Facial Recognition: Police Use

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Whittingdale]

As I understand it, the number of false positives recorded depends to some extent on the threshold at which the technology is set.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

The report by the national physical laboratory said that it had to be set at 0.6 for it to have fewer misidentifications, but there is no such thing as no misidentifications or people not being wrongly identified. It is also easy for a police service to lower that number. Because we have no judicial oversight, it is very problematic.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Lady is completely right. I think the police are generally being responsible in its use and setting the threshold as recommended, but that is another example where there is no requirement on them to do so, and they could lower it. Regarding deployment in Essex, the chief constable told me there was just one false positive.

I attended a meeting with Baroness Chakrabarti, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington, where Shaun Thompson, an anti-knife community worker, spoke to us. He had been held by the police for 30 minutes and forced to provide all sorts of identity documents, as a result of a false positive. On the extent to which it is occurring and whether racial bias is involved, there is some evidence that that is the case. That makes it all the more important that we provide assurances.

We have heard from several campaign organisations that are concerned about the use. They vary in the extent to which they believe it is a legitimate technology. Big Brother Watch has described live facial recognition technology as

“constant generalised surveillance”

and has said that it is

“indiscriminately subjecting members of the public to mass identity checks”

which undermines the presumption of innocence.

Liberty has gone further, saying:

“Creating law to govern police and private company use…will not solve the human rights concerns or the tech’s inbuilt discrimination…The only solution is to ban it.”

I do not agree with that, because I think there is clear evidence that it has a real benefit in helping the police apprehend people who are wanted for serious offences, but one of my major concerns is the lack of any clarity in law about how it should be used.

I am grateful to the Library, which has provided advice on that point. It says:

“There is no dedicated legislation in the UK on the use of facial recognition technologies.”

Instead, its use is governed by common law and by an interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, although that Act does not mention live facial recognition technology, and some case law, such as the Bridges case. Even in the Bridges case, the Court of Appeal found that

“The current policies do not sufficiently set out the terms on which discretionary powers can be exercised by the police and for that reason do not have the necessary quality of law.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) —or I could say my right hon. Friend, if he does not mind—for securing this debate. I have spoken to the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and there is an awareness that we need a lot of careful and considerate thinking on this issue. Obviously, a new Government have just come in and this is not a new issue, as the right hon. Member for Maldon said—LFR was first used in 2017, so there is a lot of clearing up that has to be done.

Live facial recognition changes one of the cornerstones of our democracy: an individual is innocent until proven guilty. With this technology, if the machine says an individual is guilty because they have been identified using live facial recognition, they then have to prove their innocence. That is a huge change in our democracy that nobody has consented to. We have not consented to it in this place, and as we police by consent as a society, that should really worry us all.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am looking forward to this debate and to concluding it for the Opposition later.

On the question of changing the burden of proof or undermining the concept that someone is innocent until proven guilty, the technology absolutely does not change that. What it does is give the police a reason to stop somebody and check their identity to see whether they are the person wanted for a criminal offence. It certainly does not provide evidence on which a conviction might be secured. In fact, it is no different from the police stopping someone because they are suspicious of them, and it is a lot more accurate than stop and search, about which I am sure the hon. Lady has views. It is simply a tool to enable the police to stop somebody and check their identity to see whether they are the person who is wanted. It certainly does not undermine the very important principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

[Dawn Butler]

The shadow Minister has hit on an important point regarding reasonable suspicion. What is reasonable suspicion? How have the police got to that point? If he is then going to make reference to watchlists, who is put on a watchlist? We know, for instance, that the Met police has hundreds of thousands of people on its system who should not be there. We know that the watchlist can consist of people it considers to be vulnerable, such as those with mental health issues. Anybody in this room could be put on a watchlist, so I am afraid the shadow Minister has not quite nailed the point he was trying to make.

[David Davis]

I am very much on the hon. Lady’s side of that argument, partly because we are a country where it is not normal to stop people and ask for their identity cards, which is why we have had a few battles over that in the past. Also, the technology is prone to slippage. Way back when—probably when the hon. Lady was still at school—we introduced automatic number plate recognition to monitor IRA terrorists coming from Liverpool to London. That was its exact purpose, but thereafter it got used for a dozen other things, without any legislative change or any approval by Parliament.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I ask Members to keep interventions as interventions?

[Dawn Butler]

Thank you, Dame Siobhain. Yes, it is really important that we talk about this openly. That is what we are supposed to do in this place, right? Anybody can be put on the watchlist. Seven police forces are currently using LFR. One that I know of—I am not sure about the others—the Metropolitan Police Service, is in special measures. I do not think it should be given any additional powers while it is in special measures.

The thing is that we know very little about the software or what is in the black box that is developed by these systems. What we can look at is the outcome, and we know that the outcome does not identify very well black women’s faces, especially, and black and Asian people. There is a lower identification threshold for those people, so that is a concern.

It is also really interesting that even when LFR is set at 0.6, a police super-spotter is more accurate. We have specialist police officers who spot people very quickly, and they are more accurate than this system, so it becomes the case that a police service will try to prove that the system it has bought is value for money. We can imagine a police officer not getting many hits with LFR at 0.6 and lowering that to 0.5 so that they can get more hits, which in turn means that more people are misidentified, so there should be regulation around this issue.

Taking away somebody’s liberty is one of the most serious things we can do in society, so we need to think very carefully if we are going to introduce something that accelerates that. It is good that for the first time we are having the debate on this issue. As the right hon. Member for Maldon said, the EU permits LFR only where there is prior judicial authorisation and in cases in which the police need to locate a missing person, for instance. That is something we need to consider.

I want to say this: I like technology. I am very much into our civil liberties. We need to protect our digital rights as human beings and individuals. I love technology— I used to be a coder—but we should not rush to do things because people get excited. There are really four people in the debate on this issue. It reminds me of four of my mates when we go out clubbing. Bear with me. We have the person who will stay at home because they are not bothered—they do not care—and we have the people who do not care about this issue: “It is going to happen; let it happen.” We have the person who will come, but they are a bit moany. They do not really like the music, but they will come anyway because they do not want to miss out.

