Tag: Theresa May

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Police ICT Company suppliers summit held in London on 27 January 2016.

Thank you. I am delighted to be at this Police IT Suppliers Summit once again. I know that today we have representatives from police forces across England and Wales, police and crime commissioners, and experts from industry. So I want to thank you all for coming and I want to thank the Police ICT Company for hosting this event.

The last time I stood before you I said that if we can get police IT right, the prize will be invaluable.

I was clear it was not simply because sorting out police IT means we will cut unnecessary waste and save money, although those things are true.

But because since I became Home Secretary more than five and a half years ago, I have seen how technology has the power to transform policing immeasurably.

Everyone in this room knows that there are huge benefits to policing if we can take the right steps forward, and great risks if we stand still.

Today too much money is still spent on expensive, fragmented and outdated systems. Police officers all too often use technology that lags woefully behind what they use as consumers. And there is an unacceptable lack of digital join up with the criminal justice system and other agencies.

But the scale and reach of the internet has changed the nature of crime, giving rise to new crime types and allowing criminals to carry out traditional crimes in new ways. These crimes are sophisticated and they can create huge numbers of victims at a keystroke. As technology continues to evolve, so too do the opportunities for the criminals to exploit.

Last year, organised criminals used malicious software to infect thousands of computers in the UK to access personal or banking information, steal passwords and disable antivirus protection.

This information was then used to steal money from people and businesses around the world, including an estimated £20 million from the UK on this occasion.

Thankfully, the National Cyber Crime Unit at the National Crime Agency led a major European operation to tackle these criminals and prevent further cyber crime being committed.

But this one example shows how criminals are exploiting the internet to gain access to a much larger number of potential victims. But criminals – like the rest of us – use a myriad of modern technology and can leave a digital as well as a physical trail. So there is an ever growing demand for officers who can carry out digital investigations, and use digital forensic techniques to extract, analyse and interpret data found on devices. And our ambition must be for every frontline officer to have the ability to capture digital evidence and to carry out basic digital investigations – such capabilities can no longer be the preserve of specialist units alone.

Technology is moving fast. It continues to reshape the way we live and work. It can keep us permanently connected with others and link us digitally with our homes and our possessions.

And it is also reshaping the way criminals carry out crimes.

So policing must keep up.

That’s why today’s conference is so important. Because everybody here has a role to play in helping to transform police technology.

In ensuring that procurement is carried out intelligently so that contracts deliver value for money for officers and the taxpayer.

In ensuring that the devices and systems officers use are up-to-date and efficient so that they spend less time behind desks, and more time out on the beat. And in ensuring that the police understand and exploit the potential of technology, to help them protect the vulnerable, prevent crime, and investigate crime – online and offline – when it does occur.

It is not my job to do this for you. As Home Secretary I have put in place a radical programme of reform to take the Home Office out of policing, and put the professionals in charge. And I give you two challenges.

Firstly, these are police systems, it is police officers who use them day in and day out, and it is up to police and crime commissioners and chief constables to scrutinise how money is spent to deliver for forces and the taxpayer. And both communities require intelligent and effective engagement from the police IT supplier community to drive the efficiency and innovation that is so critical.

Secondly, I challenge you to be ambitious in shaping the future: understanding the potential for technology to make a difference and to embrace it, for the good of policing and, of course, for the public.

The slow pace of gritty reform

So we know the scale and complexity of the challenge of replacing and improving existing police systems, and the size of the potential prize.

But frankly it has taken too long to take that challenge seriously.

As I have said before, the reform of police ICT is gritty and unglamorous.

The systems are complex, the landscape is fast moving and the market can be daunting to the uninitiated.

The vast majority of chief police officers and PCCs are not IT experts – and we don’t expect them to be. We know that suppliers are frustrated too by the fragmented and complicated police market. In particular SMEs – who can often have the most innovative ideas – can be deterred by the complexity.

But that does not mean that this type of reform is not important. It is fundamental to making policing more effective and necessary to tackle changing crime.

Now many of you have called for “thought leadership” on police IT: an intelligence customer who can broker on behalf of police forces and advise them on solutions.

Today, the Police ICT Company is up and running – funded not by the Home Office, but by policing.

I would like to welcome Martin Wyke who joined as Chief Executive of the Company last year. He brings with him real commercial experience and expertise.

And I am pleased to hear he has already been up and down the country making connections and getting to grips with the complexities that exist.

I believe that the Company will deliver for policing as a whole, as well as for individual forces – and it has already started doing just that.

Thanks in large part to the positive engagement from IBM, the Home Office and the Police ICT Company were able to consolidate 122 contracts for analytic services with more than 50 government organisations into a single contract, releasing multi-million pound savings.

It’s worth stepping back and thinking about that number. Not 43 contracts – one for every force. But one hundred-and-twenty-two – the equivalent of nearly three for every police force IT department in the country.

It is precisely this type of opportunity that I think the ICT Company can grasp for policing – working as a single, intelligent customer for police technology, and consolidating contracts and licenses. Not of course that all police forces need or want identical solutions; but the work that the ICT Company is driving to develop common standards is crucial. Shared standards facilitate interoperability and data sharing and make life easier for suppliers too.

At a local level police and crime commissioners and chief constables are working together across force boundaries to deliver savings and improve the working lives of their officers and staff.

Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire are streamlining business processes to allow what they call the “seamless flow of common data”. Between 2015 and 2019, the forces are expected to make total cashable savings of over £23 million combined, saving potentially 20% on today’s ongoing maintenance and support costs.

This is just one example. We are seeing other collaborations between forces including Cleveland, North Yorkshire and Durham, Thames Valley and Hampshire, South Yorkshire, Humberside, North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire – together aiming to save millions more on IT and business support functions.

So nationally and locally, you are starting to put right the mistakes of the past and join up systems together. And make a real difference to police officers, victims of crime and taxpayers.

But we need to go further still.

As I said at this Summit previously, when the Government came to power, police forces spent £1 billion annually on IT.

This included 2,000 different IT systems, spread over 43 forces. And in 2011/12 a survey indicated this was supported by approximately 4,000 staff.

Today we are doing a little better. According to HMIC, estimates for the net revenue expenditure on ICT by police forces in England and Wales will be around £600 million in 2015/16 – once spend for systems, devices and staff have been taken into account.

In addition, the Home Office has responsibility for a portfolio of 21 national policing systems with estimated costs for 2016/17 to be £104.4 million – not including Airwave – a proportion of which is recharged to forces.

And according to HMIC estimates police IT is supported by approximately 3000 staff.

So we have saved money and freed up staff to focus on cutting crime, but there are still too many examples of inefficient IT holding back police officers, wasting public money and preventing the join up with other public services.

While the Common Platform programme will in due course digitise the criminal justice system, in some areas criminal evidence still has to be burnt onto CD and taken round to the Crown Prosecution Service in sacks – because the ability to link police systems with that criminal justice system barely exists. Digital First, a national programme led by Chief Constable Giles York, is starting to address this need for a digital interface between the Common Platform and police systems, but there is a long way to go.

Sometimes elaborate business processes compound problems with basic IT. For example when force shift and rostering systems are so complex, compared to other sectors, off the shelf systems are incapable of handling them without expensive bespoke adaptations.

Multiple systems mean very mundane things can be crucially important. How one describes hair colour in a crime report may not seem that important. But not having a single list of hair colours for identifying suspects or convicts and describing victims, agreed across all forces, makes automated comparison of records impossible. One force lists the colour maroon which other forces don’t recognise, while others disagree on whether a hair colour is brown-auburn or simply auburn.

And over the years the architecture of forces’ IT systems has grown so confused and archaic that we know of one case where a simple domestic Actual Bodily Harm case required – from call out to court – the suspect’s name to be handwritten or re-keyed no fewer than 20 times, and the victim’s name 12 times.

These practices just cannot make sense – in the modern age or in any before it. They show that the necessary changes do not need to be complex.

Some can be simple – like ensuring names do not need to be rekeyed endless times, and having a single version of hair colours that all forces use.

As an organisation working for all of you, with commercial expertise, the Police ICT Company is well positioned to identify these types of inefficiencies and pursue rapid standardisation and rationalisation.

And for those changes that are complex, the Company can act – as I have said – as a “single intelligent customer” to help bring commercial nous to the way police forces buy and manage contracts, services and products. This is not about “one size fits all”, or a single national programme for police IT – we all know how successful that would likely be. But the Company can bring together groups of forces, with common interests, to develop coherent, shared propositions to develop with suppliers.

So I implore the supplier community to partner with the Company in identifying the next wave of reform to police ICT – like IBM did – to simplify contracts and improve services in the process.

According to a report by Bluelightworks in 2015, the Police ICT Company could support forces to make £75 million savings in their IT budgets and a further £390 million in wider organisational savings, enabled by combining and streamlining operational services supported by shared IT platforms.

So the days of suppliers negotiating contracts with every force in the country, at different rates, must come to an end. But if, together, you can achieve savings of this scale, the potential for reinvestment in technology solutions – as well as for budget reductions – is significant. That should be an incentive to everyone here.

Rationalising the system

Which brings me to the opportunity to transform police capabilities.

As I told the Police Reform Summit in December, the next stage of reform in policing requires us to understand what capabilities are needed to combat a changing crime mix; to explore where those capabilities best sit, and determine how they are best delivered.

Some threats, like cyber crime, require new skills, which may be in short supply in the private sector, as well as policing. Some of these capabilities may best be delivered by specialist units owned jointly by a number of forces or regionally through the Regional Organised Crime Unit structure. But as I said earlier, in a world in which many of those detained in custody suites have smart phones and in which victims of crime may have videoed the criminal, all frontline officers need basic skills in digital evidence capture and digital investigation.

This work is being taken forward by the Specialist Capabilities Programme of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the operational leaders of policing, in conjunction with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, who are accountable locally and financially.

And as a Government, we are investing in these new capabilities. The Spending Review protected in real terms the overall policing budget over the course of this Parliament, the equivalent of up to £900 million more in cash terms, which will enable us to fund major investment in transformation.

Given that workforce costs represent 80% of total force budgets, it is essential that we invest in new skills and technology to improve productivity and maximise the time officers spend fighting crime. And in the Policing and Crime Bill we will legislate to reform the roles and powers of police staff – which we consulted on last autumn – so that we give chief officers greater flexibility to have the right types of people in the right roles with the right mix of skills and experience.

At the NPCC and APCC’s request, I have reallocated £4.6 million of this funding for the Digital Intelligence and Investigation programme, led by Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh, which will help transform the way the police investigate and respond to the full range of digital crime types.

At the same time, we are investing nearly £1 billion across the Parliament to establish a digital network over which the police, along with the other emergency services, can operate.

At the end of last year the Government signed contracts for the Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme to deliver critical voice and data to all three emergency services across the country. This marks a significant milestone. The new system will be considerably cheaper than the existing model and will, once fully operational, free up officers’ time and connect all emergency services on the same broadband network for the first time. It will enable officers to access key police databases, take mobile fingerprints and electronic witness statements and stream live body worn video – all while on the move. Further, it has the potential to support a wide range of applications, designed by and for policing.

In short, officers will have more coverage, better connectivity to the services and databases they need at lower cost.

Making the most of this new system

By reforming police capabilities and upgrading the emergency services network, we are delivering on our manifesto commitment to finish the job of police reform.

The Police Transformation Fund will run throughout this Parliament and the three emergency services will begin the transition to the new service in mid 2017, to be completed by early 2020.

But these national changes are only part of the story; forces will need to drive change locally too.

For example, most forces in England and Wales now use body worn video to some extent, and in new and different ways. In one example, officers dealing with individuals with mental health issues have used body worn video to inform NHS partners and demonstrate the need for a place of safety, while in others, they have used body worn camera evidence to inform partners, such as a coroner.

