of discussion and steadfast opposition from the Fire Brigades’ Union (FBU), the NJC has only recently reached agreement to pilot co-responding suggests to me that at least some of those complaints are well-founded. But the NJC is owned by fire and rescue, not by government, and fire authorities form one half of its membership. It is in your hands to change it, and my challenge to you is to deliver that change or have the courage of your convictions and withdraw.

And reform must extend to chief fire officers too. There is widening disparity between the pay of chief fire officers in different parts of the country, with little relationship to their skills, performance or the size of the role. And it can never be justified for chief and principal fire officers to retire one day only to be rehired in the same job just a few days later with financial benefits that rank and file firefighters could never expect. It looks wrong; it erodes public confidence; it undermines the respect of firefighters and staff in their leadership; and it must stop.

Just as the culture of bullying and harassment we have seen in some fire and rescue authorities can no longer be allowed to persist. There is no excusing this type of culture – which was described as “toxic” and “corrosive” by last year’s review of Essex Fire and Rescue Service. I know that there has been progress in Essex to put that right and I will be monitoring developments, but we must let it serve as a wider lesson too. In doing so, we must transform the diversity of a firefighter workforce that is 96% white and 95% male. Because it is not just professionalism and integrity that underpin the relationship with the public, it is also how representative fire and rescue services are of their communities and the communities they serve. I know this is something the FBU has championed in the past, and I hope we can work together to increase diversity in fire and rescue.

And I can confirm that I intend to publish the Thomas review of the fire and rescue workforce as soon as is possible. This is an important piece of work, which I know has been a long time coming, but fire and rescue services should not wait for its conclusions to start reforming their workforce – you are the employers, not me or Adrian Thomas, and it’s up to you to drive the process of reform.

A more accountable and transparent fire and rescue service
And as you do, I will put in place the right framework of institutions and processes to ensure operational integrity and to restore the link between fire and rescue services and the communities they serve.

Because governance in fire and rescue bears all the hallmarks of the flawed police authorities I abolished in 2012. Bureaucratic committees of appointed councillors without the direct democratic mandate to drive real change or the public profile to engage local people. In policing, I replaced police authorities with single, visible individuals held to account in the strongest possible way – at the ballot box. And 3 weeks ago, more than 9 million people did just that when they voted for a police and crime commissioner to oversee their local force on their behalf.

So we will bring the same direct democratic mandate to oversight of fire and rescue services – by giving police and crime commissioners the ability to take on responsibility for fire and rescue services where a local case is made. This provision, which is already in the Policing and Crime Bill currently making its way through Parliament, will bring greater accountability to the work of local fire and rescue services where it is taken up and provide stronger leadership in keeping the public safe. And I encourage Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to carefully consider the potential benefits and I hope fire and rescue authorities will work constructively with PCCs to realise them.

But let me be clear, these proposals are not a police takeover of fire and rescue services, or a top-down merger of the roles of police officers and firefighters. The important distinction between operational policing and firefighting will be maintained – fire officers will not be given the power to arrest and the law will continue to prevent full-time police officers from training as firefighters. Funding streams for police and fire will not be merged and PCCs will raise a separate fire precept, so local people can hold them to account for how their money is spent.

But there’s one problem – it is currently almost impossible to scrutinise your local fire and rescue service. There’s no independent inspectorate; no regular audit of performance; and only limited available data on performance over time or between areas. Instead, local fire and rescue services are examined by a system of peer challenge – which provides no assurance whatsoever to the public. It may serve a purpose as a tool for self-improvement, but in practice it means that chief fire officers handpick their own reviewer, set their own terms of reference, and decide whether or not to publish the results. It is not so much marking your own homework as setting your own exam paper and resolving that you’ve passed – and it has to change.

To help fire and rescue authorities and PCCs hold their service to account and to drive closer scrutiny by taxpayers and communities, I intend to bring forward proposals to establish a rigorous and independent inspection regime for fire and rescue in England. I will shortly table amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill to strengthen the inspection powers in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to put beyond doubt the powers of fire inspectors to enter premises and access information, and to ensure the government has the power to commission inspections of particular issues or fire and rescue services. Because it is only by understanding problems and holding services accountable that we can begin to fix them.

To support greater accountability, I will publish transparent fire and rescue information so that ordinary members of the public can compare fire and rescue services on performance, value for money and diversity, monitor that performance over time, and access useful fire safety information and advice. And if anyone doubts the public appetite for this information, just look at the success of Police.uk, which now receives 450,000 unique visits each month from interested members of the public.

Conclusion

I am sure there are those who question some of these reforms; who simply don’t accept the need for change; who, rightly, say that fire and rescue today does not share all the problems of policing in 2010. After years of falling risk of fire and even fewer incidents, it would have been easy for me to adopt the same mentality and let fire and rescue services stand still.

But if we do that, if we choose to ignore the 263 people who lost their lives to fire last year and the thousands of business owners whose livelihoods went up in flames, we implicitly suggest that the institutions and structures of fire and rescue are good enough, not the unaccountable and inefficient framework we know them to be. And we brush aside, under the carpet, difficult questions about culture, leadership and diversity – which matter to those that work in fire and rescue just as much as the public they serve.