We then have the person who is completely drunk on it all: “Give it to me. I’ll take everything.” There are people who just love anything to do with technology and will say, “Look, let’s just throw it all in the mix and it’ll all be fine.” And there is me. I am the person who likes the music and the food, but I need to keep sober to make sure everyone gets home safely. In this debate about AI, we need to be sober to make sure that everybody gets home safely and that when we roll out AI, we do so in a way that is fair and compassionate and in line with our values as British citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank every Member here for coming to this debate and I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing it in the first place.

I have worked on this issue for many years. In my previous job, I attended and observed the first deployments of live facial recognition by the Metropolitan police, which is many years ago now. Since then, the gap between its increasing use and the lack of a legislative basis has grown wider and wider. In that time, many thousands of people have had their personal data captured and used by the police when there was absolutely no reason for that. Many people have been misidentified, but the accuracy issue is not my main concern.

The unlegislated use of the technology is incredibly worrying. In my previous job on the London Assembly, I asked the Met and the Mayor of London many questions about that. I asked for watchlist transparency, but I did not get it. I heard the initial promises—“Oh, it will be very transparently used, we will communicate it, and no one will have to walk past it without knowing.” All those reassurances just faded away, because there is no real scrutiny or legislation. We need to debate the subject from first principles. As other Members have pointed out, we have had proper debates about identity cards and fingerprint and DNA data, but not about this extremely intrusive technology. It is more concerning than other technologies because it can be used on us without our knowledge. It really does engage our human rights in profound ways.

For all those reasons, the use of facial recognition by the police has been challenged by the Information Commissioner, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, the Biometrics Commissioner, London Assembly members, of whom I was one, Senedd Members and Members of Parliament here. The only detailed scrutiny of the technology has resulted in calls for a halt to its use; I am thinking of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee has also called for primary legislation. That is the absolutely key question. The EU has had the debate and looked at the issue in detail, with the result that over there what is used so much by the UK police is restricted to only the most serious cases of genuine public safety. That absolutely needs to happen here.

The legislation needs to look not just at police use of the technology, but private use. I have seen its use by private companies in the privately owned public space in King’s Cross. Data from there has been shared with the police; the police initially denied knowing anything about it and then later apologised for that denial. If private companies are collecting data and sharing it with the police, that needs to be scrutinised. If private companies are using the technology, that needs to be legislated for as well.

[Dawn Butler]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful speech. Is she aware of the Big Brother Watch campaign to try to stop large shops from capturing people’s faces and saying that they are shoplifters? They then get stopped in other places, but they are not aware of that process.

[Siân Berry]

Yes, I am aware of Big Brother Watch’s excellent campaigning on this issue. It has identified a serious breach of human rights. There is the potential for a serious injustice if people are denied access to their local shops based on a suspicion that has put them on a watchlist that may or may not be accurate. There is no oversight. We need to debate these things and legislate for them.

I tabled a written question to the Minister about putting regulation and legislation behind the police use of live facial recognition. The answer stated that the technology is governed by data protection and equality and human rights legislation, and supplemented by specific police guidance. I do not believe that police guidance is sufficient, given the enormous risks to human rights. We need a debate on primary legislation. I hope that the Minister will announce that that process will start soon and that this unlawful grey area will not be invading our privacy for much longer. This issue is urgent.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)]

I appreciate that we are having this debate, because it is surprising that we have got to where we are without legislation and firm frameworks in place. I really like the phrase “first principles”, and one of the first principles of the police is “without fear or favour”. That is an exceptional phrase that, if perfectly implemented, we would all benefit from, although of course we recognise that in the real world there is no such thing as perfect.

I am grateful that concerns have been raised about how the technology we are discussing impacts the assumption of innocence—we should all be very careful about that—although I also appreciate the point that it does not impact innocence but provides the opportunity for a human to check. If done properly, that is no bad thing, but we are right to discuss the issue in serious terms in our legislature because there is a danger of an unofficial assumption of guilt. Let us take the example of local shopping centres, which we heard about earlier. If an issue has not been escalated to the police or courts, but some local security officers have seen the same images on cameras and that information has gone round by radio, a gentleman or a lady out with their children doing the weekly shop may suddenly not be able to get in and do what they need to do. That is the kind of pervasive and damaging thing that could easily slip under the radar; we should all be mindful of that.

I want to touch briefly on transparency. This is clearly a developing technology and we would be wrong not to look at its benefits, but we must be mindful of the harm it could do along the way. If people find that they are getting an unfair crack of the whip—that is probably an inappropriate term—and are suffering as a result of this technology, we need to nip that in the bud, and be very direct and open about the failures so that we can make adjustments.

[Dawn Butler]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that black men are eight times more likely to be stopped and search by the police than their white counterparts, and 35 times more likely under section 60? This technology accelerates the discrimination that is already in the system.

[James McMurdock]

Absolutely. Let me put it like this: if any of us were to turn up at a social event and unexpectedly find a large swarm of police, that would give us a moment’s pause for thought. We need to be careful to ensure that this technology is not a more pervasive version of that example. It must not be constantly in existence, attached to every CCTV camera, without us even being aware of it.

To go back to transparency, we have to be open and frank about any issues with how the technology is being implemented, so that we can fix them. I agree that there absolutely could be issues, and we definitely want to be on the right path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

But when we look at the numbers of people, something like 0.5% of scans—I cannot remember the statistic—still result in somebody being misidentified.

[Chris Philp]

On the misidentification rate, I think the Bridges court case set a standard of a false positive rate of one in 1,000: out of every 1,000 people stopped, 999 are the people the police think they are, while one is misidentified. The Minister may have more up-to-date figures, but from my recollection the system in practice is running at about one in 6,000. That is an extraordinarily high accuracy rate—much more accurate than a regular stop and search.

About 25% to 30% of regular physical stops and searches, where a police officer stops someone and searches them for drugs or a knife or something, are successful. About 70% are unsuccessful, while the equivalent figure for live facial recognition is 0.02%. That means that this technology is 4,500 times less likely to result in someone being inappropriately stopped than a regular stop and search. It therefore hugely—by three orders of magnitude—reduces the likelihood of someone being improperly stopped and searched.