Sussex and Dorset’s single mobile policing solution – which allows officers access to data while on the move – will not only significantly improve police visibility but save nearly half a million operational hours.

And South Wales and Gwent’s FUSION project aims to provide a single picture of police resources at any one time, to help manage demand and ensure officers on the beat are best deployed. Staff will have access to information and systems at point of need regardless of which force’s domain the service is hosted on.

I am delighted to see the interest in digital ideas coming through this year’s Police Innovation Fund.

Last year 59 of the 71 successful bids were IT-enabled, including Kent Police’s bid to develop innovative solutions to tackle online child sexual exploitation and protect children, and West Mercia’s bid to develop a single integrated public contact and command control system for Warwickshire Police, West Mercia Police and Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service.

Bidding for this year’s fund recently closed, with a total of 141 bids submitted. And I want to thank the Police ICT Company for supporting those bids, providing advice to forces in the early stages of that process, and reviewing all submitted bids by giving feedback and helping to identify opportunities for collaboration.

But we still have a mountain to climb

As more and more people use digital devices, forces will need to exploit digital information to investigate crimes and better protect the public. We need digital investigation capabilities at every rank, in every force.

And the unprecedented amount of digital information being generated by people every day has led to an increase in demand of for the use of digital forensics to solve crime, first in high harm crimes such as child sexual exploitation, but increasingly across the spectrum of cases.

Citizens increasingly capture what is happening around them on video, generating potential evidence of crimes. Policing has not yet caught up: the most common means of contacting the police remains the telephone. Police forces must follow the example of banks and retailers and do more to connect with citizens who increasingly live their lives on line.

All this technology generates data, in vast quantities. Forces have not yet begun to explore the crime prevention opportunities that data offers. Subject to the proper restrictions to ensure privacy and that access and use of data is lawful and appropriate, the use of predictive analytics could help police forces identify those most at risk of crime, locations most likely to see crimes committed, patterns of suspicious activity that may merit investigation and to target their resources most effectively against the greatest threats.

There are people in this room who can help with all of that. The supplier community have already developed products and services that could, today, provide a huge step-change in the capabilities available to forces. So as well as rooting out inefficiencies and old systems and contracts, I urge everyone in this room to work together to create space to engage with new ideas, and invest where there is clear value in doing so.

Everyone in this room knows the scale of the challenge with police technology, and the sheer weight of opportunity if we grasp the nettle.

It is not enough to acknowledge everything we know is wrong with the system. And it is plain wrong to use the 43-force structure to break up contracts that could be better provided once to all forces.

The Police ICT Company is at the heart of my vision for a reformed policing landscape and I urge each and every PCC and any commercial supplier looking to do business in policing to work constructively with Martin and his team.

As I said earlier, the prize is there for the taking. Millions if not billions of savings. Thousands of police officer hours saved. Untold crimes solved and victims satisfied. And all by getting the fundamentals – information communications technology – right.

We have a long way to go, and as I said before, much of it is gritty, complex and unglamorous. But we must pursue it, work for it, and reach for it.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on 25 January 2012.

The 2012 London olympic and paralympic games will be the greatest sporting event in British history – an event of which the whole nation can be proud.

This summer we will welcome athletes from around the world to our shores.

10,500 olympic athletes from 205 national olympic committees and 4,200 paralympic athletes from 170 national paralympic committees will come to Britain.

The busiest competition day will attract 800,000 spectators to the various olympic events. Millions of lucky fans will get to see the games in person.

Around the globe, the TV audience will number four billion.

And it is our aim to host a games and to hold a celebration that captures the imagination of the world.

Safe and secure games

As Home Secretary, I am ready to take on the challenge of delivering a safe and secure games.

Security planning began even before we won the bid in 2005. It has been going on ever since.

Our aim is to deliver a safe and secure London 2012 games, that upholds olympic values and the olympic ethos.

That means we need a security approach that is robust but seamless; visible but not intrusive; tough but intelligent.

And that is what we will deliver.

Our security plans are well-developed and our security operation is on track. I know the international olympic committee shares that judgement.

Today I want to tell you about our security operation so that you too can have the same reassurance that the games will be, not only an amazing spectacle, but also a safe one.

Ongoing threats

Like all western countries, the UK faces a number of ongoing threats to our national security. We have taken all of them into account in our planning.

We know we face a real and enduring threat from terrorism and we know that the games – as an iconic event – will represent a target for terrorist groups.

Our olympic security plans have been developed against an assumption that the terrorist threat level at the time of the games will be severe.

The terrorist threat has developed and evolved over the past few years.

That is why our security plans compliment and draw on the capabilities and expertise developed through our world-leading counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST.

But importantly, we have specifically designed in the ability to be flexible and we have kept everything under regular review.

That flexibility will be crucial at games time. It will allow us to respond rapidly and effectively to any unforeseen developments.

The police will be the lead agency in charge of olympic security. They know how to keep the streets of Britain safe better than anyone else. But our overall approach to security is that this will be a joint effort.

The police will be working with their colleagues from LOCOG – the london organising committee – the fire and ambulance service, and the private security industry to deliver a safe and secure games.

And the police will be drawing on the important capabilities that the military can provide.

An inter-departmental security group, which I chair, has been established to ensure that all of the different organisations involved are working seamlessly together and that their plans are all aligned.

And I’m sure that throughout this conference you will hear from all of the agencies involved about how closely together they are working.

A nationwide event

There are now just over six months to the opening ceremony for the olympic games on 27th July.

But our security operation does not start with the opening ceremony. It begins with the olympic torch relay, starting at Lands End in Cornwall on the 19th of May, with a dedicated team of police officers trained and ready to run alongside the torch for the entire 70 days it is on the road.

The torch will be carried by 8,000 torch bearers who will carry the torch through more than 1,000 cities, towns and villages across the UK.

That just shows that this will be a nationwide event, not just a London Games.

Most events will take place in the newly constructed Olympic Park in East London, one of the largest urban parks created in Europe for 150 years.

If you’ve visited the olympic park, as I have several times, you will know just how impressive it is.

But the games are not just about the olympic park. And they’re not just about London. The games are for the whole of Britain.

There’s sailing in Dorset; rowing in Buckinghamshire, near to my constituency.

There’s canoe slalom in Hertfordshire; mountain biking in Essex; road cycling in Surrey and paralympic road cycling at Brands Hatch in Kent.

And there will be olympic football matches taking place in Coventry, Glasgow, Cardiff, Manchester, Newcastle and Wembley.

The sheer size and scale of the games shows how complex managing security is.

It is an unprecedented challenged.

But we start from a position of strength.

Security investments

Our police service is admired and emulated around the world. Our counter-terrorism strategy is widely studied and copied. Our security and intelligence agencies are recognised as amongst the best in the business. And our track record of hosting major events – from state visits, to music festivals and from premier league football matches, to Royal weddings is unparalleled – in fact, it’s one of the reasons we won the bid.

Building on that excellent existing capacity, we’ve made specific security investments to respond to the specific security challenge of the olympics.

Over 95 per cent of construction at the olympic park has now been completed on time and on budget. That includes the security side.

High levels of protective security have been put in place at the olympic park, and security has been designed and built into the venues, making them safer both at games time and when they are used after the games.

We’ve already upgraded and enhanced the capability of police control rooms at Lambeth and Hendon.

We’ve expanded the capacity of the airwave emergency services radio system.

And we have now opened the olympic clearing house, which I visited last week. In that excellent facility, I saw the screening and background checking process that will be used to check more than 380,000 applicants for accreditation to the games.

Added to these important investments, we have also opened two new security and intelligence coordination facilities.

The police led multi-agency National olympic coordination centre is now up and running. Led by assistant commissioner Chris Allison, this unique facility will have a national overview of how the olympic security operation is working.

And we have also put in place a specific intelligence capability in advance of the games to allow us to identify and disrupt threat.

The olympic intelligence centre is now producing and disseminating national olympic threat assessments on areas like crime and terrorism for use by our police, intelligence agencies and by security liaison officers from the different countries attending the games.

And there will be other issues to face during the games, including public disorder and serious organised crime.

Cyber security

A strong possibility is the threat from cyber crime and cyber security.

We are aware of the threat from so called ‘hacktivist’ groups. These groups may attempt to target the games and may also attack the websites of high-profile sponsors associated with the games.

We already have our own robust plans in place to deal with a cyber attack against games systems.

And we are now also working with industry to strengthen their ability to defend themselves from cyber attacks.

The police are also working against cyber criminals, with a dedicated police operation against those who would seek to illegally profit from the games.

That operation has already made nearly one hundred arrests of organised criminals and work continues behind the scenes.

We are also helping the police and LOCOG to deal with the other emerging threats that have faced the Home Office in recent months, such as encampment protests.

So we have recently clarified and strengthened our policy on encampment style protests inside olympic venues.

Three aspects

Our approach to such protests will now be based on three aspects:

Strict security and screening measures to help stop the necessary equipment being brought into olympic venues.

Encouraging an immediate response from LOCOG to any encampment that does get through.

And rapid follow up action by the police, in support of LOCOG, using all available powers to remove encampments and equipment.

I have explained this new policy to LOCOG, as the event hosts for the olympics. Its success will depend on LOCOG adding tents and related equipment to the list of items prohibited from being brought into games venues – I trust they will now do so.

I have also stressed to the police that they must act swiftly in support of LOCOG should they receive a complaint.

Alongside preparing plans, designing systems, building structures and training people we also need to ensure that our plans are sound, that systems work, that buildings are suitable, and that everyone with a role knows precisely what they are doing during the games.

Every police force’s individual operational plans have now been independently scrutinized by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and assessed through a series of peer reviews.

And we have a comprehensive testing and exercising programme to ensure that absolutely everything runs smoothly come games time.

Last week, officers from the Metropolitan Police’s marine policing unit and the Royal Marines carried out joint exercises on the Thames.

Speedboats, helicopters and armed officers operating on London’s iconic waterway are a very visible example of the olympic exercise programme.

Behind the scenes, the testing and exercise programme is even more impressive.

It ranges from simulated incidents to ‘live play’ with police officers and other emergency services, with the blue lights on and sirens blaring, as they would during a real incident.

Several large exercises have already taken place involving thousands of participants acting in the role they would actually play during the games.

These exercises test all aspects of planning, including resilience and decision-making.

All of these exercises are aimed at testing our plans and learning the lessons. Where things go well, we will build on that success. Where things go wrong, we will correct the mistakes. We will develop and improve.

UK’s largest ever peace time logistical operation

The games time security operation will be the UK’s largest ever peace time logistical operation.

It will involve hundreds of thousands of police officer deployments across the country at 36 competition venues.

Alongside those officers will be 23,700 LOCOG venue security personnel.

And the armed forces will also be on standby to support the civilian authorities should they need it. In particular, they will provide certain specialised capabilities such as bomb disposal, maritime support and enhanced air security over London.

The overall security operation will be active 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from before the torch relay enters London in July, right through to after the paralympics closing ceremony in September.

It is because of this unprecedented challenge that we have undertaken such thorough planning, have made such significant investments and will carry out such extensive testing and exercising.

We must now grasp the opportunity that 2012 represents to show the whole world all that is great about Great Britain.

We will rise to the challenge.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on 30 January 2012.

The police do one of the most important jobs in this country.

They do their work with great courage, great skill and great commitment.

In fact, I believe Britain has the finest police officers in the world.

But we can help them do their job even more effectively.

Today I want to talk about the government’s radical programme of police reform, about how those reforms are starting to take shape, how the police are already responding and about how they will leave us with a police force that is answerable to the public and transformed in its ability to fight crime.

When people talk about public service reform it’s often through the prism of cuts. With the deficit we have, that’s understandable, but it’s just not what our police reforms are about.