The reforms I have set out today will make fire and rescue more accountable, more effective and more professional than ever before. They will build on the great strides in prevention and collaboration that fire and rescue services have already made. And if we get them right, they will benefit not just the public or the taxpayer, but firefighters too and I hope you will all work with me to deliver them.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Police Federation Conference on 17 May 2016.

Roll of honour

Each year the Police Federation pays tribute to those officers who fell in the line of duty in the previous year. The men and women who went to work – to fight crime, put away dangerous criminals, and keep the public safe – but then did not return home. This year, 2 further names are added to that roll of honour:

PC Sahib Lalli
PC David Phillips

They did their jobs serving their communities and striving to make them safer. And in honouring them we should also remember the families that are often left behind.

Day in and day out, you – and the thousands of police officers and staff up and down the country – do a fantastic job. You do so with a tremendous sense of duty. You do so with courage and dedication not knowing from day to day what you might face. We must never forget the risks you take or the sacrifices you make so that we don’t have to.

So I am delighted that the Police Federation’s new campaign, Believe in Blue, will celebrate the difference that police officers make every day to people’s lives: protecting the innocent, defusing conflict, and providing comfort. These are not just slogans. They are the daily professional achievements of policing in this country, of which you should all be proud.

Reform of the Police Federation

Six years ago I stood on this platform and addressed you for the first time.

On each occasion since then, I’ve talked about the wide-ranging programme of reform I have put in place since becoming Home Secretary. A programme which, let’s face it, you haven’t always agreed with and which, at times, you have resisted.

But 6 years on, British policing has changed substantially for the better. We have overhauled inadequate institutions and systems, reduced excessive bureaucracy, and replaced a centralised model of governance with local democratic accountability. Policing is more accountable, more transparent and more effective. And crime is down by well over a quarter since 2010, according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales.

But I am not here today to talk about those reforms. I want to focus on one of the biggest challenges facing each of you, and one of the biggest questions for the British model of policing by consent – the response to vulnerable people.

But before I do so I want to talk about you, the federation.

Two years ago, I delivered a difficult message to the federation at this conference. I am sure you remember that day well – I certainly do. Not for my remarks or your reaction to them, but for the fact that, shortly afterwards this federation voted for change when it accepted Sir David Normington’s review of the Police Federation in full.

You have made clear progress since then. Police officers now choose to join the federation voluntarily, instead of paying their subscription fees by default. The IT and change programmes needed to modernise the organisation are well underway. You have proposed amendments to the federation’s rules and regulations aimed at reforming your structures, governance, and even this conference itself. The Policing and Crime Bill going through Parliament will bring the Police Federation within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

And just as you – the federation – asked me to do, I will enshrine a revised core purpose for the federation in law – making clear your commitment to the public interest alongside your existing duty to your members.

So Steve and Andy, I would like to commend you for your hard work on delivering that commitment to change. I know it hasn’t been easy. You have experienced setbacks and delays. But you’ve both recognised that the Police Federation will be more representative, more credible and more professional as a result.

But that does not mean change can stop here. Of the 36 recommendations in the Normington Review, 24 have not yet been delivered. And some of those you say are now in place, like the Independent Reference Group, have not in any way lived up to the spirit of what Normington prescribed.

Then there are the Police Federation’s accounts. For the past 2 years, I have called these accounts in for review. What they have revealed is spending that has been both questionable and opaque. Branches spending tens of thousands of pounds on presents for retiring federation representatives – gifts that ordinary rank and file officers would never expect to receive. Other items – like £10,000 on an annual ‘plain clothing allowance’ in one branch – which defy explanation. The fact that some branches own what appear to be holiday homes, within an overall property portfolio worth £31 million.

Members’ subscriptions are not a slush fund for the fed or pocket money for its officials and I am sure ordinary members of the federation will be as concerned about how their money is being spent as I am. Just as they will be concerned by the arrest of 4 senior police federation representatives, including 3 serving police officers, for alleged fraud and potentially criminal misuse of federation funds.

That investigation has now passed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and remains ongoing, so I will not comment on the details of the case. But I will say this. The allegations could not be more serious. They go to the heart of the self-serving culture identified by Normington and they stand in contrast to the commitment to reform this conference made 2 years ago. Irrespective of whether criminality has taken place or whether individuals have acted inappropriately or not, they remind us of the continuing need for the federation to reform the way it operates.

So I intend to consult the federation on amending its regulations; to require that all expenditure above a defined amount – as set by the federation itself – be agreed by the national officers of the federation and the national board.

Two years ago, this federation took the bold decision to change. I know that you, for the sake of your members and for the public you serve, want to finish that job. As I’ve said before, if you stall, if you falter, or if the federation turns back on reform, I will legislate to do it for you. But for as long as you are making progress, I will listen and I will help you because you are doing the right thing.

Hillsborough

When I delivered that difficult message 2 years ago, it was not just the federation that I said needed to change. It was the police in a much broader sense. I was clear that the series of damaging events and revelations we had seen, put not just the relationship between the public and the police at risk, but called into question our very model of policing.

One of those damaging revelations was Hillsborough.

It is now 3 weeks since the jury at the fresh Hillsborough inquests gave its determinations and findings. When time and again, the jurors answered ‘yes’ to questions of error or omission on the part of the police.