I turn to the use of the technology on the ground. I asked for it to be trialled in the centre of Croydon, which is the borough I represent in Parliament. Over the past nine months or so, it has been deployed on a relatively regular basis: about once a week. I believe that the Minister was supposed to go down this morning to have a look; I certainly encourage her to go again as soon as she can. By the way, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) asked whether people know when the technology is being used. The answer is yes: one of the guidelines is that public signage must be displayed telling the public that the technology is in use.

Over that period in Croydon, there have been approximately 200 arrests of people who would not otherwise have been arrested, including for all kinds of offences such as class A drugs supply, grievous bodily harm, fraud and domestic burglary. It has also included a man who had been wanted for two rapes dating back to 2017. That wanted rapist would be free to this day if not for this technology. Just a couple of weeks ago, a man was stopped and subsequently arrested in relation to a rape allegation from June this year. There are people who are alleged to have committed rape who would not have been stopped—who would still be walking free—if not for this technology. It is only the fact that they walked past a camera outside East Croydon station or somewhere that has meant they were stopped by the police. They will now have a normal trial with the normal standards of evidence, but they would not have been caught in the first place if not for this technology.

I have done quite a lot of public meetings on this. I explain, “These are the people who get caught, and the price the public pay is that you might get scanned when you walk down Croydon High Street, but if you are innocent your picture is immediately deleted.” By and large, the overwhelming majority of the people in Croydon think that a reasonable trade-off.

There should be protections, of course. Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, have rightly said that there should be guidelines, rules and procedures. However, it is not true that there is a complete vacuum as far as rules and regulations are concerned. The Bridges case at the Court of Appeal in 2020 looked at how South Wales police were using the technology between 2017 and 2020. It found that some of the ways they were using the technology were not appropriate because they broke rules on things like data protection privacy. It set out in case law the guidelines that have to be adhered to for the technology to be lawful—things like public signage, the rate of accuracy and having no racial bias.

Secondly—I do hope I am not taking the Minister’s entire speech—there are guidelines for police. The College of Policing has national authorised professional practice guidelines that the police are supposed to stick to. There is a debate to be had about whether, for the sake of clarity and democratic accountability, we in Parliament should set something out more formal; my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made that point. I think there would be some merit in clarifying at a national level where the guidelines sit, but I would not go as far as Europe. If we had done so, those rapists would not have been arrested. I would also be careful to ensure that any legislation is flexible enough to accommodate changing technology. Primary legislation may not be the right vehicle: a regulation-making power might be a more sensible approach, so that things can be kept up to date from time to time.

While we consider that, I strongly urge the Minister not to halt the use of the technology. As we speak, it is arresting criminals in Croydon and elsewhere who would not otherwise be caught. I urge her to continue supporting the police to roll it out. I think some money was allocated in the Budget for the current financial year, to continue developing the technology. I would welcome an update from the Minister on whether that money is still being spent in the current financial year. I do hope it has not somehow been snaffled by the Treasury in a misguided cost-saving effort—

Violent Disorder

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member makes an important point. There is no doubt that the swift response from the police, the prosecution and the criminal justice system had a strong impact and was clearly a deterrent and an overwhelming signal to people that if they get involved in disorder they will pay the price. The implicit point in his question is that there are long delays in the criminal justice system at the moment. We have often seen long delays in prosecutions. We are keen to work closely on that. We want to see better co-operation between policing and the Crown Prosecution Service in order to remove some of the bureaucracy that is in place and to speed up charges. We recognise there has been a lot of damage to the criminal justice system. We need to tackle that and turn it round, because that is fundamental to respect for the rule of law.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

May I just say what a powerful statement my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) made? There is no excuse for being racist or for using the innocent lives of Elsie, Alice and Bebe. I thank the Home Secretary for mentioning Cher Maximen and Mussie Imnetu. It is important that we are all mindful about how we use language in this House, especially when we are referring to immigration and migration. It is also important that we talk not only about thuggery and racism, but about Islamophobia. The rise in racism is frightening, and Love Music Hate Racism is doing a lot of work around raging against hate. I hope my right hon. Friend will help to encourage it in that work. Does she agree that we do need stronger regulations around social media companies?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s points. One of the most troubling things that we saw during those days of violent disorder was people feeling fearful to be out on the streets because of the colour of their skin. That should never happen in our country, which is why we do have to challenge racism and extremism wherever they are found. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is bringing forward measures under the Online Safety Act 2023 that will require social media companies to take action where there is criminal content. There has been considerable concern about criminal content remaining online, and we need the social media companies to take responsibility for that.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cleverly]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; although it did not make its way through all its parliamentary stages, the proposals that we put in the Criminal Justice Bill strengthened the accountability framework for officers and strengthened police leadership to take action. Again, I hope that the Government will continue that incredibly important work, and once again I put on record my willingness to support them in ensuring that the disciplinary practices within policing give women the confidence to come forward.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Is it not true that the net number of police is lower after 14 years of Tory Government? There has been a net loss to policing. Does the shadow Home Secretary agree that the reason we have not hit our numbers in London for the Met Police is that we are in special measures, and there needs to be caution over the police who are recruited? We need to ensure there are good police officers, so it is about quality, not just quantity.

[Mr Cleverly]

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of police numbers. That does not accord with the figures that I have seen. Police numbers are up, and we had plans to recruit even more. I get the party loyalty towards the Mayor of London, but the simple fact of the matter is that all police forces have to ensure that there are vetting procedures in place. The vetting procedures for the Metropolitan Police are no more onerous than for other forces around the country, yet many other police forces, including my own, have record numbers of police officers. The Metropolitan Police is the best-funded police force per capita in the country, and yet, with all the freedoms that the Mayor of London has and with all the money that was put on the table, he has failed to recruit the police officers that the capital city needs. That has an impact not just on people who live and work in London, but on visitors and people who travel through it.

In a constantly evolving criminal landscape, we delivered the online fraud charter. It was a world-first agreement, with 12 of the biggest tech companies as signatories, proactively to block and remove fraudulent content from their platforms. Facebook, Instagram and Amazon were among those key signatories. We introduced the National Security Act 2023 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and we proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir, Terrorgram and the Wagner Group, to make promotion and membership of those organisations illegal.

