Police Covenant Annual Report

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

I am delighted to lay before Parliament the second annual report for the police covenant. The report will also be available on www.gov.uk.

The police covenant aims to provide recognition by Government, policing and society as a whole of the sacrifices involved in working in policing, with the intention of ensuring that members of the police workforce suffer no detriment as a result of their role.

Since the first police covenant report was laid before Parliament in May 2023, significant progress has been made on all priorities. Several additional priorities have also been delivered successfully.

A major issue identified early on in the development of the police covenant was a need to better link across to the NHS and to develop a greater understanding of the impacts of policing among certain parts of the medical profession. To address this, we have appointed a permanent chief medical officer who will work to bridge the work of the NHS with the needs of the policing community through the new clinical governance group workstream. We have also seen training developed for general practitioners on the specific needs of the police workforce, which has now been shared with the Royal College of General Practitioners.

We have also taken steps to address issues around officer and staff roadside safety with new sentencing guidelines for situations where a car is used as a weapon.

This year, the Home Office sought to expand the police covenant further by incorporating new priorities and initiatives to combat the ever-changing challenges faced by police. In doing so, we have been able to identify and incorporate four new priorities into the police covenant:

tackling fatigue within the workforce;

providing, for the first time, proactive suicide prevention resources for forces and individuals;

the creation of a new authorised professional practice specifically centred around wellbeing; and

re-purposing the Operation Hampshire priority to focus on efficient data gathering for assaults on police.

The remaining workstreams continue to be priorities for the covenant. This year, there has been a particular effort made to understand and find the most effective support for police families and police leavers, leading to the creation and further development of resources to help these groups.

Our police officers and staff put themselves in challenging and dangerous situations daily for the benefit and protection of the communities they serve. It is vital that our police workforce feels supported, not just by the statements that go out from Government and Parliament, but also in the actions we take to look after them. That is why I particularly welcome the improvements in how the covenant is being publicised by the Home Office, forces and the national police wellbeing service.

It has been this Government’s privilege to support the improvements being made to police wellbeing. In taking forward the work of the covenant over the past year, I am grateful for the support, professionalism and collaboration of our valued policing partners including the College of Policing, National Police Chiefs’ Council, the staff associations and unions, the chief medical officer, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, the Welsh Government and non-Home Office forces for their vital contributions.

This Government will continue to push to progress and deliver the police covenant. We have a duty to support and protect the wellbeing of the police and that should never be forgotten.

[HCWS385]

Angiolini Inquiry: Recommendations

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

On 29 February 2024, a report on part 1 of the independent Angiolini inquiry was published. The inquiry was established following the horrific murder of Sarah Everard in March 2021 by then serving Metropolitan Police Service officer Wayne Couzens.

On the same day, I gave a statement to the House to acknowledge the inquiry’s findings.

Part 1 examined the previous career and conduct of Couzens and found a number of red flags and missed opportunities. Based on these findings, the Chair made a total of 16 recommendations, summarily to improve the policing response to sexual offences, such as indecent exposure, to strengthen police recruitment and vetting practices, and to address toxic police cultures.



Today I can confirm acceptance of all three of the recommendations made to the Government, which the Home Office will now work to deliver at pace. These recommendations are that the Home Office, in collaboration with partners, should conduct a fundamental review of the way masturbatory indecent exposure is treated within the criminal justice system; commission research to establish if there is an evidence-based link between masturbatory indecent exposure and subsequent offending; and launch a campaign to raise awareness that indecent exposure and sending unsolicited photographs of genitals amounts to criminality and boost victims’ confidence to report such crimes.

Further recommendations on police vetting, recruitment and culture were made directly to police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing, who have also today accepted all recommendations made to policing. I will work closely with policing to ensure that they drive this work forward promptly.

Tackling violence against women and girls is one of my top priorities. I am confident that our strong partnership and shared commitment with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing will lead to concerted, swift action.

I will provide a further update to Parliament on progress made in implementing the recommendations before summer recess.

I am grateful to Lady Elish and her team for their crucial and continued work, which will ensure that policing continues to make improvements necessary to rebuild the confidence of everyone they serve. I await the inquiry’s further findings from part 2, which is examining broader national issues such as vetting, recruitment and culture, as well as the safety of women in public spaces.

[HCWS378]

Police Misconduct and Investigations

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

Police forces must command the trust and confidence of the people that they serve. This is vital to the success of our policing by consent model, and why policing in England and Wales is a beacon internationally. A robust police accountability system which ensures officers who fall short of the standards expected of them are held to account appropriately is an integral part of that. It is in the interests of the majority of officers who use their powers to serve the public bravely and well, as well as the wider public. The damage caused to public trust by recent cases of officers not fit to serve brings this into focus.

The accountability system for police use of force must also be fair and proportionate. It is vital that police officers have the confidence to use their powers effectively to keep the public safe. I understand many officers have lost trust in the accountability system and lack confidence to take the actions necessary to protect the public. I am also acutely aware that this is an issue not just for firearms officers, but for many others trained and entrusted to use force or carry out pursuits where necessary to do the difficult job we expect of them.

On 24 September 2023, my predecessor announced a Home Office-led review of investigatory arrangements which follow police use of force and police driving-related incidents. This reflected the need to ensure frameworks for investigating incidents where members of the public are injured or killed, to strike the right balance in holding policing to account fairly without jeopardising public safety and to reflect the context in which the police do their jobs.

On 24 October, the terms of reference for the review were laid in the House and published on gov.uk, and submissions from stakeholders were invited. They were clear that the review will not consider live or ongoing investigations or proceedings. The need to ensure it does not in any way prejudice or interfere with ongoing or concluded investigations or proceedings is paramount. I am pleased now to provide an update.

Progress update / what we have heard

Since the review was announced, officials have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders, receiving written evidence and personal testimony from frontline officers, senior police leaders, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, relevant Government Departments, civil society stakeholders, representatives from the legal sector, and individuals and families directly impacted by police use of force.

Outside the review, and in parallel, we asked the Attorney General, as part of her superintendence role, to look at the Crown Prosecution Service and to make recommendations.

A broad range of participants expressed concern about how the system operates in practice, its complexity, and in particular the timeliness and fairness of investigations. All agreed that investigations take too long; it is unacceptable that it can take years for a verdict to be reached, placing unnecessary stress on all involved. Drawn-out processes have a detrimental effect on public confidence, as well as on the professional and personal lives of all involved. Many identified that processes should be made clearer and more efficient within and between the organisations which deliver police oversight, and that legislative change may be necessary to ensure robust and fair accountability.

I know that police understand the need for accountability. However, many officers do not trust that they will be treated fairly under the current system, and that is having a detrimental impact on morale and the willingness of officers to volunteer to take on the role of firearms officers. This is impacting police capability to do their job and protect the public.

The review team spoke to the families of people who had died or suffered serious injury following police contact, and the lawyers who represent them. Their experiences had often caused them to lose confidence in the system to hold policing to account, particularly in relation to the treatment of people from some minority groups. I am also aware that recent high-profile events have undermined public perceptions of policing. I have listened to all of these concerns and acting on them is a Home Office priority.

What we are doing now

Based on the evidence received, this Government will bring forward a range of legislative and non-legislative changes to address pressing issues. These immediate measures will precede a comprehensive public consultation before the summer on the shape of the accountability system.

Criminal Justice Bill

I plan to bring forward three legislative changes through the Criminal Justice Bill. These changes to schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 will together aim to improve the timeliness and fairness of investigations and the rights of victims. These changes will:

raise the threshold which is used to determine whether the IOPC refers a case to the CPS, to improve the timeliness of investigations. While the CPS will retain the ultimate decision on whether to prosecute, this change will improve timeliness and confidence in cases where criminality is suggested;

relax the restrictions preventing the CPS from bringing criminal proceedings until the IOPC produces a final report. This will allow the IOPC to submit its investigation report to the CPS earlier, on completion of the investigation, where possible criminal offending has been identified. The CPS can then make charging decisions sooner—reducing the length of time that an investigation takes—which is in the interests of all involved;

solidify victims’ rights by formalising the IOPC’s existing Victims’ Right to Review policy in legislation. The VRR allows complainants and their families to challenge decisions by the IOPC not to refer an investigation report to the CPS for a charging decision. Enshrining this in legislation will provide victims with a legal right to review decisions and supports thorough checks and balances in the police misconduct system. This will also allow Government to hold the IOPC to account for delivery.