Police planning and preparation, match-day operations, commanding officer decisions, orders from the control box, and the fateful decision to open the gate of the Leppings Lane exit all contributed to what happened that day, leaving 96 men, women and children ‘unlawfully killed’ and the fans blameless in the disaster.

For the survivors and families who lived through the horror of losing their loved ones, who suffered the injustice of hearing those victims being blamed, who were not believed, and who have seen the authorities that they should have been able to trust instead lay blame and try to protect themselves – the fight has been long and arduous. Throughout, they have remained steadfast, showing an extraordinary courage and a passion for justice for those who died – and I pay tribute to them.

There are currently 2 ongoing criminal investigations: one by the IPCC, which is examining the actions of the police in the aftermath of the disaster, and a second criminal investigation led by Jon Stoddart, the former chief constable of Durham – so I do not propose to go into this in detail.

But I do not believe there can be anyone in this hall who does not recognise the enormity of those verdicts. Nor can there be anyone in policing who does not now understand the need to face up to the past and right the wrongs that continue to jeopardise the work of police officers today.

Because historical inquiries are not archaeological excavations. They are not purely exercises in truth and reconciliation. They do not just pursue resolution; they are about ensuring justice is done. Justice: it’s what you deal in. It is your business. And you, the police, are its custodians.

We must never underestimate how the poison of decades-old misdeeds seeps down through the years and is just as toxic today as it was then. That’s why difficult truths, however unpalatable they may be, must be confronted head on.

And let’s not forget, when we look at Hillsborough, the principal obstacle to the pursuit of justice has not been the passage of time. The problem has been that due process was obstructed and the police, the custodians of justice, failed to put justice first.

The response to domestic abuse

So we must not let the lessons of Hillsborough and other past injustices go unheeded, and we must not be afraid to face up to the challenges of today.

There are issues that we have the opportunity to resolve now, where you have already shown that change is possible, but where reluctance or obfuscation could set back the relationship between the police and the public. Today, I want to talk about one such issue in particular – the police response to domestic abuse and vulnerable victims more widely.

Because for years the violence, rape and emotional abuse that takes place every day behind closed doors was simply not being taken seriously enough, and all too often treated as a ‘second class’ crime. Claims neglected and ignored, suffering dismissed, blame and recrimination cast back at victims, rather than those responsible. In many cases, brutal violence was downplayed as ‘just a domestic’ and too little was being done to protect victims.

And in neglecting victims, the impact of those crimes on families and children was also overlooked. Research clearly shows that children who grow up in this environment, who know nothing else but conflict and control, can go on to incorporate abuse into the families and homes they eventually build for themselves. The consequence of inaction is not therefore just continued abuse today, but the possibility of new perpetrators and new victims tomorrow.

It was a scandal I was clear could not continue when I became Home Secretary in 2010, however long it might take to address. That’s why shortly after coming to office I published my strategy: a call to end violence against women and girls. And why in 2013, I commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to inspect every police force on their response to domestic abuse.

On leadership, management and investigative practice – even for routine tasks such as the collection of evidence at crime scenes – inspectors found significant failings that were letting victims down. Officers who couldn’t spot dangerous patterns of abuse. Victims who weren’t treated with dignity and respect. And the shameful attitude of some officers towards victims who had suffered violence and psychological abuse.

The officers who accidentally recorded themselves calling a victim ‘a bitch’ and ‘a slag’. The victim who overheard the responding officer say: “It’s a DV, we’ll be a few minutes and we’ll go to the next job.”

In that context, it is not surprising that, in the words of one independent domestic abuse adviser, many women were made to feel like “they were making mountains out of molehills and that they are also to blame.”

I told you then those attitudes have no place in policing, and they threaten the good work of all you do. It was clear to me there needed to be a change of police culture, from the top down.

And the truth is, you listened and you acted.

In the last 2 years, real improvements have been made. Today, every police force in England and Wales has an action plan in place to tackle domestic abuse. For the first time, forces are collecting data against a national standard on all domestic abuse recorded crimes. The use of body worn video is improving the collection of evidence. In the recent police and crime commissioner elections, domestic abuse was mentioned more than any other crime as a priority in candidates’ manifestos.

We are seeing more victims coming forward, more crimes being properly recorded and more convictions. In 2014 to 15, the Crown Prosecution Service recorded the highest number of police referrals, prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse ever. And I have also been encouraged to see the first convictions for coercive control, and the many cases that are currently pending. They demonstrate that officers are recognising that patterns of continuous psychological abuse can be just as devastating as a single act of violence.

So I want to commend all those who have shown a real commitment to protecting vulnerable people from appalling violence and abuse. You should be proud of your work. You have shown that improvement is possible; that difficult truths can be faced up to; and that the trust of those who have been failed in the past can be regained.

The continuing need for reform

But there is still a long way to go. Victims of abuse are still being let down and reports are not being taken seriously enough. The right skills, training, and commitment to protect the vulnerable are still not held by every single police officer. And while the new powers that we introduced are effective, they are not being used anywhere near as systematically as they could be.

We continue to see examples of the same shameful attitude that HMIC uncovered in 2013. We know of officers who develop inappropriate relationships with victims of domestic abuse. They have ignored their professional duty and their moral responsibility, and instead abused their position of power to exploit victims.