Of course, the need to make savings makes reform more urgent than ever. But the aim of our police reforms is not just to save money, it’s to equip the police to face the future and make them more effective at fighting crime.

The Winsor Report

Last year, I said at another reform event that we would need to take difficult decisions to save police jobs and fight crime. We would need to reform police pay and conditions, not just to make savings, but also to reinvest some of those savings in the frontline, and reward skills, performance and crime-fighting.

When the police spend around £11 billion per year on pay – three quarters of total police spending – we have to get it right. That’s why I commissioned Tom Winsor to carry out a full independent review of police pay and conditions.

The existing police pay system was designed over 30 years ago. Since then, the way the police work has changed a great deal. But the way they are paid has not. In the late 1970s, for example, the vast majority of officers regularly worked unsocial hours. Now only around 60 per cent do.

Since the 1970s, pay systems in the private and the wider public sector have changed to recognise and reward specialist skills. The most productive employees are paid more. Incentives are used to improve performance.

But in the police that doesn’t happen enough. Skills, performance and successful crime fighting aren’t rewarded. Time served still determines how well most police officers are paid. And I don’t think that’s right.

So I asked Tom Winsor to design a system that is fair to the taxpayer and fair to police officers and staff. I asked him to help maximise deployment to frontline roles. And I asked him to allow chief constables to deploy modern management practices that give them the flexibility they need to cut crime.

After a thorough and considered review, Winsor provided us with the outline of what a modern police pay structure could look like. He produced a package that is fair to the police and that is fair to the taxpaying public. A package that can produce savings and improve incentives, that recognises and rewards specialist skills and frontline service, not just time served.

The Winsor Report has been considered by the independent police arbitration tribunal, and I can announce today that I am accepting all of the tribunal’s recommendations in full.

I know that some police officers will be disappointed by this outcome. But I want to stress that there will be no reduction in basic pay. Extra payments will be targeted at frontline staff and those doing the most demanding work. And the total savings will represent less than two per cent of the total police pay bill. Policing will remain a well-paid job.

And the fact remains that if we hadn’t taken this tough decision, we would have had to cut police budgets more deeply and there would have had to be more police job cuts. That is something that neither the police nor the public wants.

Once the PAT’s recommendations have been fully implemented they will save around £150 million per year.

Already police forces like Surrey and Cambridgeshire have begun recruiting again. ACPO believe more will start in the next financial year.

The Second Winsor Report

In response to the first Winsor report, there were a few areas on which the police arbitration tribunal explicitly made no decision.

The most important was Winsor’s proposed expertise and professional accreditation allowance.

This payment was intended to link the pay that officers receive to the skills they have acquired and use. The link between pay and skills is a vitally important principle. In every walk of life, people are paid according to their skills. The same should be true for the police. That is why this principle will be considered again when we look at the second part of Tom Winsor’s review.

This second report will look into police pay and conditions in the longer-term, including basic pay, career length and pension age and the pay negotiating machinery. In particular, it will consider the introduction of direct entry into the police. I have been clear that I want to see a widening of the pool of talent from which police leaders are drawn.

So I look forward to Tom Winsor’s Part 2 recommendations.

Helping the Police to Make Savings

We’re leaving no stone unturned in our work to make the police more efficient.

Police forces spend over £1 billion per year on information and communications technology. There are 5000 police ICT staff, working on 2000 separate systems, across 100 different data centres. The scope for savings is clear.

That’s why last year I announced the creation of a police information and communications technology company to help police forces improve their systems and save money.

ICT is crucial to policing, but the company will allow IT professionals to do the IT and the crime fighters to do the crime fighting. And by harnessing the combined purchasing power of police forces, the company will be able to drive down costs, drive up value and save the public money.

We’re also helping police forces to come together and use their collective buying power to procure goods and services from uniforms to patrol cars. It makes no sense for the police to buy things in 43 different ways, but this is what happens. One supplier has over 1,500 individual contracts with the 43 forces. No wonder prices are so high.

By putting in place framework contracts for standard things like body armour we can cut out this needless waste.

Our police procurement programme has already realised savings of £34 million – a total projected to rise to around £70 million by the end of this financial year and to approximately £200 million per year by the end of the spending review period.

Most forces recognise the huge financial benefits that this standardised and collective purchasing can bring. But in exceptional cases, where a small minority are creating a barrier to the rest making savings, then we’re prepared to mandate joint action. That’s why Nick Herbert, the policing minister, announced last week that we intend to require all forces to collaborate in the creation of the national police air service.

This will ultimately save £15 million per year and result in a better co-ordinated and more consistently available air service for forces across the country.

These are all savings that are being made because of action we’re taking, from the home office, to help the police.

But police forces are also doing a great deal to help themselves to rise to the challenge – and I want to praise them for the way they have responded to both the need to reform and the need to save money.

Greater Manchester police have saved £62 million per year from their support functions and have released 348 police officers from these roles so they can get back to frontline roles.

Surrey Police have carried out a significant restructuring which has allowed them to commit to increasing constable numbers by up to 200 over the next four years.

In my own constituency force, Thames Valley, they have slashed support costs, such as HR, saving over £15 million this year and allowing them to redeploy 35 officers to frontline roles in neighbourhoods or on patrol. And they have ambitions to redeploy a further 100 officers to the frontline over the next two years.

Reducing Bureaucracy

But good policing is not just about numbers and our police reforms are about more than just money. We are also freeing the police to get on with fighting crime.

Police officers join the force because they want to catch criminals and keep their communities safe. And yet for too long those officers have been hamstrung by red tape and form filling. Well we’re changing all that.

That’s why I’ve announced a package of measures that will cut police bureaucracy and save up to 3.3 million police hours per year. That’s the equivalent of putting over 1,500 police officers back on the streets.

I know that senior officers and chief constables don’t want their officers stuck in the station – they want them on the frontline.

And the evidence is already mounting that they’re succeeding in protecting that frontline.

Last week’s figures show we will have a smaller police workforce overall. But Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary have found that police forces across England and Wales were planning to increase the proportion of police officers working on the frontline from 68% in 2010 to 70% by March of this year and with that trend predicted to continue.

I want to see that proportion continue to go up because it’s what’s effective in fighting crime and it’s what the public want.

So our reforms are protecting thousands of police officer jobs, saving millions of police man hours, and making the police more visible and available to the public than ever before.

Empowering the Public

Empowering the public is the theme than runs through our whole police reform programme. The police are a public service: they should serve and respond to local people. That is why we are introducing directly elected police and crime commissioners.

From November this year, they will bring democratic accountability to the police. They will have the local knowledge and understanding to set their force’s policing priorities. They will have the democratic mandate to set the police budget and the council tax precept. And they will have the power to hold chief constables to account for the performance of their force.

Earlier this month, the mayor of London became the police and crime commissioner for the metropolitan police force area. This important milestone means that London can now benefit from direct local accountability over its police force, with the elected mayor, not the metropolitan police authority, setting policing priorities for London.

But police and crime commissioners are only one way in which we are strengthening the link between the police and the public.

Earlier this month we launched a single non-emergency number to contact the police – 101 – to replace the various 0845 numbers used by forces around the country.

101 gives an easy-to-remember number for the public to use when they need to contact the police when it’s not an emergency, for example to report a crime that has already happened, to get advice or to raise local policing issues.

And there have already been nearly 3 million calls to the 101 number.

If people want to speak to the police in person, rather than over the phone, we’ve made that much easier too, by mandating the police to hold neighbourhood beat meetings.

And as well as making it easier to contact the police, we’re also giving the public more information than ever before about crime and policing in their area through street-level crime maps.

Last year, our crime mapping website – police.uk – received more hits than any other government website.

Since October the public have been able to use the police.uk website to see how their force performs in a range of areas like crime rates, quality of service and victim satisfaction.

Tomorrow we’ll launch the next stage of crime mapping, in which we’ll start to map crimes to or near a range of public places like railway stations, nightclubs, parks and shopping areas.

By May, crime maps will show the public what happens after a crime has occurred – what action the police took and what the criminal justice outcome was. You’ll be able to see if the criminal was arrested, charged and sent to prison.

Armed with the information from those crime maps, people can attend their local neighbourhood beat meeting and hold their local police to account for their performance.

That will help drive up local policing standards and help drive down local crime.

Local crime includes, of course, anti-social behaviour.

But we know in the past the authorities have not always heard cries for help from vulnerable victims.

So we have been working with eight police forces and their local partners to test new ways of handling calls from the public about anti-social behaviour. The aim was to quickly identify the vulnerable and those who reported incidents repeatedly, and to prioritise their cases.

The eight forces have reported encouraging initial results from the trials – including better working relationships with other agencies, an improved service to the victim and the start of a shift in culture, with call handlers responding to the needs of the victim, rather than just ticking boxes.

Most importantly, forces have been able to identify high-risk individuals – often people experiencing the most horrendous abuse – who might otherwise have slipped through the net. And they have taken action to make that abuse stop.

So we will now work with police forces nationwide to share the lessons of the trials so that every community can benefit.

It’s too easy to overlook the harm that persistent anti-social behaviour causes. Many police forces, councils and housing providers are working hard, but I still hear horror stories of victims reporting the same problem over and over again, and getting no response.

Just last week I met a woman who had been telling the police about anti-social behaviour in her area for over two years – and it’s still going on.

These long-running problems – and the sense of helplessness that goes with them – can destroy a victim’s quality of life and shatter a community’s trust in the police.

That’s why we proposed a ‘community trigger’ as part of our reforms to anti-social behaviour laws. The trigger will give victims and communities the right to demand that agencies who had ignored a problem must take action.

So we are now working with a number of local authorities to test the community trigger on the ground and pilots will begin by the summer.

NCA

But I don’t just want crime to be better tackled locally. I also want us to get a much better grip on crime nationally.

The growth of international travel and the revolution in communications technology, that has benefited us all, has also been exploited by criminals.

Their networks and activities have changed and evolved, but our response has not kept pace. Law enforcement officers currently believe organised crime costs the UK between £20 and £40 billion per year and involves over 39,000 individuals, operating as part of over 7,000 gangs – though the true numbers may be even higher.

The drug dealing on street corners; the muggings by addicts; the gang violence that is used to protect a drugs market. All these crimes happening in local communities are fundamentally driven by organised crime.

And as well as growing, the threat from organised crime is also changing.

Increasingly, the biggest criminal losses do not come from the burglar who breaks into houses to steal TVs or DVD players, but from the cyber criminal who raids bank accounts directly.

A child can now be at greater risk sat in their bedroom on their computer than they are outside the school gates.

And given the nature of the criminal threat, it is now no longer possible to keep communities safe through good local policing alone. Highly visible neighbourhood policing is vital, but it won’t deal with cyber crime. Arresting drug dealers is important, but it won’t stop the flow of drugs from overseas.

That’s why we need a powerful new crime fighting force that works across different police forces and agencies, defending our borders, coordinating action on economic crime, protecting children and vulnerable people, and active in cyber space.

That body will be the national crime agency

With Keith Bristow – who is here today – at its head, the NCA will have the remit to work across geographical and organisational boundaries.

I see the NCA as having three important characteristics:

It must have a positive effect on the safety of local communities by joining up the law enforcement response from the local to the national and the international. People will be safer and feel safer.
It must act as the controlling hand, by owning the coordinated intelligence picture; working with law enforcement to decide on the highest priority criminal targets; agreeing the action necessary to tackle them; and having the power to ensure that action is taken.
It must bring its own contribution to the fight against serious, organised and complex crime – that means having its own intelligence gathering and investigative capacity; sophisticated technical skills; and a presence internationally, at the border and in cyber space.