White Paper and consultation on wider changes

Further to these amendments, a range of more complex legislative changes are being considered to address broader concerns about the accountability system. Due to the nature of these changes, we must make sure they are thoroughly considered and implemented properly. All who will be affected—whether officers or the public—must be given the opportunity to input and have their voices heard. I will set out this broader package of proposals for public consultation as soon as practicable after the Police and Crime Commissioner elections conclude on 2 May. The consultation will put forward Government findings and proposals, where appropriate, on various issues set out in the review’s terms of reference, including:



the relevant thresholds for launching investigations into police misconduct and criminality—the “case to answer” test in misconduct proceedings;

the relevant legal tests concerning the use of force in self-defence in respect of police misconduct proceedings;

consideration of the standard of proof required for a finding of unlawful killing for inquests and relevant inquiries;

bringing forward options for time limits on investigations, with pilots where necessary;

and making improvements to policies relating to officer and public safeguarding during investigations and proceedings, including officer anonymity.

Non-legislative measures

Aside from legislative proposals, there is more that must be done now to improve confidence in the police accountability system. Further to the amendments in the Criminal Justice Bill, there is a range of non-legislative measures that we are progressing. I intend to work with all relevant stakeholders to address timeliness and complexity of the accountability process, improve post-incident communications, and ensure better support for families, individuals and officers. This includes:



strengthening guidance to ensure that officer training is thoroughly considered during misconduct investigations;

commissioning analysis of post-incident communications, focusing on their accuracy and stakeholder views;

working with relevant organisations to improve the availability of clear guidance on the legal frameworks/processes for complainants and officers;

standing up a cross-Whitehall working group to address inefficiencies across the different organisations that consider these issues;

and launching an independent review of the overall approach to fulfilling Article 2 and 3 obligations following police contact to consider fundamental reform to improve timeliness of outcomes.

Fairfield report publication

The Government will also today publish the report of a recent independent review of the IOPC carried out as part of the Government’s public bodies review programme. The PBR programme is aimed at increasing the effectiveness of public bodies and their delivery for the public. The IOPC’s review was led by Dr Gillian Fairfield, the current chair of the Disclosure and Barring Service, in line with terms of reference published by the Government on 1 March 2023. She reported in December last year.

Key findings in the Fairfield report include:

concern that numbers of referrals to the IOPC have risen more than threefold, while numbers of independent investigations have fallen;

that the IOPC’s governance structure is flawed and should be reformed, with interim improvements to governance, committee structures, assurance and audit functions and closer monitoring by the Home Office;

and further measures required to improve quality and timeliness including cross-Government working to improve times and the way that different parts of police discipline and the criminal justice systems interact.

The Home Office broadly accepts the majority of the Fairfield recommendations for Government and is also publishing its response today. To ensure that issues around assurance and oversight are addressed, the Home Office will make arrangements to introduce a Chair of the IOPC's unitary board.

IOPC DG recruitment

Key to IOPC governance is the Director General role, and today Rachel Watson has been appointed to the position following a robust open competition, conducted in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Rachel Watson has been serving as Policing Director in the Home Office since 2019, and will be bringing her years of expertise and experience working with the sector to head up the organisation.

It is critical that we bring forward specific proposals on accountability that both the police and the public can have full confidence in. We ask officers to put themselves in harm’s way when performing their duties and, in some cases, they must take split-second decisions in order to protect life. This is a huge responsibility, and in return, they must feel supported and should not fear that actions taken in line with their training and guidance could damage their careers, wellbeing or family life.

At the same time, the police must maintain the trust the public puts in them to keep them safe, and it is therefore crucial that any use of force is reasonable, proportionate and necessary. When things go wrong, the accountability system must provide the public with reassurance that the police will be held to account for their actions, and that any behaviour falling below the high standards we expect is investigated swiftly and fairly. Those who have been on the receiving end of unlawful use of force, or whose loved ones have been affected by this must feel confident that those responsible will be held to account.

Together, these proposals will bring forward important changes to ensure we maintain this balance. I would like to thank all of those who have contributed to the review so far. I am determined that we continue to work together to ensure a fair, transparent and timely accountability system for all.

[HCWS369]

Angiolini Inquiry Report

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Angiolini inquiry.

Three years ago, Sarah Everard was abducted, raped and murdered by an off-duty serving police officer. It was a gut-wrenching betrayal, an abuse of power of the most egregious kind, and the country was shaken to its core. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), established an inquiry to examine the many failings arising from the Sarah Everard case, chaired by Lady Elish Angiolini KC. Part 1 focused on examining Wayne Couzens’ career and previous behaviour, and a report dealing with its findings has been published today.

First and foremost, we should take time to think about Sarah Everard’s family and loved ones at what must be an incredibly difficult time. I pay tribute to them all for the immense dignity that they have shown in the face of such an unbearable loss in such terrible circumstances.

Tragically, the report makes it clear that Couzens was completely unsuitable to serve as a police officer, and, worse still, that there were numerous occasions when that should, and could, have been recognised. Lady Elish identified significant and repeated problems in recruitment and vetting throughout Couzens’ career, including the overlooking of his chaotic financial situation. This meant that he was able to serve in a range of privileged roles, for instance as a firearms officer. It is appalling that reports of indecent exposure by Couzens were not taken seriously enough by the police, and that officers were not adequately trained, equipped or motivated to investigate the allegations properly. Had fuller inquiries been made in 2015 and 2020, Couzens could and probably would have been removed from policing. Evidence of his preference for extreme and violent pornography, and of his alleged sexual offending, dates back nearly 20 years prior to Sarah Everard’s murder. The inquiry found that Couzens was adept at hiding his grossly offensive behaviour from most of his colleagues, but that he shared his vile and misogynistic views on a WhatsApp group. The other members of that group are no longer serving officers, after a range of disciplinary processes. The fact that many of his alleged victims felt unable to report their experiences at the time speaks to the issue of confidence in policing among women.

I wish to place on the record my thanks to Lady Elish and her team for this report. It is a deeply distressing but incredibly important piece of work, and they have approached it with thoroughness, professionalism and sensitivity. We all owe thanks to those who came forward and gave brave testimony to the inquiry. Everyone who Couzens hurt is in my thoughts today.

The report makes 16 recommendations, including improving the police response to indecent exposure, reforming police recruitment and vetting practices, and addressing cultures in policing. The Government will now carefully consider the report and respond formally in due course, and I assure the House that our response will be prompt. We are taking action to address public confidence in the police, and there has already been progress in a number of areas that have been highlighted by the inquiry. Anyone who is not fit to wear the uniform, for whatever reason, must be removed from policing, and every effort must be made to ensure that similar people never join. That is why we are providing funding to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to develop an automated system for flagging intelligence about officers much more quickly.

We are changing the rules to make it easier for forces to remove those who cannot hold the minimum level of clearance. Police chiefs are getting back the responsibility for chairing misconduct hearings, so that they can better uphold standards in the forces that they lead, and there will be a presumption of dismissal for any officer found to have committed gross misconduct. I can announce today that there will also be automatic suspensions of police officers charged with certain criminal offences, but the work must continue. Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry is considering systemic issues in policing, such as vetting, recruitment and the culture, as well as the safety of women in public spaces. I will of course read the findings closely and with care.

Sarah Everard’s murder started a national conversation about violence against women and girls, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham reopened a call for evidence that went on to receive 180,000 responses from members of the public, with many sharing their harrowing personal experiences. That evidence demonstrated the terrible truth: women and girls routinely feel unsafe. This is unacceptable and should anger us all, and the whole of society needs to treat change in this area as an urgent priority.