We do not know the true scale of this, but everyone in this room will know it goes on far more than we might care to admit. So today I have written to Sir Tom Winsor to ask HMIC to investigate this issue during their legitimacy inspections later this year.

Or the officers who put victims of serious domestic violence into a room with their attacker in the name of restorative justice, with no consideration of the psychological and emotional damage that can cause. I know that restorative justice is meant to be victim-led and I know that guidance says it should be considered in all cases. But I simply do not believe it follows either the evidence or common sense to sit vulnerable victims across from perpetrators who for months and years may have destroyed their confidence, manipulated their mind, and beaten their bodies.

Victims of domestic abuse are not the only vulnerable people who have been neglected by the police. Think of the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. Of rape, stalking and harassment. Young girls who have been trafficked and held as slaves. These crimes are still investigated with different tools and often less urgency than crimes you are more accustomed to or more comfortable with, but which pose much less risk to individuals and communities.

As HMIC found last year, not a single police force in England and Wales is outstanding at protecting those who are vulnerable from harm and supporting victims, and 31 forces are judged to be either inadequate or requiring improvement. That suggests that substantially more police forces are effective at tackling drug dealers or stamping out anti-social behaviour than are effective at protecting vulnerable victims from rape, domestic abuse or modern slavery.

I do not say this chastise you or to lecture you. I know that the vast majority of you joined policing precisely to help vulnerable people and to protect them from harm. You work hard, and you want to do the right thing.

These cases are difficult and complex for all the reasons we know about. They involve people who do not always know they are being exploited. Those for whom changing their story may indicate that they are being coerced or controlled, not a sign that they are an unreliable witness. Victims who may view perpetrators not as criminals but as their family, their loved ones, and those they rely on for love and protection.

Investigations will often be more time-consuming and evidence less straightforward than for other crimes. Your superiors may be unsympathetic to the demands on officers and the sheer volume of cases involved.

Often, you will be forced to come to terms with abhorrent forms of criminality and look through harrowing images, which can weigh heavily on morale and have consequences for investigating officers’ mental health.

And for crimes that happened 20, 30, 40 years ago, the challenge of launching successful prosecutions when memories have faded, documents have been lost, and witnesses may have died, is undoubtedly incredibly tough.

I know that, at times, you must feel damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Because in spite of the complexity and the sensitivity of these crimes, the margin for error is smaller – and the risk of recrimination far greater – than for almost anything else you do.

And because when you get it right, you are – yes – rewarded with the satisfaction of a job well done. But you also then see even higher numbers of cases and greater levels of responsibility as victims gain more confidence in the system.

But you must not let increasing caseloads and complex investigations slow improvement or hinder further change. Or let the failure of your superiors to find efficiencies elsewhere pile pressure on officers already stretched and overloaded. There is no excuse for investigative teams not being resourced effectively. Because the number of people now coming forward demonstrates just how much was previously hidden, neglected, or ignored, and how many people are now starting to trust the police again.

Last year, police forces in England and Wales received more than 100 calls an hour about domestic abuse and domestic abuse cases made up around 1 in 3 violent crimes with injury. Police officers recorded more than 100,000 sexual offences. And there were more prosecutions and more convictions for rape than ever before.

I know there are some people who say that the pendulum has now swung too far the other way. That after years of under recording, disbelief and an unwillingness to investigate, the police are now overcompensating. That when it comes to the past we should let sleeping dogs lie to concentrate on crimes in the here and now.

I understand those concerns. But I disagree.

Victims and survivors of domestic abuse, child sexual exploitation, or modern slavery cannot resolve to forget. They live with the effects of those crimes every day of their lives and they deserve authorities that protect them and police who listen and act. Their children need to know that it doesn’t have to be this way; that not all relationships are abusive; and that it is possible to have a better life and a loving family. And perpetrators must never be allowed to think that their horrific acts will go overlooked or go unpunished.

So let me be absolutely clear. Domestic abuse is a crime. Sexual assault is a crime. Child sexual abuse is a crime. Modern slavery is a crime. And the victims and survivors of those crimes deserve to be heard now, just as they should have been years ago, and they deserve justice, just as they did then.

Renewing our model of policing by consent

I recognise that this is not easy or straightforward. Changing a culture is hard and it will take time. Gaining the confidence of victims and survivors and their families will take longer. But by facing up to the past we can begin to renew the model of policing by consent and to restore the relationship between the public and the police.

I know policing is listening, and is starting to change. The College of Policing has already rolled out domestic abuse training for every new recruit, revised Authorised Professional Practice, and increased specialist capability too, training 1,160 additional child sexual abuse investigators in the last year alone.

And I am committed to doing my bit to help. I know chief constables are already considering how best to transform the police response to vulnerability, with proposals due to be presented to the Police Reform and Transformation Board shortly. Today I can announce that, alongside the work to increase police capability around firearms and digital investigations, and subject to that board’s views, I will support these proposals for new training to address vulnerability and improve the response to victims.

To ensure that the police have access to specialist interviewers trained to reduce victims’ trauma and achieve best evidence from vulnerable victims and witnesses. And to make sure that every force has supervising officers trained specifically to deal with vulnerability, so that warning signs are spotted, victims are prioritised, and each shift of frontline officers and staff is briefed and debriefed properly. This is a proposal the federation called for in response to HMIC’s 2013 report on domestic abuse, and something I wholly support.