So the NCA will make all neighbourhoods safer, it will be at the heart of a joined up law enforcement response, and it will lead the fight against the most dangerous criminals and their gangs.

That is how the NCA will help cut crime and help lock up serious criminals – and that is a real prize.

Becoming fully operational from 2013, the benefits of the NCA are already being felt. The economic crime coordination board, which brings together agencies to build the economic crime command in the NCA, is already up and running. Last week saw a multi agency operation targeting money mule accounts – front bank accounts used for money laundering. It involved 9 agencies and saw 13 arrests, with prevention and disruption activity now underway.

As it ramps up the NCA will continue to help cut crime.

And that will help every local community in the country.

Developing Police Professionalism

As well as developing police structures we also need to develop police professionals.

That means helping the police at all levels – from the constables who form the bedrock of British policing through to their senior leaders – helping them to be the best they can be.

Over the past 30 years, police officers and staff have increasingly come to see themselves as part of a profession – a specialist and expert group of crime fighters. And so it’s only right that they should have their own professional body to help further increase that professionalism.

So we are working with the police service to establish a police professional body, which will be up and running by the end of the year.

The professional body will represent all ranks, staff and officers.

It will set standards; safeguard police ethics and integrity; design, accredit and deliver police training; develop police leadership; and advise on recruitment, career progression and professional development.

Crucially, the police professional body must not be an organisation that serves only senior officers and it must not only listen to the top brass.

I want to see the professional body drawing on the views, skills and expertise of all officers and staff, and in particular those working on the frontline.

By acting in the interests of the entire police service, by setting standards, improving training and talking for the service, the police professional body can help equip the police with the skills they need to tackle the future.

Conclusion

From the graffiti and litter that blights a local area; to the binge drinking and drug dealing that makes people frightened to step outside; right up to the criminal gangs who flaunt their illegal wealth and cheat the exchequer out of millions – our police reforms will help fight them all.

We’ll ensure the police tackle local priorities, by giving power to elected police and crime commissioners.

We’ll help lock up the drug lords by creating a national crime agency.

We’ll let police officers get back on the frontline by freeing them from paperwork.

We’ll give officers incentives to acquire specialist skills and serve the public.

And we’ll improve the way they’re led.

Our reforms are ambitious, comprehensive and they are happening right now.

They will transform the police service so it is fit to face the future and fit to fight crime.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 21 January 2016.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the death of Alexander Litvinenko on 23 November 2006, and the statutory Inquiry into that death, which published its findings this morning.

Mr Litvinenko’s death was a deeply shocking event. Despite the ongoing police investigation, and the efforts of the Crown Prosecution Service, those responsible have still not been brought to justice.

In July 2014 I established a statutory Inquiry in order to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr Litvinenko’s death, to determine responsibility for his death, and to make recommendations. It was chaired by Sir Robert Owen, a retired senior High Court judge. And it had the Government’s full support, and access to any relevant material, regardless of its sensitivity.

I welcome the Inquiry’s report today, and I would like to put on record my thanks to Sir Robert Owen for his detailed, thorough, and impartial investigation into this complex and serious matter. Although the Inquiry cannot assign civil or criminal liability, I hope that these findings provide some clarity for Alexander Litvinenko’s family, friends, and all those affected by his death. I would particularly like to pay tribute to Mrs Marina Litvinenko and her tireless efforts to get to the truth.

The independent Inquiry has found that Mr Litvinenko died on 23 November 2006, having suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of acute radiation syndrome, caused by his ingesting polonium 210 on 1 November 2006.

He ingested the fatal dose of Polonium 210 while drinking tea at the Pine Bar of the Millennium Hotel on the afternoon of 1 November 2006. The Inquiry – which in the course of its investigations has considered “an abundance of evidence” – has found that Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun, who he had met at the Millennium Hotel on the afternoon of that day.

The Inquiry has also found that Lugovoy and Kovtun were acting on behalf of others when they poisoned Mr Litvinenko. There is a strong probability that they were acting under the direction of the Russian domestic security service – the Federal Security Service or FSB. And the Inquiry has found that the FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev, the then head of the FSB, and by President Putin.

The Government takes these findings extremely seriously – as I am sure does every member of this House. We are carefully considering the report’s findings in detail, and their implications. In particular, the conclusion that the Russian state was probably involved in the murder of Mr Litvinenko is deeply disturbing. It goes without saying that this was a blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets of international law and of civilised behaviour. But we have to accept this does not come as a surprise. The Inquiry confirms the assessment of successive governments that this was a state sponsored act. This assessment has informed the Government’s approach to date.

Since 2007 that approach has comprised a series of steps to respond to Russia and its provocation. Some of these measures were immediate, such as the expulsion of a number of Russian embassy officials from the UK. Others are ongoing, such as the tightening of visa restrictions on Russian officials in the UK. The Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s murder remains open. And I can tell the House today Interpol notices and European Arrest Warrants are in place so that the main suspects, Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun, can be arrested if they travel abroad.

In light of the report’s findings the Government will go further, and Treasury Ministers have today agreed to put in place asset freezes against the two individuals.

At the time the independent Crown Prosecution Service formally requested the extradition of Mr Lugovoy from Russia. Russia refused to comply with this request – and has consistently refused to do so ever since. It is now almost ten years since Mr Litvinenko was killed. Sir Robert Owen is unequivocal in his finding that Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun killed him. In light of this most serious finding, Russia’s continued failure to ensure that the perpetrators of this terrible crime can be brought to justice is unacceptable. I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions this morning asking her to consider whether any further action should be taken, both in terms of extradition and freezing criminal assets. These decisions are, of course, a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service. But the Government remains committed to pursuing justice in this case.

We have always made our position clear to the Russian government and in the strongest possible terms and we are doing so again today. We are making senior representations to the Russian Government in Moscow. And at the same time we will be summoning the Russian Ambassador in London to the Foreign Office, where we will express our profound displeasure at Russia’s failure to co-operate and provide satisfactory answers. Specifically, we have, and will continue to demand that the Russian Government account for the role of the FSB in this case.

The threat posed by hostile states is one of the most sensitive issues that I deal with as Home Secretary. Although not often discussed in public, our security and intelligence agencies have always – dating back to their roots in the First and Second World Wars – had the protection of the UK from state threats at the heart of their mission. This means countering those threats in all their guises – whether from assassinations, cyber attacks, or more traditional espionage. By its nature this work is both less visible and necessarily more secret than the police and the agencies’ work against the terrorist threat, but it is every bit as important to the long-term security and prosperity of the United Kingdom.

The House will appreciate that I cannot go into detail about how we seek to protect ourselves from hostile state acts. But we make full use of the measures at our disposal from investigatory powers right through to the visa system. And the case of Mr Litvinenko demonstrates once again why it is so vital that the intelligence agencies maintain their ability to detect and disrupt such threats.

The environment in which espionage and hostile state intelligence activities take place is changing. Evolving foreign state interests and rapid technological advances mean it is imperative we respond. Last November the Chancellor announced that we will make new funding available to the security and intelligence agencies to provide for an additional 1,900 officers. And, in the same month, I published the draft Investigatory Powers Bill so that we can ensure that the intelligence agencies’ capabilities keep pace with the threat and technology, while at the same time improving the oversight of and safeguards for the use of investigatory powers.

In the Government’s recently published National Security Strategy and the Strategic Defence and Security Review, we set out the range of threats to the UK and our allies – including from Russia – and our comprehensive approach to countering these threats. Since the publication of the previous SDSR in 2010, Russia has become more authoritarian, aggressive, and nationalist. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its destabilising actions in Ukraine have directly challenged security in the region. These actions have also served as a sobering demonstration of Russia’s intent to try to undermine European Security, and the rules-based international order. In response, the UK, in conjunction with international partners, has imposed a package of robust measures against Russia. This includes sanctions against key Russian individuals, including Mr. Patrushev who is currently the Secretary to the Russian Security Council.

This Government is clear that we must protect the UK and her interests from Russia- based threats, working closely with our allies in the EU and NATO. This morning I have written to my counterparts in EU, NATO and 5 Eyes countries drawing their attention to both the report and the need to take steps to prevent such a murder being committed on their streets.

We will continue to call on President Putin, for Russia, as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to engage responsibly and make a positive contribution to global security and stability. They can, for example, play an important role in defeating Daesh, and – together with the wider international community – help Syria work towards a stable future.

We face some of the same challenges – from serious crime to aviation security. And we will continue to engage, guardedly, with Russia where it is strictly necessary to do so to support the UK’s national interest.

Mr Speaker, Sir Robert Owen’s report contains one recommendation within the closed section of his report. Honourable Members and Rt Honourable Members will appreciate that I cannot reveal details of that recommendation in this House. But I can assure them that the Government will respond to the Inquiry Chair on that recommendation in due course.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the Government’s determination to continue to seek justice for the murder of Mr Litvinenko. I would like to repeat my thanks to Sir Robert Owen and, in particular, Marina Litvinenko. As Sir Robert says in his Report, she has shown “dignity and composure” and “has demonstrated a quiet determination to establish the true facts of her husband’s death that is greatly to be commended.”

Mr Litvinenko’s murder was a truly terrible event. I sincerely hope that for the sake of Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko, for the sake of Mr Litvinenko’s wider family and friends, and for the sake of justice, those responsible can be brought to trial. I commend this statement to the House.

Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons, London on 5 January 2016.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our work to counter the threat we face from terrorism in light of the latest propaganda video from Daesh.

This weekend Daesh released a video depicting the sickening murder of five men who they had accused of spying for Britain. The video also featured a young boy.

I would like to echo the Prime Minister’s words that this is a barbaric and appalling video. Daesh seek to intimidate and spread hateful propaganda, but in doing so they only expose their own depravity and the emptiness of their proposition.

The House will understand that this is an ongoing police investigation and I cannot comment further while that investigation continues. To do so could prejudice the outcome of any future judicial process. And for the same reason, I cannot comment on the alleged identities of the man or the child in the video.

Since the start of the conflict in Syria, more than 800 people from the UK who are of national security concern are thought to have travelled to the region, and we believe that around half of those have returned. Those who have travelled include young women and families.

We have seen deadly Daesh-inspired terrorist attacks in Europe and other countries including the attacks last year in Paris, Lebanon, Turkey, Kuwait and Tunisia, where 30 British nationals along with others were murdered at a tourist resort.

Mr Speaker, it is imperative that the police and security services have the resources and the powers they need to keep us safe.

Since 2010, we have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget. As we announced in November, through the Strategic Defence and Security Review, we have made new funding available to the security and intelligence agencies. This will provide for an additional 1,900 officers – an increase of 15% – at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to better respond to the threat we face from international terrorism, cyber-attacks and other global risks.

We have also strengthened the powers available to the police and security and intelligence agencies.

In 2013, I updated the criteria governing the use of the Royal Prerogative, which allows the Government to cancel the passports of those planning to travel to engage in terrorist-related activity overseas. And in 2014, I removed 24 passports from people intending to travel for terrorism-related activity.

Last year, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act provided new powers to deal specifically with the problem of foreign fighters, and prevent radicalisation. This included a new power to temporarily seize the passports of those suspected of intending to leave the UK in connection with terrorism-related activity. These powers have been used on more than 20 occasions and in some cases have led to longer-term disruptive action such as use of the Royal Prerogative to permanently cancel a British passport.

And in November, we published the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, which is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny.

Since April last year, exit checks have been in place on all international commercial scheduled air, sea and rail services using the UK. The information this provides is already supporting our intelligence work, enabling us to make appropriate interventions. In addition, the UK has joined the European watchlist system – so-called SIS II – meaning we are now alerted when any individual is stopped at a border checkpoint or by police anywhere in Europe and is checked against the system.