Tackling violence against women and girls has been a priority for me for a long time. It is now a priority set out in the strategic policing requirement, meaning that VAWG is rightly considered to be as serious a focus as tackling terrorism. Our tackling violence against women and girls strategy and tackling domestic abuse plan are backed up by significant investment. We are changing the law so that rapists will serve their full sentence behind bars, with no option of release at the two-thirds point, and anyone who commits a murder with a sexual or sadistic element will spend the rest of their days in prison.

Our safer streets fund and safety of women at night fund support a range of projects across England and Wales. The online StreetSafe tool enables the public to anonymously report areas where they feel unsafe and why. There is a new national operating model for the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences, which means that the police and prosecutors will work together more closely, building stronger cases that focus on the behaviour of the suspect, and that place victims at the heart of everything. We have also launched a nationwide behaviour change campaign called “Enough” to bring about an enduring shift in the attitudes and behaviours that underpin the abuse of women and girls.

Most police officers use their powers to serve the public bravely and well, but the impact can be devastating when they fall short. Society cannot function properly when trust in the police is eroded. I am unambiguous that police forces must keep improving and must command the confidence of the people they serve. It is imperative that police leadership, of whatever rank, plays its part in this endeavour.

Once again, I express my heartfelt sympathy to Sarah Everard’s family and friends. I cannot begin to imagine the extent of their pain. Together, we must do everything possible to stop such agony being visited on others, to rebuild public trust, and to make sure that our streets and public places, as well as the private realm, are safe for women and girls. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement.

Three years ago this Sunday, a young woman walking home was abducted and brutally killed by a serving police officer who she should have been able to trust to keep her safe. Today we think of Sarah Everard and her parents, family and friends, who have to live with the shattering consequences of what happened. This is also a day when many families who have lost sisters, daughters and mothers to violence are here in Parliament to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), read out the names of the women killed this year.

Today’s damning report is about women’s safety. It is for all the women across the country who worry about walking home alone, or who worry about their daughters’ safety. It is also about trust and confidence in policing, and whether we have the standards in place to maintain confidence in individual officers. The work of the vast majority of police officers who work immensely hard and with integrity to keep communities safe is undermined when standards fail. I thank Lady Elish Angiolini for her inquiry and this comprehensive first report. I also thank those who came forward to give evidence.

The report exposes a catalogue of appalling failures in police vetting and misconduct processes, and in the investigation of indecent exposure and sexual offences. Wayne Couzens should never have been a police officer. He should have been stopped, and he could have been stopped, from being a police officer. It is truly appalling. His history of alleged sexual offending stretches back so many years, yet the opportunities to investigate were repeatedly missed. Most disturbing of all, Lady Angiolini says that there is

“nothing to stop another Couzens operating in plain sight.”

Although I agree with most of what the Home Secretary says, I have to be blunt about this: his response is too weak—too little, too late. The lack of urgency is unfathomable to me. The Government have been repeatedly warned about failures around vetting and misconduct. Independent inspectorate reports in 2012, 2019, 2022 and 2023 all highlighted serious failures in vetting procedures, which is why, two years ago, I called for mandatory national vetting standards. Forces are working hard, but there are no mandatory standards for all forces. All the Government have done is bring in a code of practice two and a half years after Sarah Everard’s murder, and it is not strong enough. Frankly, it is not even clear that Wayne Couzens, or officers such as David Carrick and Cliff Mitchell—both now convicted—would definitely have failed the vetting standards and the code of practice had they been in force at the time. The Home Secretary has to go further, and that has to be driven by the Home Office.

As for the misconduct changes that the Home Secretary referred to, most of them are not even in place yet. Again, this is three years after Sarah Everard was murdered. Will he commit today to a new mandatory vetting framework, underpinned by legislation, that all forces must abide by, under which any evidence about past domestic abuse or sexual offending will be pursued, and that will not simply take into account convictions? We will support him in that. At a minimum, will he accept recommendation 6, which is about a

“Review of indecent exposure allegations and other sexual offences recorded against serving police officers”?

At a minimum, surely he can accept that today.

The automatic suspensions that the Home Secretary announced do not go far enough. Are we to suspend people for criminal offences only once they have been charged? Once the police launch an investigation into domestic abuse or sexual offences by a serving police officer, that officer should be automatically suspended. Again, we have called for that repeatedly. The Home Secretary is not going far enough. As for the response on women’s safety more widely, that, too, is frankly too week.

I welcome many of the policies the Home Secretary referred to and that the Government have introduced over the past few years—most of them are things we called for—but, again, this goes nowhere near far enough. On indecent exposure, we know about the awful murder of Libby Squire in 2019 and the failure to take indecent exposure seriously enough. Libby’s mother, Lisa Squire, and the Home Affairs Committee Chair have been campaigning for stronger action on indecent exposure for years now. Again, surely the Home Secretary can accept at least the first three recommendations of Lady Elish’s report, which are on stronger police training and guidance on, and a stronger approach to, investigating indecent exposure.

When it comes to women’s safety, the reality is that the number of prosecutions for domestic abuse has halved; rape prosecutions are still taking years; early action and intervention just does not happen. There is a shocking drift on women’s safety and in what the Home Secretary has said today. I urge him to: support Labour’s call for new vetting rules, and for specialist rape and sexual offences units in every force; support Raneem’s law, so that the police respond with urgency to domestic abuse and save lives; and listen to Lisa Squire, the mother of Libby Squire. We say that this report should be a watershed, but we said that Sarah Everard’s murder three years ago should have been a watershed, and far too little has changed. How long must we go on saying the same things?

The first women’s safety march was on the streets of Leeds nearly 50 years ago, and we are saying the same things about our daughters’ safety today. I am sick and tired of nothing changing. I am sick and tired of women and girls who face abuse and violence not getting support, while perpetrators get away with it. Enough is enough. Let us have some urgency in the Home Secretary’s response. We cannot stand for this any more.

[James Cleverly]

The right hon. Lady makes a number of points about the findings in the report, and about the issues raised because of Sarah Everard’s brutal murder. I have continued the work of my predecessors, including that initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), to make sure that not just the Department, but police forces around the country and other organisations, statutory and non-statutory, that deal with the safety of women, are focused relentlessly on this issue. We have made it clear that there is still much work to do, and, as I committed to do, we will respond promptly to the findings of this report.

I understand the frustration that not enough has happened; things have not moved fast enough, and cultural change still needs to be driven through, including on leadership. I have made clear to police leaders, both in forces around the country and at the College of Policing, my expectation of leadership. This is not just about process and procedure, but about these matters being amplified and supported by leadership, and about a real commitment to driving through change in forces. I will continue to ensure that that happens.

I do not think it is right for the right hon. Lady to say that nothing has changed. That would not be an accurate reflection of the situation from the time to which she makes reference. There have been a number of improvements. My first visit as Home Secretary was to Holborn police station to look at the team working there. There have been improvements, although I concede that they have not been universally applied. The differential performance among forces is not good enough. I have discussed what can happen to ensure the least well performing forces match the performance of the best forces.

There remains a huge amount of work to be done. We are not waiting for the outcome of the second inquiry before we take action. We will look at changes to the recruitment and vetting processes, which have been highlighted, but in her inquiry Dame Elish shows that there were plenty of occasions when the current system flagged problems that were not properly responded to by the force. Those are not procedural problems but a culture problem. We will look at what processes and procedures need to change, but I will not wait for the second report before doing so. I will continue to push for cultural change through society and policing, to ensure that where issues are flagged, as they were, they are taken seriously and investigated properly to ensure that such a situation will hopefully never happen again.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I join everybody in the House in paying tribute to Sarah Everard’s family. Having spent time with them, I hope the report will at least give them some sense of the facts and circumstances around what happened to their beautiful daughter, as they requested.