And, as the Police Reform and Transformation Board becomes established and begins to consider where to invest to transform policing in the future, I believe it is right that the federation is included in that process. Because the cultural change needed will only come about if everyone in policing is able to contribute, just as you and other staff associations have contributed on the board of the College of Policing.

Alongside this investment, I will bring forward proposals with the college to develop minimum training and standards for certain specialist roles and to give the college responsibility to enforce those standards through a system of national accreditation. This will deliver higher standards for specialist investigators, including for domestic abuse and child sexual abuse, and ensure that these are as rigorously and as consistently applied in protecting the vulnerable as they are in other critical areas like firearms and public order.

These reforms will mean that, in future, victims can have confidence that the police will take these crimes as seriously as any other. And it will mean that you – as police officers – are not forced to take on the risk and responsibility of investigating crimes for which you have not been prepared or trained professionally.

And if any of you still doubts whether this is possible – whether policing really can change – just look back at the last 6 years and consider what you have achieved.

Crime down and public confidence maintained. Police forces that are more diverse, more professional and better qualified than ever before. More targeted and proportionate use of existing powers, like stop and search, and the first successful convictions under new laws, including for modern slavery and coercive control.

You have achieved all of this while delivering significant savings. There is no doubt you can deliver meaningful change in the years ahead at a time when your budgets are being protected.

Conclusion

I would like to end by saying this, to every police officer in this hall, and to your colleagues in forces across the country.

Remember Hillsborough. Let it be a touchstone for everything you do. Never forget that those who died in that disaster or the 27 years of hurt endured by their families and loved ones. Let the hostility, the obfuscation and the attempts to blame the fans serve as a reminder of the need for change. Make sure your institutions, whose job it is to protect the public, never again fail to put the public first. And put professionalism and integrity at the heart of every decision, every interaction, and every dealing with the public you have.

Because if you do, you will renew the model of policing by consent in this country, and you will truly be custodians of justice for those who have been denied it for too long. Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Serious and Organised Crime Exchange on 16 May 2016.

I am delighted to be back again at this second Serious and Organised Crime Exchange Conference. The work you do is of immense importance, and it is great to see you building on the success of last year’s event.

When I became Home Secretary in 2010, I was clear that the threat we face from serious and organised crime had been not been taken seriously enough by government and law enforcement alike. And in the past not enough had been done to build capabilities, intelligence and networks to tackle it.

Six years later, when we consider the threats we face today, I do not think there can be anyone in this room who doubts the seriousness of the threat or the scale of the challenge. The telephone and internet scams that rob elderly people of their life savings. The organised exploitation of young women and children in our towns and cities. The illegal movement of firearms, risking the kind of attacks we have seen in Paris taking place on the streets of the UK. The organised gangs that operate their appalling trade in human misery across the Mediterranean and across Europe. The trade in illegal drugs and new psychoactive substances that harms our communities and causes untold suffering. And those groups involved in laundering the often enormous proceeds of all of these crimes.

As of July last year, there were around 5,800 organised crime groups operating in the United Kingdom, with organised crime costing us at least £24 billion a year. Fraud due to organised crime is thought to cost around £9 billion. And the social and economic costs of illegal drug supply are estimated to be £10.7 billion a year in England and Wales, with over half of that attributed to drug related acquisitive crime.

These are not figures we can readily accept or ignore. It is a threat we must treat with the utmost seriousness.

The serious threat of serious and organised crime
Yet there are those who question why we should care so much about serious and organised crime. People who say that it has always existed and always will. That it is not a national security threat in the true sense of the term. That it is not as pernicious, indiscriminate or dangerous as terrorism. Those people could not be more wrong.

Last April, 7 men from across the UK were convicted of some of the most sickening instances of child sexual exploitation ever investigated by law enforcement in this country. Their crimes were so depraved that they shocked even the most hardened investigators. As the lead prosecutor warned the jurors in the courtroom ahead of the trial of 2 of the men, the case would take them “into a world you wished did not exist”.

The men shared indecent images and videos of the appalling abuse of very young children. Some were force-fed stupefying drugs in order to facilitate these heinous crimes. Chat logs, obtained during the course of the investigation, even showed the men offering advice and guidance to others regarding how much of the drug to administer to a child, depending on their age.

During the trial the court heard how the group meticulously groomed the families of the victims – in some cases, even starting before the victim was born. They often travelled long distances to carry out the abuse, or watched other members live over the internet – facilitated by the dark web.

Thankfully, the hard work of those involved in the National Crime Agency-led operation – Operation Voicer – ensured these men were brought to trial. Members of the group were sentenced for a collective total of 107 years in prison, bringing justice for the victims and their families, and safeguarding more than 20 other vulnerable children.

But as this investigation demonstrates, not only is the threat depraved, it is also changing quickly. The use of the internet and the dark web to organise and facilitate crimes. The sickening use of live streaming services. The lengths those convicted went to conceal their crimes and online trace. And it also shows just why the creation of the National Crime Agency (NCA) was so vital. Throughout the investigation, the NCA provided specialist skills and capabilities, and leveraged the co-operation of 7 police forces, the Crown Prosecution Service and 9 local authorities.