To conclude, the right hon. Lady has a tough job. Home Secretary will always be a tough job. However, during our time in government we ensured that she has more police officers at her disposal, an effective small boats operational command, an effective immigration enforcement command and a suite of legislation to allow her to match the rhetoric of the campaign to her action in government.

The Home Secretary has inherited falling met migration figures, a growing economy and a large parliamentary majority to ensure she gets her business through the House. While we will be critical when the Government make mistakes and will seek to ensure that they do the right thing, we all have a desire for her Department to succeed and indeed an interest in its doing so. On that point, I wish her the very best of luck.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes a really important point: this is about all of us, and Northern Ireland has some of the highest levels of domestic abuse murder. This issue is immensely serious, and the safeguarding Minister is already planning to have those discussions, because we should all be learning from each other about what it takes to save lives and keep people safe.

We will bring in new powers on antisocial behaviour, including new respect orders and new action on off-road bikes, which are dangerous and deafening and are being used to terrorise some communities. We will also take action against the soaring shoplifting that has seen supermarkets chain butter, cheese and fabric conditioner to the shelves, reversing the previous Conservative policy on low-value theft, and we will stand up against the appalling violence against shop workers. For years, the Co-op, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, major retailers, small shop owners and shop workers across the country have urged us to strengthen the law against assaults on shop workers, and through this King’s Speech, we will do so.

We will also increase standards in policing, including through mandatory vetting standards across forces and improvements around misconduct.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

On the topic of mandatory vetting, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should also have psychological testing for the police? Some of the incidents that have been brought to light, such as the kidnapping and killing of Sarah Everard and the pictures taken of Bibaa and Nicole in Brent, are appalling and can only be done by people who have lost compassion in their job.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some of this is about the vetting standards before people are appointed as police officers, but some of it is about the culture that can operate within forces—or small groups within forces—that always needs to be challenged, including by leadership. We want to see national vetting standards.

Let us be clear: there are police officers who do an incredible job every day of the week to keep us all safe, while also showing immense bravery. For 14 years running, I have been to the police bravery awards to hear incredible stories of heroism, but those brave officers are badly let down—just as communities are badly let down—when other officers fail to meet those standards or when they abuse the power they have. That is why the standards and safeguarding issues are so important.

Turning to knife crime, no parent should have to lie in bed worrying that a son or daughter might not come home. One of the hardest things is to talk to parents who are grieving—who stand with a photo in a frame, because that is all they have. It is important that all our communities take action to prevent our young people from being dragged into crime and violence. The King’s Speech means new laws to get dangerous knives off the streets, such as ninja swords of the type that was used to kill 16-year-old Ronan Kanda near his home in Wolverhampton two years ago. I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of Pooja, Ronan’s mother. We will also set up a radical new Young Futures prevention programme to stop our teenagers being drawn into a life of violent crime, bringing services together around young people in the way that the last Labour Government’s Sure Start programme did for our youngest children. It will be a programme for teenagers, to help them get back on track.

We will also bring forward new legislation on borders, security and immigration. Legal migration has trebled in the past five years; the biggest driver has been overseas recruitment, with work visas soaring because the last Government ran what was effectively a free-market, laissez-faire approach to both the economy and the immigration system. They completely failed to tackle skills shortages: areas such as engineering have been on the shortage list for decades if not generations, never having a proper programme. We have seen the number of engineering visas go up while the number of engineering apprenticeships has gone down. We have to turn that around, which is why, as well as continuing with visa controls, we will draw up new arrangements to link the points-based system with new skills plans. That is why the Education Secretary has drawn up plans for Skills England.

Political Violence and Disruption: Walney Report

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Member knows that he and I share a strong interest in the BNO community in the United Kingdom. Hongkongers being targeted by state actors is deeply wrong. One of the things that I have focused on in the period for which I have been the Security Minister is the threat of foreign states here. We know that China has acted deeply wrongly by threatening individuals here in the United Kingdom, and we will never stand for it. We have been extremely clear that Hongkongers or BNOs are first and foremost British nationals. We will defend their rights, as we will defend everyone’s rights. I have already met them, and I will continue to meet them. They are fantastic members of our society, and they are welcome.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I completely agree with a lot of what he said. As somebody who has been harassed a lot, I am against harassment, discrimination and all of that, but let me ask a question on procedure, because I think his responses today are superior to the report itself. I queried the Table Office about unopposed returns, and was told that they are essentially a way for the Government to publish a document or papers so that, according to paragraph 7.32 of “Erskine May”, they can be protected by statute. Unopposed returns cannot be debated or voted on, and there is no opportunity for Members to object. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Government used that procedure, and are they scared that the report will not stand up to scrutiny, whether from the public or within this Chamber?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Lady for her very kind comments about my responses. I was somewhat surprised to hear them, but I am delighted none the less. [Laughter.] I see I am not alone in my surprise. It is perfectly standard to introduce an independent report conducted in order to help the Government through this process, in order to prevent any form of vexatious prosecution. We were not expecting any; this is merely a formula that is very often used to afford parliamentary privilege to a report.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West on bringing forward this important piece of legislation. It is a small but important Bill, which will hopefully be very effective. We have seen issues around football caused by people who I do not think are football fans, because they bring our national game into disrepute. The behaviour of those people needs to be contained, and the Bill is a step forward in doing that. The danger that those people created, as has been alluded to, when they behaved in the way they did at that European final is completely unacceptable. As I have already said, it drags down the name of our national game. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he is seeking to achieve.

On the issue of whether the Bill could be applied more widely, the legislation could be seen as a model for other sports to follow. If we get it in place, who is to say that there could not be further legislation that would encompass cricket, or any other sport that is suffering in a similar way from those people who are trying to gain illegal entry to competitions, bring them into disrepute and, in some cases, causing a dangerous situation? The Bill could become an exemplar for other sports to follow. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West for picking up this specific issue and taking it forwards.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West on the Bill. As he said, Wembley stadium is in my patch, and it was an absolute nightmare for all the families that were there and for the police to manage, because it was so unexpected. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward the Bill, in the hope that people can go to Wembley stadium with families and enjoy a match without the possibility of that happening again.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff West on bringing forward the Bill. It is a timely piece of legislation that could be pivotal in avoiding situations like those we have heard about, which were terrifying for those caught up in them and shone an unpleasant light on what had been a positive and uplifting tournament until that stage.