I thank Dame Elish Angiolini for her incredible work. This report is only part one; parts two and three will follow. The report has no surprises when we think about what has been said thus far about policing since Sarah’s appalling abduction and murder. Zoë Billingham, His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and others have highlighted many institutional, cultural and practical failures.

Will the Home Secretary give his own view on what can happen next? This is a clear call for action for all police forces around the country to raise the bar on consistent vetting and action. There is no place for criminal or corrupt conduct in policing. We police by consent in our country but that bond has been broken with the public, as the report shows. With reports two and three due to come out, will the Home Secretary give a commitment that, as those reviews are undertaken and as he engages with Dame Elish Angiolini, he will act swiftly where issues are identified and not wait for the publication of further reports? Will he also act swiftly on putting forward the recommendations in part one of the report?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for initiating the report and appointing Dame Elish. Details in the report were new to many people and were painful to read, but much of what is highlighted was already known. We have not waited for the report to start driving change. I have had conversations with police leadership about my expectations for their focus on the policing of the safety of women and girls and their attitude towards women and girls. Processes and structures are important; we will review and improve them. However, the best processes and structures in the world cannot replace focus and leadership. It is incredibly important that leadership at every rank in policing takes that seriously. This is a conversation that I have had with police leaders and the College of Policing to ensure that the attitudes highlighted in the report change. Without that shift in attitudes, all the processes in the world will not repair what needs to be repaired. That is a conversation that I will repeat.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful for advance sight of the statement, and to Dame Elish Angiolini for the careful and thorough way she has worked through this task, and the thoughtful way she talked through her findings online earlier. I, too, am thinking of Sarah Everard and her family today, as well as the family of Emma Caldwell, who have experienced such a protracted, awful ordeal.

Fundamentally, our police forces must both keep us safe and have our confidence that they will do so. Of course, most police officers do an excellent job, but trust has been hugely damaged by issues being raised—including, as we have heard, indecent exposure—but not acted on. We have heard that Wayne Couzens should never have been a police officer. The Home Secretary spoke about vetting. I put it to him that we need to hear more about both process and culture. It cannot be one before the other; both must be dealt with immediately. I would also like to hear more about how those currently in the force who show tell-tale signs, as Couzens did, will be dealt with.

What does the Home Secretary mean by “automated systems”, and how will they work? Will additional funding be made available to tackle institutional misogyny within the Met, and will Barnett consequentials be available so that the Scottish Government can similarly look at the threat of violence against women and girls, across society and within the police force?

Good policing will not end the epidemic of male-inflicted violence against women, but it should mean that men who abuse women are held to account. I wonder whether the Home Secretary is aware of the relatively small proportion of police officers investigated for domestic abuse, sexual assault, rape and abuse of position who were suspended over the last two years, and what steps he is taking to deal with that. Will the Home Secretary talk further about those who have raised concerns about domestic abuse by police officers, and how the specific actions that are needed will be taken? This is quite devastating for women’s confidence in policing. I wonder whether he is considering a statutory inquiry into institutional misogyny within the Metropolitan police.

Finally, he said at the beginning of his statement that the report and his Government’s actions have brought to light the concerns that women have. I have to say to him that we have had these concerns forever. This is not a new situation, but there is now an opportunity to do more about it. I am keen to hear about how that might pan out.

[James Cleverly]

On the hon. Lady’s final point, I want to make it clear what I meant. I was not suggesting that the report had brought to my attention, or that of the Department, a problem that is severe and long-standing. When I was at City Hall in the London Assembly, I contributed to the London violence against women and girls strategy, back in 2008-09, so I have been involved in this area and been passionate about it for the entire time I have been in elected office.

What Sarah Everard’s murder highlighted more generally to the public was something that I know women have known for a very long time: that the public realm is not safe enough; that their concerns are often not taken seriously enough; that there has been a dismissive attitude to non-contact sexual crimes; and that it takes far too long to bring domestic abusers to justice, too few of them are brought to justice, and women do not feel safe during the process. That has been raised by many people in the House. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who has made it clear that far, far more needs to be done, which many women already instinctively know.

That is the point that I am making about these tragic circumstances; we need to bring a greater and wider attention to this—a whole society attention. This is an issue about women and girls, but it is not an issue for women and girls. It has to be a whole society issue. I remain absolutely committed to ensuring that the specific recommendations of the report are responded to promptly, but, as my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said, we are not waiting for the report to come out to take action; we have already taken action and we have already increased funding.

With regard to the Barnett consequentials, I will have to leave it to others to talk through the implications of that within the wider funding envelope of our support to Scotland as an integral part of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

This comprehensive report reveals a truly appalling catalogue of what ultimately turned out to be fatal errors, incompetence and complacency, which were epitomised by a culture in parts of the Met police—it is important to say “parts”—where vile behaviour and deeply abusive language, as we would recognise it to be, constituted banter. Mark Rowley, when he came in, offered in response to open up more than 1,000 cases of previous scandal and conduct investigations to see whether they had been conducted properly. When the Home Affairs Committee went to see the standards committee at the Met, we were told that this would take some time and that we would see more of these cases coming out. Can the Home Secretary give us a progress report on what more instances we are likely to see in the public domain?

Can we also hear more about an issue that we have raised previously, which is where those reviews of standards are undertaken by other members of the police force. Surely there is a case for bringing in greater independence by using other agencies and institutions, such as the military, to help with these investigations, as they would approach this from a different standpoint, ensuring that it is not just a case of the police marking their own homework.

[James Cleverly]

The review that was initiated by my predecessor and worked through by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is important. The commissioner has demonstrated an admirable commitment to reform. Having had conversations directly with him about this, I know that he takes these issues incredibly seriously. He wants to ensure that the Metropolitan police not only serve the capital and everybody in it, but are seen to serve them and that there is confidence in that.

I will of course consider my hon. Friend’s final point. I sat on the Metropolitan Police Authority’s professional standards committee from 2008, when I was first elected, until 2012. I saw the professionalism and alacrity with which the professional standards department of the Metropolitan police set about its work. There is a real anger directed at unprofessional officers by good officers. In my experience, the professional standards team takes its work incredibly seriously. The team wants to root out bad officers. Through the Criminal Justice Bill, we are giving chief constables more power to root out bad officers quickly, and I have committed to supporting them when they do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s statement. I hope that we will get a full response to the report from the Home Secretary very quickly. May I also associate myself with the comments of the Home Secretary and other right hon. and hon. Members today? Our thoughts are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard.

I wish to ask the Home Secretary again about this issue of indecent exposure, which is highlighted in the report and which he has talked about a little. In my constituency, we had the horrific case of Libby Squire, who was raped and murdered by a man who had been stalking women and roaming the streets of Hull for 18 months prior to murdering her. He had been exposing himself and committing acts of voyeurism. People did not report his actions, because they did not think that the police would take them seriously. Libby’s mum, Lisa Squire, has been campaigning on this for the past few years. She has recently given evidence at a hearing of the Home Affairs Committee. I wondered whether the Home Secretary would meet her, because it would be interesting to know his view. What more can be done now to encourage people—women in particular—to come forward when such things happen to them? I would also say that almost every woman I know has had this happen to them at some stage in their life. This problem is endemic.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for raising this point. I will of course seek to find an opportunity to meet the Squire family about this matter.

There needs to be a cycle of increased confidence. I hate some of the phraseology that has been applied, and I choose never to apply it about this issue, because there is the implication that these matters are less serious. But the sad truth is that, when we see reports of serious sexual violence, we can look back through the case history and often see plenty of examples of criminality leading up to that. Therefore we do absolutely need to take this seriously. Women who have been the victims of these kind of crimes—this kind of behaviour—need to feel confident about reporting them and they need to feel confident that their reports will be taken seriously. The more they see the police taking action, the more confident they will be in coming forward. Therefore, we need to develop a virtuous circle. We are not there yet; indeed, we know that we are a long way from that. We have seen this happen in the Couzens case. He was known to have committed these crimes, and that should have triggered a much more robust response. But it did not, and we must address why that was the case. We have to ensure that leadership and policing understand that, collectively, this House and the Home Office expect them to take this matter more seriously and send the signal that these crimes are not trivial and should not be ignored.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of others—my thoughts are also with the Everard family.