I highlight this case not to shock, although of course it should and will. But to show why everyone in this room, and people up and down the country, should care about the threat from serious and organised crime. When those who are most vulnerable in our society are attacked in such a vile way, we cannot stand by. We must bring to bear all of the levers of the state, to keep the people of this country safe, and to ensure that the full force of the law is felt by those that would seek to undermine it.

Today, I am pleased to say there is far greater recognition in government of the role every agency of state needs to play in confronting and disrupting this threat. Last year, the National Security Risk Assessment made clear that serious and organised crime should be considered a national security risk alongside terrorism, international military conflict and instability overseas.

Since then, the number of cross-Whitehall projects on serious and organised crime has increased significantly. My officials have worked with the Ministry of Defence to deploy Royal Navy assets to tackle people smuggling and organised immigration crime in the Mediterranean. Along with the use of existing NCA assets, this has enabled officials to debrief victims, more effectively gather intelligence and better target people smugglers and traffickers.

And last week, the NCA and my officials worked closely with the rest of Whitehall to deliver an ambitious agenda at the Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption Summit. We have galvanised international commitments to support new public private partnerships to combat economic crime, establish an International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre, hosted by the NCA, and introduce new powers to bring those gaining from corruption to justice and reclaim their ill-gotten gains.

Reforming our approach to serious and organised crime
These initiatives complement the radical reforms we have already introduced to tackle serious and organised crime in the 6 years since I became Home Secretary.

In 2013, I abolished the Serious Organised Crime Agency and in its place created the NCA with the clout, the budget and the international reach to do the job properly.

The NCA is now properly up and on its feet and is starting to deliver excellent results. In 2014 and 2015, the NCA led and co-ordinated operational activity that resulted in 900 disruptions against some of the most serious and organised criminals and groups in the UK, the arrest of nearly 3,400 people in the UK and overseas, and the safeguarding or protection of over 1,700 children.

Now, under the leadership of its new Director General Lynne Owens, the NCA must build upon those strong foundations. And it must develop the capabilities and relationships necessary in the fight against serious and organised crime. Today, the NCA is an integral part of UK law enforcement – and this government protected its budget precisely because we expect to see it lead the national operational response to serious and organised crime.

But even with a protected budget, the NCA will face new challenges. It will need to drive a greater focus on intelligence and leadership in the face of a rapidly changing threat – in the forms of cyber crime, organised immigration crime, firearms, and the exploitation of children in particular.

But the NCA cannot solve the problem on its own. So on the same day as we launched the NCA, we published the serious and organised crime strategy. Modelled on our successful counter-terrorism framework CONTEST, the strategy delivers a comprehensive approach to tackling the threat from serious and organised crime, including prosecuting and disrupting those involved, preventing people from engaging such activities, increasing protection from serious and organised crime and reducing its impact when it does take place. Supporting the development of a network of Regional Organised Crime Units (ROCU) has been an important part of our approach.

Last year’s inspection of ROCU by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) marked an important milestone in that development. As HMIC said, ROCUs are fast positioning themselves as centres of expertise on the nature of the threat in their regions, bringing increasing levels of rigour and consistency to the assessment of threats. And where ROCU engage in systematic, thought through and genuine collaboration, it can be transformative in how we respond to the threat.

I have also been pleased to see the significant financial support provided by police and crime commissioners (PCCs). The Home Office’s contribution to ROCUs is dwarfed by local contributions 4 times as large, and I commend PCCs for this investment without which we would not have seen the levels of transformation to date. This funding is symbolically, as well as practically, important. Because where capability is delivered effectively and efficiently for the benefit of all forces in a region, it should be properly funded and overseen by democratically elected and locally accountable PCCs.

This is not to say that development of the ROCU network has been all plain sailing. Progress has been too slow and too piecemeal. Some forces have been slow to act and as a result must now work quickly to make up lost ground, especially where core capabilities have not yet been delivered.

That is why I have asked my officials to work with the national policing leads to ensure that all core capabilities are finally fully delivered in each ROCU. I hope to be in a position to make announcements on additional ROCU funding streams, shortly. But let me be clear: I am prepared to withhold funding if those core capabilities are not delivered.

Wider reforms and specialist capabilities
But, of course, the NCA and the ROCU network are just part of my wider reforms across policing and law enforcement, to drive greater accountability, increase responsiveness and ensure better crime fighting.

Since 2010, I have brought in some big organisational changes: we have replaced some inadequate and unaccountable institutions, and I have shifted power away from central government to local police forces.

I did away with the centralised system of national targets that existed under Labour and stripped back unnecessary bureaucracy that weighed officers down. And in doing so I ensured that we put professional discretion firmly back where it belongs – with the police.

I established the College of Policing to drive up standards and establish an evidence base for what works in cutting crime. And I have supported schemes like Direct Entry and Police Now, which are opening up the police to the brightest and the best and bringing in people with fresh talent, new skills and expertise.

In return for greater discretion and autonomy over officers’ day to day lives, I said that the police would have to become more accountable and transparent. So we brought in local beat meetings, crime maps and directly elected PCCs. I strengthened HMIC to give it greater independence and beefed up the Independent Police Complaints Commission to deal with cases when things go wrong.