We know through the work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that there are a number of issues facing football in the UK and around the world. We have seen the issues facing the stadium in Paris, where French police massively overreacted to British fans. The legislation sends out a really strong message that we care passionately about the safety of fans and the importance of allowing those who have attended matches to enjoy them in a way that is secure and maintains the long-term reputation of the game. I am really keen to put on record my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the Bill.

Security of Elected Representatives

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend has raised many interesting points about the Online Safety Act over recent months, and indeed years. As it has just passed and is only beginning to come into force, I hope she will forgive me for not making any commitments immediately. However, her points are certainly important, and I will look at them.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. If I heard correctly, he said that the Government have not quite got a definition of anti-Muslim hate. I wonder if that could urgently be rectified. The post of independent adviser on Islamophobia has been vacant for over a year, but the Government are in desperate need of one.

I thank hon. Members for acknowledging the hate crime against women of colour. May I just mention my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), who has had an obscene amount of hate levelled at her, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), the first hijab-wearing MP? The abuse they have faced is terrible.

MI5 and the Intelligence and Security Committee have stated that extreme right-wing terrorism is sadly here to stay, with the threat fuelled in part by racism. MI5 has said that teenagers as young as 13 are joining in extremist activity, often online. Last week, the Minister in the other place revealed that the Government are

“not intending to publish a hate crime strategy”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 February 2024; Vol. 836, c. 599.]

despite the last one being four years out of date. With the Community Security Trust report stating that there has been a rise in antisemitic abuse and a 300% rise in Islamophobia, why are the Government abandoning their work on hate crime?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Lady for the question. We are not abandoning our work on hate crime. May I just cover some of those issues in order?

First, I was talking about a definition of extremism, not of anti-Muslim hate, in response to the question from the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). The Government are absolutely clear that racism in all its forms, including anti-Muslim hatred, is absolutely wrong, and there is no question about that. The only area of discussion has to be about how we deal with it, not whether we recognise it. We do recognise it.

As the hon. Lady recognises, hate crime in this country is sadly rising, and there are individuals who have faced the force of that from various different areas. Very sadly, many in the Muslim community, as she is aware, feel that hatred not from outside the community but from within it—from those who are trying to preach an extremist message of Islam that is not accepted within the Muslim community, let alone in other parts of the country.

We must be absolutely clear that this country protects someone’s status for who they are and not for what they happen to believe. There is freedom of belief and freedom of religious expression, which also means the freedom not to believe or to believe differently from one’s family or community. Those things are also protected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his part of Bedfordshire. He is quite right to say that Bedfordshire, in common with many other parts of the country—and indeed with England and Wales as a whole —has a record number of police officers. In the case of Bedfordshire, the number is 1,456, and across England and Wales as a whole we now have over 149,000 officers: that is more than we have ever had before, and over 3,000 more than we had under the last Labour Government.

I speak regularly to Chief Constable Trevor Rodenhurst and the excellent police and crime commissioner in Bedfordshire, Festus Akinbusoye. Of course, how they deploy their record headcount is a matter for them, rather than for Government, but I will certainly mention the issues that my hon. Friend has raised when I next speak to them—I think we are having a meeting quite shortly—and I know that my hon. Friend will mention these issues as well.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

At the weekend I had to seek extra police support, due to the far-right abuse that I have suffered, which has been inspired and unleashed in part by the conspiracy theories and racist, Islamophobic, anti-Muslim hate peddled by the Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You cannot name Members.

[Dawn Butler]

It was peddled by Members of the Government party. Does the Minister agree that there is no place in this House or society for such divisive language? One Member has had the Whip removed. Does the Minister agree that other Members should also have the Whip removed, or does he agree with the points that were made?

[Chris Philp]

This House as a whole should be clear that hatred based on religion or race has no part in a civilised country, whether it is directed towards the Jewish community, who have suffered a surge in antisemitism, or the Muslim community. The Conservative party is prepared to act extremely quickly, as we did at the weekend—a great deal faster than the Labour party when it had an issue in Rochdale.

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Lawrence Murder Investigation

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I found it difficult to sleep last night, thinking about this debate. Knowing that Baroness Lawrence is here today makes the debate very difficult for me. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for highlighting all the mistakes and the corruption, some of which will be new to people who have not heard about it, and for his work to try to secure justice over a number of years.

The murder of Stephen Lawrence was brutal, and he was murdered by white racist thugs. I remember feeling quite sickened at the thought that a teenager who was just like me and my siblings, with a very similar background, had been murdered while he was waiting for a bus. It made us feel in the community that if he was not safe, none of us was safe. I remember those years.

Baroness Lawrence and Neville Lawrence fought a really hard campaign to get justice for their son Stephen. Even though they were fighting a system built on racism and white supremacy, they continued fighting. They were fighting not knowing that they were being spied on. They had full surveillance on them. They were being tracked by the police, so that the police could try to find something on them. Just imagine how clean and law-abiding the Lawrence family are for the police not to have found anything on them.

If the police had found something on the Lawrence family, it would have been in the papers and the press, and they would have highlighted it, because that is how the establishment and institutional racism works. They wanted to sow the seed of doubt, but there was no seed of doubt to be sown, because they found nothing. Just imagine that the police were working so hard to discredit a black family grieving the loss of their eldest son and their brother. They worked harder trying to discredit a black family than they did trying to convict the murderers.

One of the murderer’s dads was already in prison. These murderers did not come from the perfect family. They were known as the Krays of Eltham, and they revelled in that, but the police spent time trying to discredit Baroness Lawrence and her family. Every single time a new report comes out or the police fail to act or the IOPC fails to act, it traumatises the Lawrence family and the community, because justice delayed is justice denied.