This report tells us that the environment did nothing—nothing—to discourage Couzens’ misogynistic view of women. We know that not every flasher becomes a rapist, but we also know that every rapist starts somewhere. I respectfully say to my right hon. Friend that, of course, there have been good changes with regard to criminal justice and longer sentences for the most violent and the most serious offences, but that is too late. We have to intervene in the offending journey.

Last week, my Committee heard from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy, a man who has taken on a really difficult job, overturning those stones in the Metropolitan police and turning up at 1,600 instances of officers with at least one allegation of a sexual offence or domestic violence—1,600. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance today that he will give more power to Stuart Cundy’s elbow, so that we get rid of these individuals from our police service?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I talk about that cycle of confidence, women need to see that when these crimes are reported, they are investigated and the perpetrators are brought to justice. Only then will they feel confident in coming forward. These are serious offences; they are not trivial. She is right to say that not everyone who is a flasher, not everyone who has made unwanted and inappropriate sexual advances to women, goes on to become a rapist or a murderer. None the less, the more people who are dissuaded from that behaviour because of swift and professional criminal justice, the more people we can prevent from getting to those later stages. That is why this is so important. That is why that cultural change needs to be driven through the whole system. A number of the Angiolini recommendations are for Departments other than the Home Office and for public bodies outside Government—all of us have to take this incredibly seriously. This is a whole of society approach, and that will remain the fundamental philosophy that I use to underpin the work of the Home Office in this area.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I associate myself with the comments for the Everard family and with Lady Elish Angiolini. Her report today is a continuation of her reports that have highlighted failures in our criminal justice system.

In the Home Secretary’s statement, I noticed mention of funding for the National Police Chiefs’ Council for the flagging of police officers in the vetting system. My own experience in the police service is that IT system improvements take a long time and are complex, so I suppose my first question for him is: what timescales do we have in mind for those improvements? Secondly, what engagement is happening with Police Scotland, because police officers transfer to forces in and outwith the UK? Finally, if today a serving police officer were found in a concerning situation that requires input into the intelligence system and they do not identify themselves as a police officer, are we confident that they would be dealt with accordingly?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady makes a number of points about the implementation of the changes that we are making. I cannot give precise timescales at the moment, because this piece of work is ongoing and recently initiated, but my desire is for these things to happen as quickly as possible. She is absolutely right that IT and systems changes are not instant, and I am impatient to get improvement, which is why I keep saying that we are not waiting for these things to go forward. They are amplifiers and accelerators of what should be a fundamental change that we are looking to drive through immediately. The earliest conversations that I had when appointed as Home Secretary were on this issue with the College of Policing and with Lady Elish herself. One of those first meetings I had on my appointment was with Lady Elish about this report and the work that we could do to get ahead of the findings that she has put forward.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. He will be clear that the overwhelming number of Metropolitan police officers are brave individuals who frequently put their life on the line to protect us all. That is key: such individuals want to see the bad apples rooted out and, indeed, never come into the police service in the first place. However, there are two aspects to the problems of the Metropolitan police: they are the one force in the country that failed to meet their recruitment targets in the past year; and the Mayor has yet to provide the funding from his budget to enable the cultural change that we need to see in the Metropolitan police. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to ensure that standards do not slip in recruitment—they should be enforced—and that the funding needs to be provided to change the culture of the Metropolitan police, as we would all like to see?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the fact that London’s police and crime commissioner is the Mayor of London. He therefore has a duty to ensure that the police force over which he has political control changes, and changes in the way that has been highlighted through the inquiry and in the part 1 findings of the inquiry.

My hon. Friend is also absolutely right that even though many of the forces across the country are at the largest they have ever been in terms of numbers, that is sadly not true of the Metropolitan police, but there absolutely must be no sacrifice of quality of vetting in order to hit the recruitment targets that we have made it clear we expect the Metropolitan police to hit. We want the Metropolitan police to be a well recruited force, and the funding has been put on the table—it has not been fully utilised by the Mayor, but the funding has been put on the table—to enable the Met to be that. The force needs to be populated with good, professional officers. That is the bar, the minimum standard we expect. We expect all leadership, uniformed and political, to abide by that philosophy.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I put it on the record that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), in whose constituency Sarah Everard lived and from where she was abducted, then murdered, is on an overseas visit with the Joint Committee on Human Rights and is very sorry not to be in the Chamber for this important statement.

Sarah Everard’s abduction and murder had a profound impact on women across south London. Like so many young people, she had moved to London for work and made her home in our diverse community in Lambeth. She was one of us. But both before this appalling murder and afterwards, residents in south London and further afield who expressed concerns about police behaviour that was misogynistic, racist or homophobic were told repeatedly that this was just “a few bad apples”, an offensive phrase that diminishes and denies people’s experience and belies what have been shown to be structural, cultural and widespread problems in policing.

Will the Secretary of State, in the light of the report’s findings, apologise to everyone whose experiences of unacceptable behaviour by police officers has been diminished and denied in that way? Had they been listened to when they reported their experiences, action could have been taken that might have prevented Sarah’s appalling and tragic murder from taking place.

[James Cleverly]

As I said, from my first day in elected office, I have tried to drive cultural change and an increase in professionalism, first in the Metropolitan police and, in this job, in policing more widely. I will continue to do that for all the time that I have the power and authority to do so. There needs to be—there must be—fundamental change. We must create an environment where women and girls feel confident in, not fearful of policing. That will remain my focus. I assure the hon. Lady and the House that I remain committed to that.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

I pay tribute to Lady Elish Angiolini for her thoughtful and considered report. The Home Affairs Committee took significant evidence on this issue, and her findings chime with what we heard about police standards and the culture within policing. It is worth saying that the vast majority of police officers join with good intentions, and they serve their communities well and with honour, and they serve the public well, but that core of rotten behaviour that she so well addresses in this report does exist. That is what we have to address, because at the heart of this issue is trust in policing.

We need to get back to a place where women trust police officers and where they trust that when they report things, those reports will be listened to. Does my right hon. Friend have confidence not just in what the Metropolitan police are doing, but in what forces around the country are doing—I have Cumbrian women who are concerned about their walks home at night—to look at the people in their forces and ensure that they root out bad behaviour and get the culture right?

[James Cleverly]

As I said in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, the simple truth is that there is no consistency across the country. Some forces deal with these issues better than others. We want to ensure that we increase the focus on such issues right across the country. The strategic policing requirement that I put forward is part of driving that attitudinal change right across the country. I demand that all police forces treat this as a priority issue, taking it as seriously as their work on counter-terrorism policing, for example, and that they learn from best practice, which is why I have spoken extensively with the College of Policing about the issue. Every woman everywhere in the country should have confidence in their police force.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I would like to send my love to Sarah Everard and to the families of the 340 women in this country who have been killed since the day she was killed.

The Home Secretary said that the strategic policing requirement is designed to make this issue as important as terrorism, but which police force in the country with a counter-terrorism unit has the same number of officers in that unit as it does specialists in violence against women and girls? Why did his Department spend £50 million last year on 6,700 Prevent referrals to prevent people from ending up in terrorism, but £18 million on 898,000 police reports of domestic abuse? We have 6,000 on one side and nearly 1 million on the other; the Home Office spends £18 million on DV perpetrators and £50 million diverting terrorism perpetrators, and says, “We are taking it just as seriously.”