And through our Prevent and Channel programmes we are working to protect people from being drawn into terrorism. In partnership with industry we are working to secure the removal of extremist videos through the police Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit. They are currently securing the removal of around 1,000 pieces of unlawful terrorist-related content every week.

It is clear Daesh will continue to try and poison minds, and to hurt people in Europe and other parts of the world. We must not let that happen and we stand with all those who want to stop them.

Time and again we have seen people of all faiths and backgrounds join together and demonstrate their opposition to terror, and to stand for democracy and freedom.

Britain will not be intimidated by Daesh, and together, we will defeat them.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the then Shadow Education Secretary, to the Conservative Spring Forum held on 4 March 2001.

It is clear from everything that has been said in this session, and from what I see in the schools I visit across the country that what we need now in education is a ‘radical approach – one that focuses on the best interests of children, that understands the purpose of education, that recognises the importance of diversity and choice, and that liberates schools from constant interference by the state.’

Not my words, but those of the former Chief Inspector of Schools Chris Woodhead.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the next Conservative Government will provide that radical approach.

Anyone who visits schools, who sees teachers inundated with paperwork, disruptive children in classes damaging the education of others, schools on a four day week and children being taught by unqualified staff will know that on education this Labour Government is all spin and no delivery.

When Tony Blair promised education, education, education no-one knew he meant the number of days a week children would be in school.

It’s no wonder parents are saying – We’ve paid the taxes so where are the teachers?

But Labour are not just failing to deliver, they are incapable of delivering because they are more interested in spinning to get headlines than they are in the needs of children.

They promised to spend a greater proportion of the national income on education than the last Conservative Government. They have spent less.

They promised smaller class sizes. Secondary class sizes have gone up and the pupil teacher ratio in primary schools has gone up.

They promised to cut bureaucracy. Instead they have deluged schools with endless Whitehall directives and initiatives – from the beginning of last year teachers received a directive a day from the Government.

Instead of giving more say to parents they have handed more power to local politicians and bureaucrats by scrapping our hugely successful grant maintained schools system.

They promised to raise teacher morale. Instead teachers are leaving in droves because they are utterly fed up with Blunkett’s bureaucratic burdens and constant interference from the centre.

And instead of leaving dogma behind they have vigorously pursued their vendetta against grammar schools.

These are the realities of what Labour has done to education in this country.

What can we expect from Labour if they get back in.

More spin, more Whitehall schemes, more paperwork, more disruptive pupils in class, more political correctness,

But fewer special schools, fewer grammar schools, fewer school sixth forms, fewer teachers,

Lower standards, larger classes and an education system aimed at turning out politically correct citizens with no idea of the history and culture of their own country.

Four years on we know the black hole between the rhetoric and reality of Labour.

When Tony Blair says he wants more private sector involvement in education, we know more power will be given to local politicians and bureaucrats.

When Tony Blair says he wants a better deal for teachers, we know the Government will continue to stifle the creativity and flair of teachers with a never-ending stream of directives from Whitehall.

When Tony Blair says he wants more diversity we know he will destroy the grammar schools through Labour’s vindictive ballots.

And when Tony Blair’s spokesman says it is the end of the bog-standard comprehensive we know the monolithic comprehensive system with no choice for parents is safe under Labour.

In contrast, Conservatives are ready to deliver a better education for our children, to deliver common sense not dogma.

We are ready to trust heads and teachers to get on with the job. We are ready to give parents real choice.

Because we will set schools free and let teachers teach.

If you had been with me when I visited a school in Lambeth last week I could have shown you exactly what we mean when we say we will set schools free.

The school was in one of the poorer areas of London. Violent crime there is three times the national average. In 1995 only 1 per cent of pupils came out of that school with 5 good GCSEs.

But after gaining its freedom under the last Conservative Government through grant maintained status the school improved beyond all recognition.

A report by Ofsted two years ago said it had made excellent improvement.

Almost a quarter of the pupils there now leave with 5 GCSEs at A to C and its continuing to improve and they’ve had their first Oxbridge entrant – tell that to Gordon Brown.

So what happened to turn this school around?

I’ll tell you.

We got rid of interference by local politicians and bureaucrats and replaced them with strong leadership from the head.

We made sure that teachers had the freedom to use their creativity and excellence to inspire the children.

The school has now developed its own distinct set of values. It has a strict code of discipline, it has its own uniform – a symbol of pride in the school – and it is now extremely proud of its sporting achievements.

Above all there is a real sense of team spirit among the staff, the pupils and their parents.

It is these things that make schools a success.

But Labour has already scrapped the school’s grant maintained status – putting it back under the LEA. And we can be sure that a second Labour term would mean further attacks on all that this and other schools like it have achieved.

Conservatives on the other hand want to make sure that all schools can benefit from freedom from political interference.

That’s what we mean when we say we will set all schools free.

Free Schools will be able to control their own destiny and as with grant maintained schools the quality of life for all in the school will improve. In Free Schools we will see heads, teachers, other staff and governors blossoming as they are able to use their expertise and judgement directly to innovate, to raise standards, to inspire pupils and to make a real difference to the education of children.

Free Schools mean that, once again, heads will be allowed to enforce discipline in their schools. They will be allowed to exclude pupils who are disrupting the education of the majority of pupils.

This Government is stifling the creativity and excellence of our teachers. Today they are form-fillers. Teachers will be teachers under the Conservatives.

Free Schools will mean not only that teachers are allowed to teach, but also that money that is currently wasted on bureaucracy will go directly to schools. Getting money out of central and local government direct to schools will mean on average £540 extra per pupil per year.

Labour are all spin and no delivery.

They promised much before the last general election. They have delivered rising class sizes, a national crisis of teacher shortages and schools on a four day week.

We have listened to parents, teachers and pupils all over the country.

They’re fed up with Labour and they know its time for common sense policies.

Education needs a government that trusts teachers and parents, that understands that children are different and their education should reflect their needs, that recognises that education is valuable in its own right and wants all to have the opportunity to develop their full potential.

Above all we need a government that will set schools free, let teachers teach and give our children the education they need and deserve.

Conservatives are ready to deliver.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Mansion House in London on 24th June 2014.

Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am delighted to have been invited to speak at this prestigious event and to such a distinguished audience. I am particularly pleased to be here at the Mansion House, given the history of policing in the City and the work you do with the Government and others in the fight against terrorism and organised crime.

Tonight I want to talk about the balance between privacy and security but in the full context of the threats we face – because too often, these important issues are discussed in a strange vacuum as if the debate was entirely academic.

The threats we face are considerable: the collapse of Syria; the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; Boko Harm in Nigeria; al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen; like minded groups in Libya; al Shabaab in East Africa; terrorist planning in Pakistan and Afghanistan; industrial, military and state espionage practised by states and businesses alike; organised crime that crosses national boundaries; the expanding scope of cyber. All these threats and many more should remind us of an obvious old truth. The world is a dangerous place and the United Kingdom needs the capabilities to defend its interests and protect its citizens.

This task is, of course, becoming more complicated. The evolution of the internet and modern forms of communication provide those who would do us harm with new options; they provide those who would protect us – the police, the security and intelligence agencies, the National Crime Agency and others – with new challenges. And they have kicked off new debates about the balance between privacy and security.

The role of the Home Secretary in approving surveillance

I want to start by telling you about a part of my job that nobody really knows about. It is a responsibility that is rarely discussed but it perhaps occupies more of my time as Home Secretary than anything else.

It is my statutory responsibility to give careful consideration to applications for warrants from the police, the National Crime Agency, the intelligence agencies and other law enforcement bodies to undertake the most sensitive forms of surveillance – surveillance that includes the interception of electronic communications and monitoring private conversations.

If the Security Service wants to place a device in the property of a terrorist suspect, or the National Crime Agency wants to listen to the telephone calls of a drugs trafficker, they need my agreement first. On the basis of a detailed warrant application and advice from officials in my department I must be satisfied that the benefits justify the means and that the proposed action is necessary and proportionate.

The warrant application gives me the intelligence background, the means by which the surveillance will take place, and the degree of intrusion upon the citizen. Neither the Security Service nor other intelligence agencies, nor the police, nor other law enforcement agencies, can undertake sensitive surveillance without providing these details and gaining my approval. Ministerial oversight – which I share with the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland – is a crucial safeguard to make sure that the most intrusive powers are used only when they are necessary and proportionate.

In a typical week, I consider warrant applications against organised criminals involved in drugs, guns and money laundering. I consider warrant applications against people suspected of terrorism. Those applications include intelligence relating to modern slavery, gang violence, kidnapping, intimidation and corruption.

They inform me about terrorist plots that could kill innocent civilians and damage our economy. Many applications now relate to events in Syria and the plans young British people have to travel there to fight. Some applications concern attempts to proliferate chemical biological and sometimes even nuclear technology. Threats in cyber space – from organised criminals and hostile foreign states – are increasingly common.

I do not take my responsibilities lightly. I approve warrants only on the basis of detailed intelligence and a reasoned explanation of their likely benefit. Sometimes I demand more information before taking a decision or I make my approval conditional. On some occasions I refuse the application. But the lessons from this daily inflow of detailed intelligence work are clear.

Our country has faced these threats before and the intelligence agencies, the police and other law enforcement agencies have worked brilliantly to contain them. They have done so not through inspired guesswork but by using sensitive capabilities and skills developed over many years.

This government has preserved individual freedom while defending national security

So I make decisions about the specific use of capabilities every day. But I am also responsible for broader government policy that dictates what powers should be available to the authorities and what safeguards should be in place. And since the formation of this government in 2010 we have made a series of changes because we concluded that some powers were unnecessary and unduly intrusive.

We reduced the upper limit on pre-charge detention for terror suspects by half – from 28 days to 14 days. We replaced control orders – which had been defeated consistently and watered down in the courts – with new measures which better balance the need to control with the overriding priority to prosecute. We cut the time an individual can be examined at our ports and borders under counter-terrorism laws.

We have ended the indiscriminate use of no-suspicion stop-and-search powers granted by the Terrorism Act 2000. And one of the first things I did as Home Secretary was scrap ID cards and destroy the identity database.

Where we believe the authorities need sensitive and intrusive powers we have increased oversight of their use. We have given greater authority to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to scrutinise in far more detail the operational activity of all the security and intelligence agencies – MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – and to publish their reports. We are making changes to the rules that govern undercover policing. We have new controls on the use of biometric material. We have stopped local authorities using electronic communications data and other surveillance techniques to deal with a raft of relatively trivial problems.

If we take this opportunity to take stock, it is fair to conclude that this government has performed well in preserving individual freedom while defending our national security. But you might not believe that if you listen to some of the things that are said in the debate about privacy and security.

It is alleged that there is a programme of mass surveillance on people in this country; that our intelligence agencies are acting illegally; that there is no effective oversight or control of their activities. It is said that our powers are not only disproportionate but ineffective, that they do not stop terrorist attacks or other serious crimes.

And while we are accused of overstating the threats we face, it is said that the theft and disclosure of sensitive material about the capabilities we have has caused no damage to our national security.

The public is at risk of being misled. It is important that people hear the truth about each of these allegations, because we cannot afford a loss of faith in the vital work of the security and intelligence agencies, and because we need public support and public trust if we are to win the argument about capability.

There is no programme of mass surveillance

Let me start by saying this: there is no programme of mass surveillance and there is no surveillance state. Surveillance of this nature would be illegal, and I only ever sign warrants for limited and specific proposals. If anybody ever attempted any form of mass surveillance, internal controls and external oversight would detect it and stop it and the perpetrators would be prosecuted.

We should be clear about what this accusation actually means. Mass surveillance would require the pervasive and thorough observation of huge numbers of people living in this country.

The very idea that we could or would want to monitor everyone and all their communications, trawling at will through their private lives, is absurd.