I remember that moment in 1999, some six years after Stephen was murdered, when the public inquiry launched by the Labour Government concluded with the publishing of the Macpherson report. The words “institutionally racist” were indelibly stamped on the public consciousness. Stephen’s tragic murder and the subsequent bungling of its investigation by the Met police revealed to the rest of the country what many of us already knew, and some of us had the misfortune to recognise it from first-hand experience. That includes me, my brothers, my sister and my cousins. I have just written a book, and I have journeyed back through lots of incidents that have happened in my life. As I put them forward to go in the book, the publisher said, “That’s enough now, Dawn; you need to stop.” She then came back and apologised because, she said, “I realised that’s your lived experience.”

I went to Elephant and Castle. I never told my parents that I was there. I travelled alone; I did not go with any friends. I wanted to show my support to the Lawrence family. I also wanted to show the police that we were going to stand up to all the racism and we were not going to be scared. We were told when we were standing there—there was a slope—to be calm and dignified like the Lawrence family. And we were quite calm in the beginning, but when the murderers came out of the building, they had a swagger. They were cocky, and they were cocksure, because they knew they were protected by the Metropolitan police—the people that should have protected the innocent, all of us. Those murderers were protected and they knew it; they showed it. I did not realise how I would feel on that day, but if I had had eggs in my hand I would have thrown them and whatever else I had. Having to witness that undeserved arrogance and privilege was shocking and heartbreaking. It was absolutely palpable in the air, and that is why it kicked off.

As we stand here, 30 years since Stephen’s life was brutally taken, his memory and legacy live on through the work of the Stephen Lawrence trust and the work of the Lawrence family, and so does the ongoing fight for justice for him and his family. We are in this place not for show but to make society better. If we cannot highlight what is wrong with society and get it changed, what is the point?

Thirty years later, the Casey report has highlighted that the Metropolitan police is still institutionally racist. The current commissioner does not like that term. Well, I do not like the term, but I also do not like what it does. I do not like the effects of institutional racism and its consequences for the black community. I do not like the fact that black people are discriminated against more than any other group because of institutional racism. I do not like the fact that black people are five times more likely to die in police custody than their white counterparts. I do not like the fact that black people get convicted at a higher rate than their white counterparts for comparable offences. That is institutional racism. If you can’t name it, you can’t fix it.

The Government’s determination to have a fake war and say that there is no such thing as institutional racism is a disgrace. The Government’s first job should be to protect its citizens—all citizens—and they fail to do that time and again. Let me be clear: it is a matter of national importance that our public institutions are held to account in order to meet and maintain the highest standards and to continue to be held in esteem. It is not just, “Well, that’s the Metropolitan police.” Some people feel protected; some are over-policed, under-protected and underserved. The Lawrence family are an exemplar family, but it has taken its toll. Because they were not able to shame them in any way, it is still continuing.

The police talk about their reputation. To be honest, if the police were a bank account, they would be in severe deficit. We are policed by consent. With every interaction with a citizen they either add to the bank account or withdraw, and the Met police are in debt. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said that perhaps the Met police should be dismantled. I think the work that needs to be done on the Met cannot be done by anybody who has served in the Met. Cressida Dick was not a good commissioner, and Mark Rowley is slowly losing my confidence. The work that needs to be done is so deep that it needs an independent person from outside who will not be scared by the threats against them by members of the police service who want to keep the status quo. That is not to say that all police officers are corrupt, racist, homophobic or misogynistic—they are not—but the institution is. If we want to make the police service better for the good police officers, we have to change the institution. We also have to change all the institutions that surround the justice system and are underpinned by it, including the courts and the IOPC.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, it is now patently evident that those who were tasked with carrying out a public duty of great importance and significance following Stephen’s murder failed gravely to meet the standards that anyone would have expected. In no way do the years that have passed dull the desire to delve deeper into what now seems to be the very murky culture that pervaded the Metropolitan police at the time of Stephen’s murder. What may have been considered speculation during the early years of the investigation can now be classed as fact. When people were saying that the Lawrences were being surveilled, the police said that was not true. When people were saying that the police were being racist, we were told that was not true. Now we know it is all fact.

The catalogue of errors is a testament to the failed institution of the Metropolitan police, which has been resistant to well-overdue reform. There are too many errors for it to be just an error; it is institutional. Just imagine: as we have heard, information about one of the key suspects was not followed up until two decades later, when he was dead. It is almost like somebody did not want to offend the murderer or hold them to account, so they waited till they were dead before admitting that they were involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence. It is as insulting as it is offensive. To think that nothing will be done about it—we cannot allow that, especially not in this place.

I will end on some words from Baroness Lawrence. In her unique, dignified way—it is incredible—she said that she has been left “bitterly disappointed” by the fact that four former Metropolitan police officers will not face charges of misconduct in public life over their handling of the initial six weeks of the 1993 investigation. One report said that they are old. I do not care how old they are; they should stand trial and be accountable for what they did. They should not be living on a fat police pension. Baroness Lawrence said:

“Not a single police officer lost his job, or will lose his pension, or pay a fine or spend a day behind bars whilst I will continue to grieve the loss of my son. This CPS decision has caused me immense distress and little thought has been given to me as a mother who has lost her son. This is a disgrace.”

Justice delayed is justice denied. It is time that justice is delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Davies.

“We wonder why people become disillusioned. I am sure that all those decades ago when the Macpherson report was first published, there were many who heaved a sigh of relief. Its aim, after all, was to ‘increase trust and confidence in policing amongst minority ethnic communities’. I am also sure that all those decades ago, when the aim of the report was stated to be ‘the elimination of racist prejudice and disadvantage and the demonstration of fairness in all aspects of policing’, many felt they had finally achieved progress. I am sure that everyone involved was aware that Rome was not built in a day, but had some hope, and maybe even allowed themselves a little confidence that life for those experiencing racism would soon change for the better.

The family of Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered and then denied justice because of the colour of his skin—the family in response to whom the Macpherson report came about—perhaps felt when that report was published that his death had not been completely in vain. I have met Stephen’s brother, Stuart Lawrence, and of course we all know or know of his father, Neville Lawrence, and his mother, Baroness Doreen Lawrence”,

who is with us here today. Anyone who listens to Stuart or his parents

“or reads his book, ‘Silence is Not An Option’, begins to understand the catastrophic impact Stephen’s death had on everyone in his family and how they have all had to work so hard, almost every minute of every day, simply to survive.