To say, “We are doing everything possible in flagging intelligence” is just not true. Currently, if someone is found by a family court in this country—a British court —to have raped their wife, raped one of their children or abused their children, no police force in the country would be entitled to that information when doing their vetting. Will the Home Secretary commit to ensuring that, if someone who wants to become a police officer or a social worker has been found by a British court to have committed rape or child abuse, that information will all be made completely and utterly available?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point about ensuring that offences are taken into consideration in vetting. That is part of the set of reforms that we will look at driving through. She makes a point about numbers of officers and budgets; I am not convinced that that is necessarily the most useful metric of the seriousness with which we take things. As I say, the strategic policing requirement makes clear my expectations. Ultimately, we continue to increase the financial support for the policing of these issues. I will continue, as I have committed to the House, to ensure that police officers of all ranks take this seriously, because without attitudinal change and a fundamental shift in philosophy, increased funding and changed processes —both of which are incredibly important; I absolutely agree with her on that—will not have the effect that she and I both desire.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. Like many, I was shocked by the murder of Sarah Everard three years ago. I praise the dignity of her family. I worry for women walking home at night. I lost trust in the police then.

To follow on from the challenge by the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), surely if an investigation into a police officer is launched after allegations of domestic abuse or sexual assault, that officer should be suspended straightaway.

[James Cleverly]

I have worked with professional standards officers. Something like that, which might superficially seem obvious, is often more complicated. We have put forward changes in the thresholds that trigger a suspension. Of course, we expect investigating officers to move swiftly, as I said at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. We want officers who are innocent to be vindicated quickly, and we want officers who are not to be removed from the force. That remains the philosophy that underpins our work on this.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. Like many others, I pay tribute to the families of Sarah Everard and the many other women who have lost their lives to violence by men. I think about the events back in March 2021 and take people back to the vigil that was organised on Clapham common, which is covered by my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is not able to be here. Women wanted to come together to show solidarity. We all remember the scenes of Patsy Stevenson being handcuffed on the ground by two police officers.

The Home Secretary has spoken about women having the confidence to come forward and report. He also mentioned the Metropolitan Police Authority, of which he was one of the founding members. I served as a London Assembly member and sat on the police and crime committee, which saw reports about Met police officers’ actions. Does he not agree that for those women to come forward, they need confidence in the police, and that requires suspending at the first hurdle any police officers who have acted inappropriately—no ifs, no buts?

[James Cleverly]

I respect the hon. Lady’s experience on this issue. She will have heard the response that I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith). There cannot be universality in this; responses have to be based on the facts of individual cases. Successful challenges would be highly likely if suspension decisions were not based on the individual circumstances of each case. However, we have made it clear that the threshold has historically been far too high. We have reviewed that threshold and made it quicker and easier for officers to be suspended. That goes hand in hand with the changes we are making, through the Criminal Justice Bill, to ensure that the disciplinary procedure operates more quickly so that officers who are found to have behaved appropriately are returned to duty quickly, and those who are found to have behaved inappropriately are sanctioned quickly. That is incredibly important.

The policing of the vigil for Sarah Everard was awful —it was awful. It took what was already an incredibly painful set of circumstances and made them worse. I have spoken to police officers who recognise that. I will continue to speak about leadership, because that is not a process point; it is a leadership point. It is about driving attitudinal change and a willingness to accept criticism from people who have felt victimised for far too long and are demanding a change in the attitude of police around the country. The response to those incredibly legitimate concerns, at a point of incredible sadness and tragedy, amplified what were already tragic circumstances. I will do everything I can to ensure that situations like that are never—never—repeated.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I, too, pay tribute to the family of Sarah Everard. In Newcastle and across the country, her vile murder led to an outpouring of grief and horror, but it did not, as the Home Secretary said, start a conversation about violence against women—[Interruption.] That is what he said. Rather, it showed that the voices, the pain and the fears of women were being ignored. He says that he takes violence against women seriously; his language and his actions need to reflect that. Will he speak specifically about recommendation 11 on information sharing between forces so that predators like Couzens cannot move from force to force? This is not an issue for the Met alone.

[James Cleverly]

As I said in response to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), my point about starting a national conversation is that there are people who should have been thinking about this matter but were not. The terrible circumstances of the murder of Sarah Everard triggered a conversation within the Home Office and in policing. My own experience long predated those terrible events.

We must recognise, as a number of Members from across the House have said, that something changed when Sarah was murdered. We must absolutely ensure that those terrible circumstances, which the inquiry demands that we see, are utilised to drive fundamental change. I commit to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) that I will continue to drive that change and prioritise violence against women and girls. It is a key priority, as I have communicated over and over again since the day I was appointed Home Secretary.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and the report, but it beggars belief—it is shocking beyond comprehension—that we can have serving police officers in this country who have been convicted of multiple counts of rape, kidnap, breaches of non-molestation orders and other serious offences. In his replies, the Home Secretary has said a number of times that this is not just an issue for women and girls. I would argue that it should not be an issue for women and girls: this is actually a man’s problem. We need to really address male attitudes towards women and girls. There can be no place for misogyny, violence, warped views or predatory behaviour. This is a problem of certain sections of the male population, so what more are the Government doing to tackle those warped views of women and girls by men?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman is right. As I say, this is an issue that affects the lives of women, but it should not be thought of as a woman’s issue—he is absolutely right that it is male perpetrators who need to change. I have always said that I do not want women to have to change their behaviour; I do not want women to have to be in segregated train carriages, or to not be able to go out at night. We should be talking about not curtailing the behaviour of women, but a fundamental change in male behaviour.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) raised a point that I failed to answer when replying to her, so I will take the opportunity to do so now, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. Information sharing between forces is absolutely key. We have seen that Couzens went from Kent to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary before coming to the Metropolitan police. While there were failures at various points, his vetting failure in Kent should have been flagged in other areas, particularly as he went on to very serious pieces of work with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and then as a firearms officer in the Met. That vetting failure should have triggered much firmer action, and information sharing is a part of that.

I finish by repeating my point: the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is absolutely right that this is about changing male behaviour, not women’s behaviour.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Like others, my thoughts today are with Sarah Everard’s family on what must be a very difficult day for them.

Lady Angiolini’s report is damning, but one of the saddest things about it is that many of the things she mentions—reports not being taken seriously, officers not being properly trained, and failures of culture within police forces—simply reinforce the fears that many of us have for the safety of ourselves and our daughters on our streets. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the need for societal change and changes in men’s behaviour. Does he agree that a vital step in making those changes would be recognising misogyny as a hate crime, and moving forward to ensure that women feel better protected by the law?

[James Cleverly]

What will drive raised confidence is women seeing that their issues are taken seriously during investigations, and improving the speed with which the police respond to those investigations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) made the point that non-contact sexual offences need to be taken seriously so that interventions can happen much earlier, before greater harm is perpetrated.

I know that there have been calls for misogyny to be made a hate crime. While I understand those calls, I am yet to be convinced that that would necessarily drive the change that we seek to drive. There are other direct things that we should do, and indeed are doing, to drive that change. We have increased the penalties for sexually related criminality, as I said in my statement; we are ensuring that rapists are not released at the two-thirds point; and we are ensuring that where convictions involve sadism and suchlike, people serve whole-life tariffs. We are making clear through the penalties for those crimes that we take them incredibly seriously, but it has to be ongoing work.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the response that the Home Secretary has just given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I suspect that his words will come as news to the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I just do not understand: we passed a law in this place last June, the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which was designed explicitly to recognise where women are targeted on our streets and give them additional protections. The suffragettes taught us “Deeds not Words”. That Act was not even mentioned by the Home Secretary; I am not surprised, since he is not the only one who does not value it.

As a London MP, I have written to the Met commissioner about this issue. The Met is refusing to recognise the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act. It says that it does not see that Act as part of tackling violence against women or tackling misogyny, as the Home Secretary seems not to. In doing so, it does not understand that women being targeted on our streets is misogyny, because it is happening to them. That is why they have no confidence. If the Home Secretary wants to rebuild that confidence, will he ask the Met to abide by the laws that this place has passed to protect women, and will he get on and implement that piece of legislation? All he needs to do is sign the statutory instrument. That is one good thing that could come out of today: if the Home Secretary recognises that women do not feel safe on our streets and that it is not their problem to fix, maybe he, as the man in charge, will do something about it.