And I introduced a strong national framework, in the shape of the strategic policing requirement, to govern the relationship between national and local threats, which I refreshed last year.

So, as I stand here today, there is now a framework of institutions and processes in place that work properly to ensure accountability, transparency and effectiveness in policing. To cut crime and keep vulnerable people safe. And to support the relentless pursuit and disruption of serious and organised crime.

But just as we have ensured the right framework is in place, we must now ensure that we have the right capabilities to make our response effective.

Specialist capabilities

Because we have moved on from the tired, stale debate about structures. Today, the question is not what structural reforms are needed, but what capabilities policing needs to counter new and complex threats, where those capabilities best sit and how they are best delivered – whether that is locally, through specialist units owned jointly by a number of forces, or regionally through the ROCU structure. And we must also drive much greater collaboration across counter terrorism and organised crime policing.

And the spending review settlement enables this greater collaboration. As the Chancellor set out in December, police spending will be protected in real terms over the spending review period, when precept is taken into account. This is an increase of up to £900 million in cash terms by 2019 to 2020, including extra funding for transformation and the development of specialist capabilities.

But as I said then, and as I say again today, this extra funding is not a reprieve from reform, nor an excuse to slow the pace. It creates the opportunity for investment in transformation, to develop the capabilities needed to meet the new and emerging threats and to drive a new approach to existing demand. We have already committed funding to driving new capability in firearms and in digital investigation. In due course I hope you will put forward innovative proposals that will transform the approach to serious and organised crime.

All of this work is tremendously important. But, it will never supplant the need for strong partnership working – at a local level across agencies, with the voluntary sector and with industry, including banks, financial institutions and others. This is central to the success of everything we are doing.

If we are to deny organised criminals the space to operate on our streets and in our communities, we must secure the local as part of the national response to serious and organised crime, and drive strong, locally based, multi-agency partnerships.

I know that the vast majority of police forces now have multi-agency partnership boards in place to tackle serious and organised crime. But I want them to extend their reach to include all partners, particularly local authorities, immigration enforcement, education and health, so they are properly equipped to drive a holistic and strategic response to organised criminality.

This type of partnership is at the heart of everything the government does in this space. The commitments to tackle child sexual exploitation we set out in the wake of the unacceptable failures in Rotherham, Manchester, Oxford and elsewhere. The work we are doing with industry to make the internet a safer place for children and young people. For example, Google has introduced changes which make it significantly harder to find child sexual abuse material online. Using new technology, they have experienced an eight-fold reduction in search attempts over an 18 month period.

The joint action with banks, insurers and other financial institutions to tackle fraud and money laundering, including the joint fraud taskforce that we launched last year to more effectively catch and stop fraudsters, design out systemic vulnerabilities in banking and retail systems that fraudsters exploit, educate and empower the public to protect themselves, and to identify victims and potential victims of fraud, putting in place interventions to stop them falling victim again. Because fraud is not a faceless, victimless crime. Victims can suffer both serious financial and emotional harm, and we know that the money fraudsters make can go on to fund other serious and organised crimes, and terrorism.

This work also builds upon the success of the NCA-led Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce, which was launched in February last year, and which has already yielded impressive results. As of February 2016, the taskforce identified over 1,700 bank accounts linked to suspected criminal activity. 261 accounts have been closed and 517 are subject to heightened monitoring by the banks. It has led to 11 arrests and 12 alerts; and restraint of £558,144 of criminal funds.

But this is just the beginning. We can, and we will, continue to build the links with the private sector and all the government agencies responsible for tackling serious and organised crime.

The need for the right powers

Better partnership must be supported by a strong and comprehensive legislative framework, ensuring that you have the necessary and proportionate powers you need to tackle serious and organised crime in its modern form.

The Investigatory Powers Bill, currently going through Parliament, is an important part of this. The bill, which sets new standards for openness and transparency, will ensure that the powers our law enforcement and security agencies need are contained in a single and comprehensive piece of legislation. It will help to protect the UK from serious criminals and terrorists, adept at using fast-evolving technologies.

And we recognise the need to significantly improve our response to money laundering and terrorist financing. That is why, in April, we published an anti-money laundering and terrorist financing action plan that sets out proposals for the biggest changes to our anti-money laundering regime for over a decade, underpinned by a powerful public-private partnership between government, law enforcement agencies, and the private sector.

Alongside the action plan we published a consultation document seeking views on the new powers we think are necessary to significantly improve our capability to tackle money laundering, corruption and terrorist financing, and to protect the integrity of the UK’s financial markets.

We are consulting on changes to implement a more effective regime for reporting suspicions of money laundering, to ensure that the private sector is focussed on fighting crime, not regulatory compliance. We also want to make it easier for the private sector to share information about money laundering risk so banks can better protect themselves from the threat.

We are also consulting on the introduction of unexplained wealth orders, which would require those who are suspected of money laundering to explain their sources of wealth. Those who cannot provide a satisfactory answer to the court would have their property forfeited.

We are looking also at new powers to enable the police to seize and forfeit money held in bank accounts that a bank itself suspects are derived from criminality of any kind.

So alongside the substantial reforms we have put in place, these changes add up to a comprehensive response to the threat that we face.