To a lesser degree, the impact on whole communities was also devastating and life-changing. To have the hope that things would get better for other mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters when the report was published 22 years ago, and then to come to the conclusion that Doreen Lawrence reached recently, namely that ‘things have become really stagnant and nothing seems to have moved’”.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 419WH.]

You will have noticed, Mr Davies, that I said 22 years ago, when it was in fact 23 years ago. That is because what I have just said is the first page of a speech that I made here in Westminster Hall in July 2022, a year ago, about the Macpherson report. And, as I said, Doreen Lawrence said at the time:

“Things have become stagnant and nothing seems to have moved”.

That is why I am saying this again: because it is still absolutely relevant today. I have been to so many debates on this issue in this place, but nothing ever moves.

How must Baroness Lawrence feel now, when things have moved forward but there is no progress and no justice? The BBC investigation has named the sixth suspect, but there has been no progress and there will never be any justice. A decision has also been made not to prosecute any of the four retired detectives who ran that failed and corrupt investigation, so there will be no progress and no justice either. I heard a police officer say on the radio recently—I cannot remember the exact words—that it was time for us to let them have peace. He was talking about the retired detectives, not the family of Stephen Lawrence.

Baroness Lawrence has said of the BBC investigation:

“It should not have taken a journalist to do the job that a huge, highly resourced institution should have done.”

She is absolutely right. Why did it take the BBC to conduct an investigation when the Met already has far more resources to conduct one?

The Macpherson report is about England and Wales, but Scotland is not immune to any of these issues. I know that this debate is about Stephen Lawrence, but I just want to briefly mention Sheku Bayoh, whom I also talked about in last year’s debate. He died after being stopped in the street by two police officers, who were then joined by another seven police officers, in Kirkcaldy in Fife in May 2015. A public inquiry is under way and I hope to get along to it soon. However, it is now eight years since he died and his family still do not have any answers.

How did a fit young man in his 30s—he was a brother, son, dad, partner and friend—who had no weapons on him end up dead after encountering the police? I cannot answer that question—I will leave that to the inquiry—but I will say that in any other situation in which nine people confronted one person and that one person ended up dead, those nine people would, at the very least, be taken in for questioning. Mr Davies, you will never hear me or anyone else in my party claiming that Scotland or our police force is racism-free.

Let us go back to the speech I made a year ago—I am getting very good at juggling my speeches. I quoted Iain Livingstone, the chief constable of Police Scotland, as saying that there was a need for

“practical, firm, progressive, visible action”.—[Official Report, 7 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 419WH.]

Now, let me fast-forward to May of this year, when he made a statement addressing the matter of institutional racism in policing. I will read out parts of that statement, because it shows how straightforward it can and should be for the Met and for the Government to acknowledge institutional racism in policing. He said:

“Police Scotland has grown into an organisation known to be compassionate, values based, and highly competent. It is well regarded nationally, extremely well regarded internationally, but I know it can improve, must improve.

Institutional racism, sexism and institutional discrimination have become iconic terms in the vital battle to tackle injustice. Police officers and staff, including police leaders, can be conflicted both in acknowledging their existence and in using such terms, fearing it would unfairly condemn dedicated and honourable colleagues”—

of which, no doubt, there are many—

“or that it means no progress has been made since the 1990s.

Truly, I recognise and understand that conflict. I have experienced that conflict myself over a number of years.

The meaning of institutional racism set out by Sir William Macpherson in 1999 in his report on the appalling murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 is, rightly, very demanding.

The phrase, the terminology, however, can be and often is misinterpreted or misrepresented as unfair and personal critical assessments of police officers and police staff as individuals.

That is not the case.”

He is right—it is not the case. He went on to say:

“Does institutional discrimination mean our police officers and police staff are racist and sexist? No. It absolutely does not.”

That does not mean that there are not plenty of them who are, but this does not mean that they are. He says:

“I have great confidence in the character and values of our people. I am proud of Police Scotland and I am proud of my colleagues, proud of my officers and staff.

So I know and have shared the reservations and concerns about acknowledging that institutional discrimination exists in policing.

However, it is right for me, the right thing for me to do as Chief Constable, to clearly state that institutional racism, sexism, misogyny and discrimination exist. Police Scotland is institutionally racist and discriminatory. Publicly acknowledging these institutional issues exist is essential to our absolute commitment to championing equality and becoming an anti-racist Service. It is also critical to our determination to lead wider change in society.”

That is what the Met should do and what the Government should do—just acknowledge it. It is a start, but it is a really good start. Why can they not just say the words?

Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s First Minister, said that this statement was “monumental” and “historic”. He said:

“I hope that it also serves as a reminder to all of us that, whatever organisation we belong to, we have a responsibility to question the organisations that we lead…and to reflect on whether we are doing enough to dismantle not only institutional racism but the structural discrimination that exists for many people”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 25 May 2023; c. 10.]

The chief constable made the point that words are not enough, and he is absolutely right. Police Scotland has made a great start, and this Government and the Met police need to look at what Police Scotland has said and just own up to it. It is only words; it has to be followed up by actions. We now have a Prime Minister and a First Minister of Scotland who come from a minority ethnic background, but let us not get carried away and think that that has solved racism, because it certainly will not. Again, it is a start, but it is about what we do after that.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). He gave us an utterly shocking and deeply depressing story, but it is one that must be told over and over, and it is one that we should never stop being shocked at. That is what happens—we hear something so many times, and we get used to it—but we must never stop being shocked at it.

I support the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) in asking the Government about the plan for justice for the Lawrence family. Is there one? If so, what is it? The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) talked, in a really emotional speech, about the impact on her and about her visit to Elephant and Castle. She described so well and so vividly the swagger of those murderers, who knew they were being protected.

The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) and others reminded us that the Lawrence family were spied on. We need to keep telling everybody that, because whenever I tell anybody, they cannot believe it. The first time you hear it, you cannot forget it. We have to keep telling everybody what happened to them. She also called for more sanctions. I was stunned when I discovered how few sanctions there are against serving police officers right across these islands.