Signals intelligence relies on automated and remote access to data on the internet and other communications systems. Computers search for only the communications relating to a small number of suspects under investigation. Once the content of these communications has been identified, and only then, is it is examined by a trained analysts. And every step of the way it is governed by strict rules, checked against Human Rights Act requirements.

That is not mass surveillance.

You do not have to take my word for it. We have an Interception Commissioner whose job it is to monitor the use of powers of interception and collect communications data by all the agencies, including GCHQ. The Commissioner is a man of unimpeachable independent standing. He is the former Court of Appeal judge, Sir Anthony May.

His last annual report, which was published in April, explains that interception requires a warrant from a Secretary of State and must be for a purpose specified in law. There are three such purposes: national security, serious crime and economic well-being when it is related directly to state security. As Sir Anthony says, it would be unlawful to issue a warrant for any other purpose.

In fact, he concludes that “any member of the public who does not associate with potential terrorists or serious criminals or individuals who are potentially involved in action which could raise national security issues for the UK can be assured that none of the interception agencies which I inspect has the slightest interest in examining their emails, their phone or postal communications or their use of the internet, and they do not do so to any extent which could reasonably be regarded as significant.”

He could not be any clearer – there is no mass surveillance programme.

The intelligence agencies do not act illegally

Our critics also allege that the intelligence agencies take advantage of the relationship with their counterparts in the United States to seek intelligence which they cannot obtain legally in the UK.

It is certainly true that we benefit hugely from the intelligence relationships we enjoy with the US and other allies. They have often provided the crucial early warning of terrorist plots against us. They are essential to the protection of this country and we could not do without them.

In this country we do not just have laws governing the use of sensitive capabilities – we also have laws governing the acquisition of information from other countries. Our intelligence agencies – MI5, MI6 and, yes, GCHQ – cannot ask their counterparts overseas to undertake activity that would be unlawful if they conducted it themselves.

This matters, especially in the context of electronic communications. It has been alleged that our agencies rely on their counterparts overseas – notably those in the United States – to provide them with intercepted communications unlawfully. This is – quite simply – untrue.

And again, you do not have to take my word for it. The Intelligence and Security Committee reviewed GCHQ’s alleged use of interception material from the US PRISM programme and concluded that “in each case where GCHQ sought information from the US, a warrant for interception, signed by a Minister, was already in place, in accordance with the legal safeguards contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.”

Sir Anthony May has also looked at this allegation and he concluded: “British intelligence agencies do not circumvent domestic oversight regimes by receiving from US agencies intercept material about British citizens which could not lawfully be acquired by intercept in the UK.”

I know that some people have alleged that GCHQ is exploiting a technical loophole in legislation that allows them to intercept external communications – that is, communications either sent or received outside the United Kingdom – at will and without authorisation. This is also nonsense. The definition of external communications was set out clearly in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. It is not new, it is not hidden and it is clear that the interception of external communications by GCHQ requires warrants. They are not signed by me but by the Foreign Secretary. And those warrants have to be accompanied by a certificate, also signed by the Foreign Secretary, that sets out what intelligence analysts in GCHQ are permitted to examine. So there is no loophole and no illegal activity.

There is effective oversight of the agencies

Many of the criticisms of the security and intelligence agencies are based on an assumption that there is only very limited – and ineffective – oversight of what they do. It is often implied that oversight is only provided by ministers and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. This is also wrong.

Safeguards are built into the system at every level. Oversight begins with each and every employee engaged in operational work in the agencies. Their training about legal issues and compliance is detailed and a matter of course. The agencies’ operating systems are designed to control and limit access to intelligence rather than facilitate it. The work that the agencies do is checked, double-checked and checked again.

I have already explained my role and the role of other ministers in approving applications for warrants. I have also mentioned the Interception Commissioner. There are also Commissioners for the Intelligence Services and for Surveillance. Like Sir Anthony May, they are also former members of the senior judiciary, they are entirely independent, and they publish annual reports. There is also the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation – a position established by statute, with a duty to report to the public on the operation of our counter-terrorism legislation. The reviewer is independent of government, but has access to the most sensitive security information. The position was occupied first by Lord Carlile and now by David Anderson, both of whom are as independent as they are expert in the law.

Last year, when we proposed new legislation relating to access to communications data – which is something I have mentioned already and to which I will return later – a Joint Scrutiny Committee of both Houses of Parliament was established to examine the case for the legislation. In doing so, they heard evidence from a wide range of witnesses, including from the security and intelligence agencies and of course the Home Office.

I have already noted how the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has been given an extended remit and more staff to inspect the work of the agencies. They are, for example, due to report on the circumstances surrounding the terrorist murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in May last year. Their investigation has been extraordinarily thorough and extensive, and the agencies have had to submit huge volumes of material. The agencies’ heads and staff have been questioned at great length. And of course the Committee is working on its own report on issues about privacy and security.

There is also an Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which hears complaints about the activities of the agencies. The Panel is about to consider a legal challenge against aspects of the interception and signals intelligence regime, for example. The Government has submitted and agreed to publish fifty pages of evidence.

This is a comprehensive system of checks and balances with a clear role for elected ministers and Parliamentarians to provide democratic accountability – and I do not believe it is surpassed by any other country.

Our powers and capabilities are necessary and effective

The fourth criticism of the security and intelligence agencies is that their sensitive powers and capabilities are not only disproportionate but ineffective, that they do not stop terrorist attacks or other serious crimes.

We have been asked repeatedly to respond to this criticism by laying out in public and in full our secret capabilities and the effects they have had. In particular we are asked where and when and how terrorist attacks have been stopped. We are asked to submit this information for scrutiny not in Parliament but in public; not by our elected representatives but by unelected, unaccountable and self-appointed arbiters of our national security; not with respect for the need for secrecy but with a cavalier and reckless transparency.

We cannot and will not do so. If we did we would only damage the capabilities we have to protect our country. What we have done and what we will continue to do is set out our capabilities and the benefits they bring – and we will set them out to the people who have the legal and constitutional duty to provide oversight of these necessarily secret activities.

Those people are the Interception Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. We will give the Committee all the information they need to do their job, and we will do everything we can to allow them to report on these matters in detail.

And the crucial fact here is that in all their recent reports and evidence, the Commissioners and the Intelligence and Security Committee conclude that the capabilities of the security and intelligence agencies are necessary, effective and used in a responsible way.

We can be more open and explicit about the benefits of communications data because some of this data – which is obtained by the police and others from communications service providers – can be used as evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service in our courts. As I have said before, it is estimated that communications data is used in 95 per cent of all serious and organised crime cases handled by the Crown Prosecution Service. And it has been used in every single major terrorist investigation over the last ten years. Access to communications data is vital for combating crime and fighting terrorism. We would not be able to keep our country safe without it.

The threat we face is real and it is deadly

For a long time, we have been criticised for overstating the threats we face. We need to remember some facts. Between September 2001 and the end of 2013, more than 2,500 people were arrested for terrorist offences in this country. Almost 400 people have been convicted for terrorism-related offences. We have disrupted more than one major attack in this country each year since 2005 and many more overseas.

The terrorist threats to this country and our interests are changing faster than at any time since 9/11. We continue to face possible attacks by al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But we face further threats from Syria and now from Iraq where al Qaida, ISIL and others have created a safe haven with substantial resources including advanced technology and weapons. They are on the doorstep of Europe, just a few hours flying time from London, and they want to attack us – not just in Syria or Iraq but here in Britain.

Many hundreds of people from our country have travelled to Syria to fight against the Assad regime. They have ended up fighting for terrorist groups, often against other parts of the opposition rather than against the Syrian government. Some of them will present a real danger to us when they return to Britain.

The investigation of these people will require all of our sensitive capabilities and the skills and resources of the agencies and police. It will involve the further use of the powers I have through the Royal Prerogative to remove people’s passports to stop them travelling – and in a smaller number of cases, I am prepared to use my powers to deprive people with dual citizenship of their British nationality.

We need to focus all aspects of our counter-terrorist strategy on the problem – pursuing groups who are plotting against us; preventing people from being drawn into extremism and terrorism; and protecting our borders and infrastructure.

Organised crime is changing as fast as terrorism. Because of the nature of financial and economic crime, those of you who work here in the City are more aware of these developments than many others. Crime is moving online. Cyber techniques enable organised criminals to carry out crimes from remote locations, often in other countries. They operate at a scale and speed and from a distance that has not previously been possible. I have every confidence in the strategy we have developed to deal with organised crime and in the capacity of our new National Crime Agency. But the threats faced by the NCA are formidable.

In front of this audience I do not want to spend more time pointing out the inadequacy of the argument that the threats we face are overstated. But I do want to make this related observation: those who make this claim find it easy to argue that the disclosure of sensitive capabilities used by the police and intelligence agencies has caused no damage. If you don’t believe in the threat then of course you can be frivolous about the capabilities intended to contain it. Indeed, we are sometimes asked to believe that the disclosure of our capabilities has served a public good.

The fact is that since the theft of NSA and GCHQ documents, and since the allegations about their secret capabilities contained in those documents were made public, this country is at greater risk than it was before.

Maintaining capabilities in a digital age

It is right that we have a debate about security and privacy. But that debate must start with a sensible and considered assessment of the threats we and other democratic states face. As events in Syria and Iraq show, we cannot wish those threats away. If we do not base this hugely important debate upon the threats, nothing we do will seem necessary or proportionate.

We then need to be clear about our capabilities and the challenges we face in maintaining them in a digital age. I want to make three points about this.

First, we are living more of our lives online, using an array of new technology – IP telephony such as Skype and Facetime, social networking such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, chat rooms, anonymising services, and a myriad of mobile apps. This is hugely liberating and a great opportunity for economic growth, but this technology has become essential not just to the likes of you and me but to organised criminals and terrorists.

Second, the new technology is generally owned and operated not by states but by communications companies. They are global and they exercise considerable power. They collect data from their services about our online activity and they often use it for commercial purposes. It is often bought and sold. These companies affect – I might even say intrude upon – our lives and our privacy every single day. They can drive a car up your road and put an image of your home online for the world to observe. Of course, they do not need a warrant to do so.

Third – and I cannot emphasise this point enough – far from having some fictitious mastery over all this technology we, in democratic states, face the significant risk of being caught out by it. Governments have always reserved the power to monitor communications and to collect data about communications when it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

It is much harder now – there is more data, we do not own it and we can no longer always obtain it. I know some people will say “hurrah for that” – but the result is that we are in danger of making the internet an ungoverned, ungovernable space, a safe haven for terrorism and criminality.

I know some people like the thought that the internet should become a libertarian paradise, but that will entail complete freedom not just for law-abiding people but for terrorists and criminals. I do not believe that is what the public wants. Loss of capability – not mass surveillance nor illegal and unaccountable behaviour – is the great danger we face.

And that danger is already upon us. We no longer have capabilities upon which we have always relied. Let me give one example. Over a six-month period the National Crime Agency alone estimates that it has had to drop at least twenty cases as a result of missing communications data. Thirteen of these were threat-to-life cases in which a child was assessed to be at risk of imminent harm.

The truth about the way the privacy and security debate has been presented is that it creates myths that hide serious and pressing difficulties. The real problem is not that we have built an over-mighty state but that the state is finding it harder to fulfil its most basic duty, which is to protect the public.

That is why I have said before and I will go on saying that we need to make changes to the law to maintain the capabilities we need. Yes, we have to make sure that the capabilities can only be used with the right authorisation and with appropriate oversight. But this is quite simply a question of life and death, a matter of national security. We must keep on making the case until we get the changes we need.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on Chinese visas.  The speech was made at the UK Chinese Visa Alliance event on 16th June 2014.

I am very pleased to be joining you for this evening’s event.