Conclusion

But of course none of this will be effective without the hard work you do day in and day out.

And before I end, I would like to pay tribute to one of our hosts here today, Chief Constable Sir Jon Murphy. From cadet through to chief constable, Sir Jon has served the force and the people of Merseyside with professionalism, integrity and dedication. But – in his capacity as national policing lead for crime – he has also done much to promote the importance of properly tackling serious and organised crime.

So it was no surprise to see HMIC grading Merseyside as one of the 3 outstanding forces for effectiveness in tackling serious and organised crime in last year’s police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy programme (PEEL) inspections. I want to thank him for all his tremendous work, commend his exceptional record, and wish him all the very best in his forthcoming retirement.

Because it is only by treating this threat with the seriousness that it deserves, that we will ensure the relentless disruption of serious and organised crime.

Today the right institutions and frameworks are in place. We have protected your budgets and work – led by policing – is underway to ensure you have the right capabilities. And we are working hard to give you the powers you need.

Now, I want to see you go out and deliver results.

I want to see more of the appalling crimes I described at the beginning of my speech put a stop to. More organised criminals brought to justice. And more victims saved from heinous crimes.

The threat is serious, the challenge significant. But I know you have the ability to make a difference. And in taking this threat seriously, I will back you every step of the way.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2016.

A meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 21 April. My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister and I attended on behalf of the UK.

The Council began with an adoption of the A items, including the formal adoption of the passenger name records (PNR) directive, which the Government welcome. I have always been clear of the importance of PNR and strongly believe that this directive will enable all members of the European Union to work even closer together to tackle terrorist threats.

The Commission then presented its smart borders proposals and communication on “stronger and smarter information systems for borders and security”. On smart borders, the Council agreed to work towards achieving political agreement by the end of the year. Given that the UK does not participate in the borders aspects of Schengen, we will not take part in these measures.

On the information systems communication, the focus was on improving interoperability of data systems. The majority of member states agreed with the position I set out, prioritising improving data quality in existing systems and ensuring that appropriate data sets could be easily “washed” against each other. I also emphasised the need to further strengthen co-operation between member states on two important areas: first, non-Schengen states, including the UK, need to be able fully to share important removal and entry ban data with Schengen states; second, the need for more proactive and systematic sharing of criminal records data of people convicted of offences relating to terrorism and serious organised crime.

Member states also agreed on the need to ensure the right quantity and quality of information is provided to EU systems, such as the second generation Schengen information system—SISII. I supported these calls, while noting that provision of this information remained a matter for member states.

The presidency reiterated the importance of the political commitment to data sharing and concluded that the next step would be the development of a “roadmap” on improving information sharing, which it intended to present for adoption to the June JHA Council.

The Commission then introduced its communication on security. The Commission stressed that this would not in any way affect member states competence for security matters and highlighted the need for effective implementation of existing initiatives, including on tackling firearms, and for better data sharing and threat analysis. I welcomed the focus on making better progress on practical initiatives and underlined that responsibility for national security lies solely with member states.

Over lunch, Ministers discussed the Commission communication on the reform of the Common European asylum system, in particular options for changes to the Dublin system.

There was considerable opposition to any radical change to the Dublin system and no consensus on the preferred option for change. Views among member states were diverse and several opposed relocation being a part of any new system. The Immigration Minister set out the UK’s clear view that the existing principles of the Dublin system should be retained and shared the concerns of many others about relocation: any crisis relocation mechanism must be kept separate from the existing Dublin system. The Government do not support relocation as it is the wrong response to the migratory pressures the EU faces. It undermines the important principle that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country and does not address the causes of illegal migration.

After lunch, there was a progress report on the proposed European Border and Coast Guard Agency. Given the UK’s position in relation to Schengen we will not participate in this measure. However, we support the efforts by member states to improve management of the external border of the EU. The presidency would now open “triologue” negotiations with the European Parliament and reaffirmed its intention to reach agreement with the Parliament by June, in line with the deadline set by the European Council.
Discussion then turned to EU-Turkey migration. The presidency reaffirmed the need to speed up the implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement of 18 March. The Commission stressed that they were working on securing guarantees for non-Syrians returned to Turkey.

A number of members states stressed the need for strong security checks on individuals coming to the EU. Frontex highlighted its role in returning 325 irregular migrants from Greece to Turkey on 4 and 8 April. The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) reiterated the request for longer deployments and stated that they needed 50 or 60 people to facilitate relocation from Greece and Italy.

The Immigration Minister announced a new package of support for Greece, in particular 75 personnel ready to be deployed. The UK would also launch a new scheme to resettle children at risk from the middle east and North Africa. Several hundred would be resettled in the first year with a view to resettling up to 3,000 by the end of the Parliament.

The Immigration Minister set out that making the EU-Turkey deal work was vital and the inadmissibility procedures needed to be applied appropriately to avoid undermining the agreed approach. The EU needed to ensure that it was possible to return all nationalities to Turkey. Helping to develop the Turkish asylum system was also a top priority.

The presidency concluded that there was agreement to increase the quantity and quality of pledges to EASO and Frontex, and that attention would need to be given to the possibility that migratory routes may shift, especially towards the central Mediterranean.