[James Cleverly]

I recognise the frustration that the hon. Lady expresses, and I can only restate my personal commitment. With regard to the Metropolitan police’s implementation of decisions made by this House, she should recognise that that is a decision for the political head of policing in London, the Labour Mayor of London. I am more than happy to take this matter up with him, if she has not already done so.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Dame Angiolini’s finding that there is nothing to stop another Wayne Couzens operating in plain sight worries me, because he had been operating in plain sight since 2002. The Home Secretary has used many words today, which he will be held to: “systemic issues in policing”, “trust in policing”, “attitudinal change is needed”, “change is needed”. Actions speak louder than words, Home Secretary. The police vetting, standards and misconduct systems need to be looked at now, so will he meet me to discuss the Police (Declaration) Bill, which I introduced as a ten-minute rule Bill only a few weeks ago, and how a register of memberships of secret societies should be publicly available? We need to rebuild trust in our police.

[James Cleverly]

I will ensure that either I or one of the Ministers in the Department gets the details of the points that the hon. Lady has brought forward.

I am more than happy to be held accountable for the words I have said at the Dispatch Box and the words I have said throughout my political career on this issue, because I am not going to lose focus on it. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House of that. As I have said, for the whole time that I have authority and jurisdiction over these areas, I will maintain this issue as a priority and demand that others—whether in uniform or out of uniform, operational police officers or those in the political leadership of police forces—take it as seriously as it should be taken. It is totally unacceptable that women and girls are not able to live their lives fully in our society because of fear, not only of criminality but of a lack of response from policing when these issues are brought to light.

Operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2021: Independent Reviewer’s Report

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

In accordance with section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has prepared a report on the operation in 2021 of the Terrorism Acts, which was laid before the House on 7 March 2023.



I am grateful to Mr Hall KC for his report and have carefully considered the recommendations and observations included within. I am today laying before the House the Government’s response to the report (CP 1022). Copies will be available in the Vote Office and it will also be published on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS294]

Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

I have terminated the appointment of David Neal, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, after he breached the terms of appointment and lost my confidence.

Mr Neal was informed that his appointment would be immediately terminated yesterday, on 20 February 2024. Mr Neal’s term of appointment was due to end on 21 March 2024.

The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration is a highly important position. A candidate will be appointed following robust competition, in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments.

The planned recruitment process for the next Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration is in progress.

The Home Office is committed to publishing the reports submitted by the former Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and will provide responses in due course.

[HCWS269]

Independent Review of Prevent: One Year On Progress Report

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

The Government are today publishing a progress report on our implementation of the Independent Review of Prevent recommendations.

Prevent is a fundamental part of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy, known as Contest. Prevent aims to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It does this by tackling the ideological causes of terrorism, intervening early to support those susceptible to radicalisation, and enabling people who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate.

The “Independent Review of Prevent”, published on 8 February 2023, was conducted by Sir William Shawcross. It made 34 recommendations, which the Government accepted. In the Government response, published on the same day, we set out how we would implement the recommendations. We committed to delivering a renewed Prevent capability, which holds the mission of tackling terrorist ideologies at its core and responds confidently to emerging threats facing the UK.

In the 12 months since the publication of the independent review, we have made significant progress with 30 of the 34 recommendations completed in full, and 115 of the 120 sub-actions delivered.

We have delivered a number of key changes, as part of a broader programme to strengthen and reorient Prevent, that include:

New Prevent duty guidance that came into effect on 31 December 2023, following parliamentary approval. The new guidance responds to several recommendations and was developed in conjunction with a range of key Government partners and frontline practitioners.

Refreshing existing training to reflect the recommendations in the independent review, alongside developing new training packages that increase understanding of extremist ideologies. This new training offer equips statutory partners in fulfilling their obligations more effectively and supports them to make better decisions on when Prevent support is needed.

A new Prevent assessment framework, developed by the expert Counter Terrorism Assessment and Rehabilitation Centre, that is based on the most up to date evidence and learning. This ensures that decision-making on all Prevent referrals is rigorous, consistent, proportionate, and that only those that pose a counter-terrorism risk are supported by Prevent.

New Channel duty guidance that was published on 9 October 2023, that reflects the findings of the IRP, strengthens the Home Office’s quality assurance of how Channel is delivered, and responds swiftly to tackle any disparities in operational practice.

An independent Standards and Compliance Unit, that has been stood up as a stand-alone part of the Commission for Countering Extremism. The Standards and Compliance Unit provides a clear and accessible route for the public and practitioners to raise concerns about Prevent activity where it may have fallen short of the high standards we expect. It will be active from the 28 February, with people able to make initial contact through the website.

A significant change programme has already been implemented, but there is still more to do to ensure change is firmly embedded across Government and frontline sectors. We will continue to work at pace to implement the remaining four recommendations and five sub-actions.

Additionally, we will monitor the implementation of the recommendations to ensure that Prevent continues to hold itself to the high standards we have committed to, and remains agile in responding to the ever-changing threat picture in the UK.

A copy of the progress report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS265]

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

James Cleverly Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The first duty of Government is to keep our citizens safe. The United Kingdom faces an enduring threat from terrorists, hostile actors and organised criminal groups, and that threat is evolving and becoming more sophisticated. It is not enough for us to keep pace with those who would do us harm; we must endeavour to get and then stay ahead of them. The investigatory powers are the legal powers available to law enforcement, the intelligence services, MI5, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ and other public authorities where appropriate to obtain communications and data about communications.

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 provides a clear legal framework for the use of those powers, combining world-leading safeguards and oversight with giving agencies the tools they need to protect us. There is a double lock for the most sensitive IPA powers, meaning that an independent judicial commissioner must approve a decision by the Secretary of State to issue a warrant under the IPA. The use of any of these powers must be assessed as necessary and proportionate, with strong independent oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal provides a robust mechanism for providing redress in respect of any unlawful use of those powers.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Home Secretary will be as aware as I am that very occasionally those in charge of our intelligence and security services do not act in the best traditions of this country in their offices, and I am thinking of cases such as Belhaj and Boudchar. Where people have been the victim of mistreatment—as a consequence of UK complicity with foreign powers, for example—should there not be a right for those people to have access to the information about that?

[James Cleverly]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not sure it is directly relevant to this matter, but I take on board the points that he makes. He will forgive me if I do not address them directly at this point; I want to consider them properly.

The IPA is sound legislation, but the nature of these threats has evolved since 2016, and we are confronted by greater global instability and technological advances, and they demand that we act. Terrorists, child abusers, organised criminals and malign actors from hostile states have exploited technological advances. Our job is to ensure that the UK’s investigatory powers framework remains fit for purpose. The changes that this Bill proposes were informed by the independent review of the IPA published by Lord Anderson of Ipswich in June 2023. The Bill received cross-party and Cross-Bench support as it passed through the other place. Every Government amendment was accepted, and I thank the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament for the productive way they engaged with and helped to shape the Bill.

In particular, we have agreed to tighten the drafting of clauses 22 and 23 in line with amendments proposed by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Those changes put beyond doubt that the Prime Minister may delegate warrants for the purposes of obtaining communications of parliamentarians in two, and only two, exceptional circumstances: the personal incapacity of the Prime Minister and a lack of access to secure communications. There is also a limit of five Secretaries of State to whom this responsibility could be delegated in those circumstances. Further to that, in respect of new part 7A, parliamentary scrutiny will be enhanced through a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State annually to inform the Intelligence and Security Committee about the new regime for bulk personal datasets.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the ISC’s scrutiny of these matters. He will understand the concern about widening the number of people who can play the role previously played exclusively by the Prime Minister. I understand the reasons for that, but has he considered limiting that to those Secretaries of State who have warranting powers?

[James Cleverly]

We looked at that. There is a balance to be struck, and actually the bulk of those Secretaries of State to whom the function could be delegated in those two exceptional circumstances do have warranting powers—I think the Secretary of State for Defence is the only one who does not. My right hon. Friend’s point is a fair one, but the scope of the Bill is not much greater than that.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

As a member of the ISC, I welcome the Government’s acceptance of our recommendation. However, I would like to understand why they are not accepting our other, simple proposal: that when a delegation takes place, the Prime Minister would be informed about that afterwards.

