Debates between Geraint Davies and Suella Braverman during the 2019-2024 Parliament

Metropolitan Police: Casey Review

Debate between Geraint Davies and Suella Braverman
Tuesday 21st March 2023

(1 year, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Braverman Portrait Suella Braverman
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Vetting standards are set by the College of Policing via its statutory code of practice on vetting, and the inspectorate has looked in depth at whether those standards are being properly applied. We are strengthening the statutory code of practice for police vetting and making the vetting obligations on all forces stricter and clearer. That is action that we are taking, but of course we need chief constables to take the requisite action at their end.

Geraint Davies Portrait Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

Baroness Casey’s report underlines the fact that the Met is systematically dysfunctional and discriminatory. That is manifested on a day-to-day basis when women and minority officers seek support in their workplace and are simply bullied and intimidated. When they complain, gangs of sergeants troop up to ridicule, abuse and coercively control them. Will the Home Secretary change that by introducing civilian management resources and independent accountability to empower and empathise with women and minority officers, with a view to increasing performance, welfare and retention in place of misogyny, racism and homophobia? Then we can get rid of the toxicity and have forces that we can all be proud of, both in the Met and across the land.

Suella Braverman Portrait Suella Braverman
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Baroness Casey’s review makes clear that there is a need for some regulatory change. We are currently undertaking a review of the process for police officer dismissals, due to conclude in May, which will cover some of those issues, but we need to consider all the outcomes of the review before determining next steps.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Geraint Davies and Suella Braverman
Thursday 5th November 2020

(3 years, 12 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Geraint Davies Portrait Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - -

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her Department in ensuring Government legislation complies with international law.

Suella Braverman Portrait The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I work frequently with Departments on legislation, including on issues that relate to compliance with international law. The UK is committed to the rules-based international system. We were the architects of the post-war international legal order, including the UN Charter, NATO, and the European convention on human rights—a history of which I am very proud. The principle of discharging our treaty obligations in good faith is, and will remain, the key principle in forming the UK’s approach to international relations.

Geraint Davies Portrait Geraint Davies [V]
- Hansard - -

The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill breaks international law by reneging on the EU withdrawal agreement. The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill contravenes the right to life and the prohibition of torture under international conventions. The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill means the UK will be unable to prosecute war crimes after five years, so we will end up at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The Attorney General’s job is to ensure that we deliver the rule of law nationally and internationally. She has failed in her duty. Will she now resign?

Suella Braverman Portrait The Attorney General
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting points, but it seems that he has missed the fundamental principle underlying our constitution and the UK’s relationship with international law. It is not right to say that our constitution requires a blind and automatic adherence to international law. Domestic law is on a different plane to international law. It is entirely proper and constitutional, and in line with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, that the Queen in Parliament may legislate in a manner inconsistent with international law. That is an age-old principle underpinning our constitution.