[Dawn Butler]

With regard to sanctions, is the hon. Member surprised, like me, that if a police officer fails their vetting, they can still work in the police, and nothing happens to them? What we need—I hope the Minister is listening—is independent vetting and psychological testing for every single serving police officer.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I absolutely agree. One of the things that shocked me most when I read through the briefing notes was that someone can fail their vetting but still be a serving police officer. It did not just shock me; it terrified me. I hope I never need to come in contact with a serving police officer who has failed their vetting.

I end by simply expressing solidarity with anyone fighting racism. I will do my best to be an ally. I express solidarity especially with the family of Sheku Bayoh—I offer to do whatever I can, and hope they can draw strength from others as they go through the public inquiry—and most particularly with the family of Stephen Lawrence, for the incredible strength they have shown, which they should never have had to show, over the many decades they have spent fighting for justice for their son.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies.

May I start by echoing everybody else in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for giving such a detailed and harrowing list of all the failures in the way that this case was investigated, from the start right to the present day? There are some parallels with other cases, such as the Stephen Port murders, where four young men were murdered and multiple others were raped, and the Daniel Morgan inquiry, following his murder in 1987. There are similarities in terms of professional curiosity and not being interested in following leads, unconscious bias and structural bias—the structures of the institutions themselves not being equipped to solve these murders—and the conclusion, in some of those cases, that it was down to incompetence rather than corruption, when it is hard to see how there was not corruption.

[Dawn Butler]

The Daniel Morgan inquiry said that the police were institutionally corrupt; indeed, Cressida Dick was named in that report as somebody who stopped the investigation from continuing. Does my hon. Friend agree that every single report on the Met highlights another area of discrimination that needs to be tackled?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is right, and one thing that Baroness Casey found in her report was a defensiveness. That is why it was first suggested in the Daniel Morgan inquiry that we should introduce a legal duty of candour, because there is a big difference between that and asking somebody for information. In that case, the Met was asked for certain information and it gave it, but it also knew other things that it did not offer. That is the difference with a duty of candour, and that came from the Hillsborough inquiry. It is one of the law changes that the Hillsborough campaigners are asking for, because, similarly, information was not willingly given and there was a defensiveness.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the institutional problems is that we do not have systems in place to stop these things happening in the first place; therefore they can happen, and they do.

My hon. Friend set up the all-party parliamentary group on children in police custody and will be looking at the disproportionality of children in custody. She has a lot of expertise in that area and spoke very eloquently about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) gave an incredibly powerful speech and of course reminded us about the Lawrence family being tracked—which, as the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), said, is one of the most horrific aspects of all of this. My hon. Friend said that we are in this place not for show but to make things better, and that is incredibly important: we are not here to prove a point one way or the other, but to make things better. I hope that the Minister responds in that spirit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) mentioned the murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, which are of course all wrapped up in the same issues and are, again, some of the most horrific things I have ever read about. The grace of their mother in showing leadership and behaving in the way she has—similarly to how Baroness Lawrence has behaved—is also quite extraordinary. I know for a fact that I would not behave in that way.

[Dawn Butler]

Mina Smallman, the mother of Bibaa and Nicole, is absolutely phenomenal. Is it not also the case that mothers who have lost their children in such tragic circumstances should not need to be so graceful or dignified to get justice for their children? But they often need to be.

[Sarah Jones]

That is a really important point. On that point, it is no coincidence that the majority of my colleagues on the Labour Benches who are speaking today are women who happen to be black. It should not be on their shoulders to fix these problems. They have experienced racism all through their lives, and now we expect them to fix the problems as well. That is not right. We have the same debate when we talk about the need for more black officers in policing. Yes, we need more, but it should not be on them to solve the problems of the police. It should be on all of us. We all need to take that responsibility, especially those of us who have not had to bear the burden of racism.

Illegal Migration Bill

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would direct Members to the speech made in the other place by Lord Clarke. He said, very powerfully, that, as a former Home Secretary and long-standing Member of this House, and as someone who is interested in and knowledgeable about this issue, he sat through many hours of debate and did not hear, from any of the critics of the Bill, a single credible alternative to the Government’s approach. If hon. Members follow that logic, they need to get behind the Government and support them in delivering this approach.

Another point that Lord Clarke made, which I agree with, was that, if we fail to tackle this issue—if we dismiss the concerns of members of the public—we will see very serious consequences in the years ahead, with a fragmentation of community cohesion and a weakening of the successful multi-ethnic democracy that all of us, on both sides of the House, are proud of and want to see sustained for future generations.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

The Minister says that the other place put forward wrecking amendments, but is it not true that the other place proposed amendments that ensure that we honour treaties, respect our judiciary and ensure that the Home Office is acting within the law?

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not agree with that. There are a few important exceptions, which I will come on to. I hope that, in my remarks and in answering any questions, I will reassure the hon. Lady that, on the points of substance made by those who want to see the Bill proceed and the issue tackled, the Government are making the right changes to the Bill.

Stop and Search

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is exactly why we are piloting serious violence reduction orders, which empower the police to place an order on an individual who already has a conviction for a knife-related offence and give police greater powers to stop them should they breach the terms of their order. The initial reports are very positive about the way this extra power is being used by the police.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Maya Angelou said:

“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

The Home Secretary has showed us who she is time and again. Just 9% of stop and searches yield offensive weapons or items linked to burglary. No other organisation would ramp up something that yielded a result of only 9%. Scotland was the knife capital of the UK. It reduced its knife crime by 69% by using a public health approach. Why is the Home Secretary not using a public health approach?

[Suella Braverman]

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation. Last year, stop and search resulted in almost 67,000 arrests and removed around 14,900 weapons and firearms from our streets. Crime statistics show that increased use of stop and search is driving the continuing increase in police-recorded possession-of-bladed-weapon offences, helping the police to save lives. Obviously, we work with all agencies, because stopping crime needs a multidimensional, multi-agency approach. That is what our violence reduction units are all about; that is what our Grip funding is all about; that is what our safer streets funding is all about—bringing together all the relevant agencies to prevent crime in the first place.