Today the UK China Visa Alliance launches its report “Building on Progress” which examines ways the UK can continue to attract ever greater numbers of Chinese visitors to this country.

The spending power brought about by China’s economic revolution provides us with enormous opportunities. This week the Prime Minister will be welcoming the Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang to the UK so that we can continue to strengthen the link between our two countries.

This continuing closeness is something we all want to see in many areas including tourism. Visit Britain estimates that every Chinese tourist to the UK spends on average £2500. So there is direct economic value. But there is also enormous value in increasing cultural ties, and the potential impact that holds for future education, investment and the success of British brands in the Chinese market.

I want to see increasing numbers of Chinese visitors enjoying all the fantastic tourist attractions across the UK from the Changing of the Guards at Buckingham Palace and the Lake District and the magnificent scenery in Scotland and Wales.

I know many of you here – hoteliers, restaurateurs, retailers, and all those involved in the tourism industry – work extremely hard to ensure that all tourist and business travellers have a great experience when they visit Britain.

So I want to thank you for all that you do to show them everything this country has to offer, particularly those of you that are part of the GREAT China Welcome programme.

We have a good story to tell

At the Home Office we have listened to the views of British businesses, travel companies and Chinese customers and have taken steps to improve our visa service – and as a result we are seeing record numbers of Chinese visitors flocking to the UK.

In 2013 we issued more than 290,000 visitor visas to Chinese nationals, up nearly 40% on 2012.

Chinese nationals who apply for a British visa are very likely to get one – with 96% of Chinese visit visas approved.

And of all the UK’s visa operations, in 2013 we saw the biggest increase in visitor numbers from China.

And I just want to address some of the myths we still hear about visas. It’s not true for example that last year we issued fewer visitor visas than Belgium. It’s not true that we are miles behind France – last year we issued only slightly fewer visas to Chinese tourists than they did. And in fact we are gaining ground on Schengen countries – because last year the number of visit visas granted by the UK grew faster than France in particular and Schengen countries overall.

So the message is clear: Britain is open to Chinese tourists and business travellers who are most welcome when they come here.

Our Chinese visa system provides an excellent service

Many of the changes we have introduced to our Chinese visa service are ensuring it really is first class.

We have upgraded, expanded and branded our Visa Application Centres in China to increase capacity and strengthen our welcome. We have 12 centres across the major cities – more than any other country.

We have made our processes less bureaucratic.

And we continue to provide a service that is easy to access, ensures fast-turn around times, and provides fast-track priority services for those that want them.

In fact – most Chinese nationals applying for a non-settlement UK visa will have one issued in just over seven days – with 98% of visit visas issued within our 15 working day target.

Moreover, Approved Destination Scheme visit visas are processed in an average of just over five days.

In the last year many of the initiatives we have introduced are proving increasingly popular.

Those who want their visa issued quickly can choose the 3 to 5 day priority visa service – in July last year 11,000 customers used this service.

We have brought in a Passport Pass Back service so that customers can retain their passport while their UK visa application is being processed.

And we have introduced a VIP Mobile Visa Service for high-value travellers who would like the convenience of visa staff going directly to them to collect the biometric data necessary for a visa.

Over the last five months we have delivered this service in three new locations in response to demand and we continue to expand and promote its reach.

All these changes are working. They provide greater flexibility and choice. And we know they have been welcomed by many travellers and tour operators in China. In fact, China Perfect Travel in Beijing told us: Chinese tourists are “very welcome” in the UK and that “obtaining a visa has become much easier.”

But there is more we can do, and we are doing it

But I know we cannot afford to rest on our laurels.

As China’s economy continues to grow, tapping into the potential that offers is vital to the UK. And we must ensure we can attract a healthy share of the increasing numbers of Chinese tourists. According to the United Nations World Tourism Organisation, Chinese tourists spent nearly £63 billion on foreign travel in 2012, topping the tourist spend of any country. And this spend is set to rise substantially potentially to around £120 billion by 2015 according to Morgan Stanley.

I know many people have argued that Britain should join Schengen.

But I have been absolutely clear that I do not believe this is the answer.

The reason a Schengen visa is valid for 26 countries is because there are no border controls between these countries.

Our border controls in northern France and Belgium are absolutely vital in ensuring we only allow those we want to come to the UK to enter. We must ensure a migration system that commands public confidence, serves our economic interest, and protects the UK from immigration abuse.

The use of biometric data helps us to strengthen control of our borders, confirming identity and giving us greater assurance around the background of those who want to come here.

But while I have said we will not be joining Schengen, there are a range of other things we can do.

So today I want to tell you about our latest initiatives.

This August we will be launching a super priority 24 hour visa service which will dramatically speed-up the process for those who want to have a visa issued quickly. We are the only European country to offer this – a testament I believe to the Government’s determination to ensure we have a truly first class visa service on offer.

We have also made significant improvements to our online application process. Later this month we will trial a new application service in China. It will be simpler, more user-friendly, with translated and intuitive questions, asking customers only those necessary for their individual application. It will be launched on our new improved website, and is as easy to complete on a mobile or tablet as it is on a desktop computer.

Schengen

But most importantly, we are working to make it much easier for Chinese people to visit the UK and mainland Europe on the same trip.

Last year a pilot scheme which enabled tour operators to operate from a single application form in processing UK and Schengen visa applications proved highly successful. We will be extending it to all Chinese visitors applying to the UK starting this summer with independent travellers. Now those applying online will be able to automatically generate a partially completed Schengen form at the same time as completing their UK application.

This helps to align the process of applying for a UK visa with the Schengen visa process – and I would like us to seek further alignment with Schengen applications.

Talks are ongoing with European partners about further streamlining visa processes with Schengen arrangements to make trips to the UK even easier for Chinese visitors.

Currently, we are exploring the development of a “single Visa Application Centre visit” concept which would enable customers who visit a UK application centre to submit both UK and Schengen visa applications at the same time.

Although, of course, progress will be dependent on getting the agreement of a Schengen partner.

And finally, I am very pleased to announce a new joint British/Irish Visa Scheme – which will allow Chinese visitors with an Irish visa to travel to Britain, or with a British visa to travel to Ireland – without the need for a separate visa.

This arrangement will greatly improve both the British and the Irish offer to Chinese visitors and I hope will encourage ever greater numbers to explore both of these beautiful, vibrant, richly cultured island nations. The British/Irish Visa Scheme will also be launched in India.

As I said earlier, we have a good story to tell. The Government is playing its part. But by working together we can do more to improve our appeal to Chinese visitors.

The cross Government marketing campaign – GREAT – is helping to sell Britain as a great tourist destination to overseas travellers.

But I would like to see all those in the tourist industry helping to pitch Britain as a great place to visit – not only to increase the numbers of visitors, but to encourage those who do visit to stay here longer, and to spend more money in our hotels, at tourist attractions and on luxury goods. Alongside the group tours we know the Chinese independent travel sector is growing and we can do more to appeal to that sector too. It is important that we all provide a clear, unambiguous welcome.

Part of that appeal is making sure Chinese visitors know about the improved UK visitor visa service that’s on offer – and that all of us work together to dispel the persistent myths that we still hear and that can put people off.

Conclusion

Britain is a hugely attractive tourism destination – and these changes along with the fantastic visa service we already have in place will encourage even more visitors from China to discover it for themselves.

Having a visa system is vital to protecting Britain’s borders. But I want to make sure we have a system which is as efficient as possible in welcoming tourists and business people from around the world.

Britain is open to the brightest and best. And we are open to Chinese visitors who want to come and enjoy all the fantastic sights and experiences this great country has to offer.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to the Police Federation Conference held at the Bournemouth International Conference on 21st May 2014.

The police must change and so must the Federation

This is my fifth address to the annual Police Federation conference. In each of my previous speeches, I’ve had to deliver some pretty tough messages. I know you haven’t always liked what I’ve had to say. And to be honest, you haven’t always been the easiest of audiences. But I want to start by saying this.

When I first addressed you, back in 2010, I explained to you that there would be tough times ahead. It’s easy to forget now, but when this government was formed, we had just been through the worst financial disaster since the war. We faced the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history. We had a higher deficit than countries like Portugal and Greece, both of whom had to be bailed out by the European Union and whose economies continue to languish.

So I told you that we needed to be honest about dealing with the debt crisis and that doing so would mean police spending cuts. But I also told you that as Home Secretary I would be tough on crime, I would give you the powers you need to get the job done, and, as a government, we would do everything possible to maintain a strong police presence on our streets.

I know many of you were sceptical. I know you meant it when you said that spending cuts would destroy the police as we know it, that the front line service would be ruined and that crime would go shooting up.

I know that delivering those spending cuts has been hard and of course they have come at a price. We’ve changed your pay and conditions, we’ve reformed your pensions, and, yes, there are fewer officers employed overall. I understand the sacrifices you have made. But today we can say with confidence that spending cuts have not ended policing as we know it, the front line service has largely been maintained, and most important of all – according to both recorded crime statistics and the independent crime survey – crime is down by more than 10% since the election. So I want to thank every police officer and staff member in the country for getting on with the job and helping to deliver that reduction in crime.

Officers remembered

And I want to take this opportunity too to remember the officers who have fallen while on duty in the last year. PC Shazahan Wadud; DC Adrian Grew; PC Andrew Duncan; and PC Mick Chapman. They died serving their communities, and we honour their memory.

Police bravery

It was good to be reminded by Steve Williams during his speech of the police bravery awards. What strikes me is not just the bravery shown by individual officers but the fact that everyone says in a matter of fact way they were just doing their job. The public owe all those who do that job day in and out a debt of gratitude.

Policing by consent

Nearly 200 years ago, Sir Robert Peel founded the Metropolitan Police and declared, “the police are the public and the public are the police.” Today, everybody in policing – from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to the newest recruit on the frontline – is familiar with those famous words. They are the unofficial motto of the British model of policing and they say very clearly that in this country we believe in policing by consent. It is a principle we all take pride in, and it is the duty of us all to protect and preserve it.

That’s why, if there is anybody in this hall who doubts that our model of policing is at risk, if there is anybody who underestimates the damage recent events and revelations have done to the relationship between the public and the police, if anybody here questions the need for the police to change, I am here to tell you that it‟s time to face up to reality.

For the Federation has gathered here in Bournemouth at a time of great difficulty for policing. In the last few years, we have seen the Leveson Inquiry. The appalling conclusions of the Hillsborough independent panel. The death of Ian Tomlinson and the sacking of PC Harwood. The ongoing inquiry by an independent panel into the murder of Daniel Morgan. The first sacking of a chief constable for gross misconduct in modern times. The investigation of more than ten senior officers for acts of alleged misconduct and corruption.

Allegations of rigged recorded crime statistics. The sacking of PCs Keith Wallis, James Glanville and Gillian Weatherley after “Plebgate”. Worrying reports by the inspectorate about stop and search and domestic violence. The Herne Review into the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Special Demonstration Squad. The Ellison Review into allegations of corruption during the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Further allegations that the police sought to smear Stephen‟s family. Soon, there will be another judge-led public inquiry into policing.

Then there is the role of the Federation itself, which as Sir David Normington said in his review, needs to change from “top to bottom”. We’ve seen accusations of bullying, a lack of transparency in the accounts, questionable campaign tactics, infighting between branches, huge reserve funds worth millions of pounds, and a resounding call for change from your members – with 91% saying things cannot go on as they are.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to turn a blind eye to these matters, to let things go on as they are, to deny the need for change. It would be the easy thing to do, but it would also be the wrong thing to do, because I would be letting down the people in whose interests I am elected and you are employed to serve.

I say this not – as I‟ve heard it said by some of you before – because I want to run down the police, but because I want the police to be the best it can be. I want you – the representatives of the thousands of decent, dedicated, honest police officers – to show the public that you get it, that you want to take responsibility for the future of policing and you want to work with me to change policing for the better.

Police reform is working and crime is falling

When I became Home Secretary 4 years ago, I started a programme of radical police reform. At the time, a lot of people – the Federation, Association of Chief Police Officers, the Opposition and many others – questioned the need for that reform. But after 4 years of reduced police spending and falling crime, as well as the revelations I just listed, nobody questions the need for police reform any longer.

The abolition of all government targets, and putting operational responsibility where it belongs, with the police. Bureaucratic accountability replaced with democratic accountability, with crime maps, beat meetings and elected police and crime commissioners.

An inspectorate more independent of government and more independent of the police.

A College of Policing to drive up standards, improve professionalism and develop a better understanding of what works.

The National Crime Agency to get tough on serious and organised crime.

More powers and resources for the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Direct entry to inject into the senior ranks different perspectives, fresh thinking and new talent.

And new terms and conditions that will reward not just time served but skills, expertise and frontline service. I know not all of these changes have been easy. I appreciate that you’re not just police officers but mothers and fathers too. You have bills to pay and mouths to feed. Changes to your pay and conditions and your pensions were always going to be tough. But – when the debt crisis meant that the alternative was to lose officers in greater numbers – it was the right thing to do. And because the changes were not just about saving money but about encouraging and rewarding specialist skills and expertise, I believe they will serve the police well for many years to come.

Not all of the changes I’ve made should be so controversial and indeed many of them should be welcome to the police officers you represent. As Home Secretary I’ve resisted public and political pressure telling me to interfere with operational policing. I know locally-imposed targets still exist – and I am as frustrated by that as you are – but I have removed reams of bureaucracy and all targets imposed by government. I’ve increased the number of charging decisions you take. I’ve increased the number of prosecutions where the police take the lead instead of handing over to the CPS. I’m working with the NHS to reduce the time you have to spend dealing with people with mental health problems. And I’m changing the law to make sure that life really does mean life for people who murder police officers.

Our reforms have been crucial in helping you to cut crime even as we have cut spending.

If we hadn’t introduced police and crime commissioners and established the College of Policing, we wouldn’t have been able to break the unaccountable ACPO monopoly at the head of policing in this country. By introducing PCCs we have made police leaders more responsive to the people they serve, and by establishing the College we are improving the professionalism of policing and giving your members a direct say in its future.

If we hadn’t reformed the way the inspectorate works, we might not have been able to shine a light on the misuse of stop and search or the police response to domestic violence. By making HMIC more independent of government and of the police, and by increasing its resources, we will later this year see the first ever annual inspections of every force in the country – which will give the public accurate and understandable information about the performance of their force.

If we hadn’t set up the National Crime Agency, complete with the power to coordinate and task law enforcement organisations and assets, we’d still be nowhere near getting to grips with serious and organised crime. There is still a long way to go, but by creating the NCA we have made a start in tackling this long-ignored serious, national threat.

If we had tried to micromanage the reorganisation of the front line from Whitehall, we’d have ended up in a predictable bureaucratic mess. By freeing up chief constables and giving them the freedom to get on with the job, we have seen the proportion of officers in front line roles go up to 91%.

If we had tried to set policing priorities from the Home Office, we’d have had to keep the bureaucratic apparatus required to keep tabs on you – and we’d have fewer officers available on the frontline. By getting rid of all those government-imposed targets and much of that bureaucracy, we have saved up to 4.5 million police hours – the equivalent of 2,100 full-time officers.

If we had gone on with the same terms and conditions, we’d have chiefs without the flexibility to lead their forces through these difficult times – and we’d have fewer police officers in post. By making those difficult decisions, we have rewarded front line service – and saved police jobs.

If we hadn’t embarked on police reform, there is no guarantee that the front line service would, as HMIC reported, have been largely maintained. And there is no guarantee that crime would have gone on falling. So the lesson is clear – police reform is working and crime is falling.

The police must change

That is something you should all take pride in. But I’m afraid that this achievement – remarkable as it is – does not mean there is no need for further change.

I know that the vast majority of police officers are dedicated, honourable men and women who want to serve their communities and bring criminals to justice. But when you remember the list of recent revelations about police misconduct, it is not enough to mouth platitudes about “a few bad apples”. The problem might lie with a minority of officers, but it is still a significant problem, and a problem that needs to be addressed.

I can already hear some of you say, “but the opinion polls show confidence in the police hasn’t changed.” And that is indeed true. The opinion polls show consistently that about two thirds of the public trust the police to tell the truth. But that is no reason to rest on our laurels, because we should never accept a situation in which a third of people do not trust police officers to tell the truth.

And for different communities, the numbers can get very worrying indeed. According to one survey carried out recently only 42% of black people from a Caribbean background trust the police. That is simply not sustainable. Change is therefore required.

Many of the government’s broader police reforms will help. The College of Policing will improve the quality of leadership and drive up standards. Police and crime commissioners are making the police more accountable to their communities. Direct entry into the senior ranks will open up the police to talented outsiders. HMIC is more independent of the police and of the government and therefore has greater credibility in reporting on police standards and performance.

But while these reforms are important they are not on their own enough to root out corruption and ensure standards are as high as they can be. That is why the College of Policing is establishing a Code of Ethics. It’s why the College is creating a national register of officers struck off from the police.

We’re making sure officers can’t escape scrutiny or censure by resigning or retiring early. We’ve increased the powers and resources of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I’ve asked HMIC to look at the anti-corruption capability of all forces. We’ve tightened the rules around the deployment of undercover officers. I will soon publish proposals to strengthen the protections available to whistleblowers in the police. I am creating a new criminal offence of police corruption. And I am determined that the use of stop and search must come down, become more targeted and lead to more arrests.

But there is still more work to be done. We need to go further and faster in opening up the police to outside talent and to people who might not ordinarily consider a career in policing. We need to look much more closely at standards of training and leadership. We need to do whatever we can to make sure police officers are representative of the communities they serve. And – as I have said before – I am willing to grant the IPCC more powers and reform the organisation further if that is what is needed.

Because it cannot be right when officers under investigation by the IPCC comply with the rules by turning up for interview but then refuse to cooperate and decline to answer questions.

Such behaviour – which I am told is often encouraged by the Federation – reveals an attitude that is far removed from the principles of public service felt by the majority of police officers. It is the same attitude exposed by HMIC when officers, called to help a woman who had suffered domestic violence, accidentally recorded themselves calling the victim a “slag” and a “bitch”. It is the same attitude expressed when young black men ask the police why they are being stopped and searched and are told it is “just routine” even though according to the law, officers need “reasonable grounds for suspicion”. It is an attitude that betrays contempt for the public these officers are supposed to serve – and every police officer in the land, every single police leader, and everybody in the Police Federation should confront it and expunge it from the ranks.

The Fed must change too

But it’s not just the police itself that must change, because the Federation must change too. This is something I know Steve Williams believes sincerely – and the vast majority of your members agree with him. I remember sitting on this stage last year when Steve gave a brave and thoughtful speech. In that speech, Steve said this: “Of course, we will fight for pay and conditions. But we will not be responsible for giving anyone the impression that our members are self-interested. They are committed to protecting the public and this must not be lost in the way we present ourselves as their representatives. I want to see us not as an organisation that’s stuck in the past but as an organisation that is looking constructively to the future.”

That is why Steve commissioned an independent review into the future of the Police Federation. The review was chaired by Sir David Normington, the former permanent secretary of the Home Office, and the other members of the review committee were Sir Denis O’Connor, the former chief constable and Chief Inspector of Constabulary; Brendan Barber, the former general secretary of the TUC; Linda Dickens, a professor of industrial relations; Dr Neil Bentley, the deputy director general of the CBI; and Kathryn Kane, the former chairman of the Police Federation in Merseyside. These are all people who want the best for policing in this country, and who want the Federation to serve its members well.

The Normington Review found a lack of transparency and openness in the affairs and finances of the Federation. It found only limited accountability to the Fed’s membership and to the public. It concluded that the Fed was unable to promote good behaviour and professional standards. Police officers had lost confidence in the organisation and the Federation had lost its ability to influence and represent its members. As the report itself said, “we have encountered some [Fed leaders] who are more interested in fighting internal battles and protecting their own positions.”

The Normington Review made 36 recommendations and, as I said at the time, it is vital that the Federation implements every one of them. Because the best thing that can happen for policing in this country is for you – the representatives of every police man and woman in the land – to show the public that you understand the need for change. I want you to show the public that you get it, that you want to take responsibility, that you want to make sure the Federation operates in the spirit of public service.

But since the Normington Review concluded, that is not what has happened. Federation staff have been forced out and there have been allegations of bullying and victimisation. Instead of embracing the need for reform, some members of the Fed seems to have reverted to the worst kinds of behaviour exposed by the Normington Review.

So the candidates who put themselves forward to replace Steve Williams, those who choose the new chairman, and you – the Federation’s representatives – have a choice to make. You can choose the status quo or you can choose change; you can choose irrelevance or reform; you can become another reactionary trade union or you can make sure the Police Federation becomes once more the authentic voice of policing in this country.

I do not want to have to impose change on you, because I want you to show the public that you want to change. I want you to show them that you have the best interests of the police and of the public at heart. But make no mistake. If you do not make significant progress towards the implementation of the Normington reforms, if the Federation does not start to turn itself around, you must not be under the impression that the government will let things remain as they are.

The Federation was created by an Act of Parliament and it can be reformed by an Act of Parliament. If you do not change of your own accord, we will impose change on you.

And there are three changes I plan to make even before we reach that point. First, it is not acceptable that when the Federation is sitting on vast reserves worth tens of millions of pounds, it is in receipt of public funds to pay for the salaries and expenses of the chairman, general secretary and treasurer. We have already said we would reduce this spending from £320,000 to £190,000 per year but I can announce today that this funding will be stopped altogether from August. Instead, the money will go into a new fund to accelerate the introduction of Police First – a new scheme designed to attract the brightest young university graduates into the police.

Second, I want Federation representatives to earn the right to represent their members. So in common with changes made elsewhere in the public sector, I plan to change the law so that officers will have to opt in to join the Federation. This will mean that officers no longer become Fed members by default.

I also plan to change the law so that officers who have chosen to become members also have to opt in to pay full subscription fees. Federation members already have the option of not paying full fees if they do not want to use all Federation services. But not many officers know this, and, again, the default position in practice is that officers should automatically pay full fees, regardless. I believe that’s wrong, and it promotes some of the worst problems exposed by the Normington Review.

Third, I want to make the Police Federation more accountable. That means, today and on an annual basis thereafter, the Home Office will use its existing legal powers to call in the Federation’s central accounts. I will also change the law so the Home Office can without any question call in the accounts for any money held by the Federation – including all so-called “Number Two‟ accounts. And I will bring forward proposals to make the Police Federation – that is, the national organisation and all the regional branches – subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Securing the British model of policing by consent

I know that some of you will find these changes unpalatable. In particular, I know that some of you will find the Freedom of Information Act an unwelcome intrusion. But the Police Federation is an organisation created by statute, it serves a public function and the Normington Review demonstrated very clearly that it is an organisation in need of greater transparency and accountability. So it is a change that I believe needs to be made.

Because my message to you today is that the police must change, and so must the Federation. I believe we have the best police officers in the world, and it is my privilege as Home Secretary to work with them. But it is our responsibility – yours and mine – to lead those officers through these difficult times, to show we understand the need to change, to keep improving the frontline service, to keep cutting crime, to show the public that they can have confidence in the impartiality, the fairness and the incorruptibility of the police. Only then will we be able to say we have secured the British model of policing, the model of policing by consent – and only then will we be able to say, with pride, that, in our country, the police are the public and the public are the police.

Thank you.