[James Cleverly]

I think it is inconceivable that the Prime Minister of the day would not be informed of the use of a delegated authority.

[Mr Jones]

It is not about the Prime Minister not being informed about the delegation; it is about the Prime Minister looking at the case afterwards—they would not be second-guessing it, obviously, because it would already have been agreed. We suggested that, as a matter of course, the Prime Minister should be informed afterwards of the contents of that warrant. For some reason, the Government are resisting that. I cannot understand why.

[James Cleverly]

I understood the point that the right hon. Gentleman was making—perhaps my answer was not clear—but I suggest that it is inconceivable that the Prime Minister would not routinely be informed of the exercise of this power. Ultimately, that is a level of granularity that would add complexity to the Bill without utility. But, as I have said, through the passage of the Bill thus far, we have listened carefully to the Committee’s suggestions, and although we may not always agree, I can reassure him, other members of the Committee and Members of the House that we will continue to act in listening mode in relation to the Committee’s suggestions.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

On that point, will the Home Secretary give way?

[James Cleverly]

I will, but I do want to make some progress.

[Joanna Cherry]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. He mentioned listening to scrutiny by the ISC. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has issued a call for written evidence on the Bill, and as he will know from the human rights memorandum, the Bill raises important human rights issues relating to the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression, and possibly the right to an effective remedy. Will he therefore undertake to look closely at any correspondence that the Joint Committee might send him when we have completed our scrutiny of the Bill?

[James Cleverly]

I reassure the hon. and learned Lady that we will do exactly that.

I turn to the measures in the Bill. We are creating a new regime for bulk personal datasets that have low or no expectation of privacy: for example, certain datasets that are widely publicly or commercially available. Bulk personal datasets are an essential tool to support our intelligence services in identifying fragments of intelligence within a large quantum of data, in order to disrupt threats such as terrorism and hostile state actors. The Bill seeks to create a new statutory oversight regime for how the intelligence services access and examine bulk personal datasets held by third parties. It will place that oversight on a statutory footing, increasing the transparency of the regime. The regime will be subject to strong safeguards, including the double lock.

We are also making changes to the notices regime that will help the UK anticipate and address the risk to public safety of companies rolling out technology that precludes lawful access to data. We want to work with those companies to achieve common goals, but we must have the tools available when collaboration falls short.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

I know that the Home Secretary wants to make progress, but I am grateful for the opportunity to comment.

These reforms to the IPA are necessary to upgrade our world-class regime and ensure that our frameworks are kept up to date with evolving threats and, importantly, technology. We know that the terrorists, the serious organised criminals, the fraudsters and the online paedophiles all take advantage of the dark web and encrypted spaces: to plan their terror, to carry out their fraudulent activity and to cause devastating harm to innocent people such as children, in the field of online paedophilia. Does he share my concern and indeed frustration with companies such as Meta and Apple? The former has chosen to roll out end-to-end encryption without safeguards and the latter has rolled out advanced data protection, which will allow these bad actors to go dark, which will severely disable agencies and law enforcement from identifying them and taking action, and will enable—indeed it will facilitate—some of the worst atrocities that our brave men and women in law-enforcement agencies deal with every day.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. and learned Friend—and immediate predecessor—makes incredibly important points. Digital technology and online technology have been a liberator in so many ways, but, sadly, as has been the case with technology throughout time, it has also been used by those who would do people harm. Indeed, she mentioned in particular the harm done to children. We take that incredibly seriously. We value the important role of investigatory powers and will continue to work with technology companies—both those well established at the moment and those of the future—to maintain the balance between privacy and security, as we have always done, and ensure that these technology platforms do not provide a hiding place for terrorists, for serious criminals and those people taking part in child sexual exploitation.

The three types of notices under the existing IPA are data retention notices, technical capability notices and national security notices. Those notices must be both necessary and proportionate, and they are of course subject to the double lock. The Bill does not introduce any new powers for the acquisition of data. The changes are about ensuring that the system is up to date and remains robust. The Bill will create a notification notice allowing the Secretary of State to place specific companies under an obligation to inform him or her of proposed changes to their telecommunications services or systems that could have an impact on lawful access. This is not a blanket obligation, and it will be used only where necessary and proportionate, and then only on a case-by-case basis.

The notice does not give the Secretary of State any powers to veto or intervene in the roll-out of a product or services. It is intended to ensure that there is sufficient time for appropriate consideration of the operational impact of the proposed changes, and potentially for discussions with the company in question about them. The public, rightly, would want their representatives to know in advance if companies were proposing to do something that would put public safety at risk, and responsible companies will work with Governments to avoid endangering people, who are of course also their customers.

The Bill will also amend the IPA to require the company to ensure that existing lawful access is maintained. That means the company cannot legally take any action that would negatively affect the level of lawful access for our operational partners during the review period. In the other place, the Government tabled an amendment to allow a timeline for review of a notice to be specified in regulations. We also gave the judicial commissioner further powers for managing the review process. Taken together, they ensure that companies are clear on the length of time that a review can take, which reduces uncertainty for their business as well as providing greater clarity for the review process. In the other place, my noble colleague Lord Sharpe of Epsom also committed to a full public consultation before amending the existing regulations on the review of notices, and laying new regulations relating to the notification notices.

The Bill also clarifies the definition of a telecommun-ications operator, to make it clear that companies with complex corporate structures that provide or control telecommunications services and systems in the UK fall within the remit of the IPA. These changes do not directly relate to any particular technology, including end-to-end encryption, but are designed to ensure that companies are not able to unilaterally make design changes that compromise exceptional lawful access.

The Bill makes changes to the powers of public authorities to acquire communications data. Section 11 of the IPA made it an offence for a relevant person in a relevant public authority to knowingly or recklessly obtain communications data from a telecoms operator or a postal operator without lawful authority. The Bill will set out examples of the acquisition routes that amount to lawful authority outside the IPA, giving greater clarity to public authorities that they are not inadvertently committing an offence. Further targeted amendments will ensure that public sector organisations are not unintentionally prevented or discouraged from sharing data. Further changes will allow bodies with regulatory functions to acquire communications data.

The Bill also creates a new condition for the use of internet connection records—ICRs—by the intelligence services and the National Crime Agency. The IPA currently requires certain thresholds to be met on the known element of an investigation, such as exactly when a website has been accessed. That limits the ability of operational partners to use the ICRs to detect previously unknown criminals, terrorists or state threat actors who are acting online. The proposed measure will allow greater detection of high-impact offenders by removing the requirement to unequivocally know a specific time or times of access and service in use, and instead will allow these factors to be specified within the application.

[Mr Jones]

I understand the use of the measure for the security services, but the Bill broadens the scope of how many people could be dragged into it. There is no judicial oversight of the Security Service or whoever is using it. The Bill states that the measure is for national security and economic wellbeing—that is a catch-all for quite a lot of things. Although the intent is right, there need to be some safeguards to prevent innocent people being dragged into that potentially broad measure.

[James Cleverly]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Innocent people’s data is often acquired in dataset capture, and it is always deleted. Economic wellbeing merely reflects the language that is used in other parts, for consistency across our various strands of work.

[Mr Jones]

I thought we were here today to scrutinise the Bill. It should not be a chore for the Home Secretary to be asked questions. The definition of wellbeing could be quite broad. I understand the meaning of national security, as I think he does, and the House, but wellbeing could have quite a broad definition and I am not convinced that I have seen what it is. I am not sure that consistency with other legislation is a great argument for including it in this Bill.

[James Cleverly]

The simple truth of the matter is that I disagree. In legislation of this nature, maintaining consistency of language with previous relevant legislation, including the Intelligence Services Act 1994, is incredibly important to clarity of intent. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has given thought to this, and we do not disregard his point, but we have thought through the importance of consistency of language, which is why we have maintained it.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

A general listener to our proceedings might worry that the new powers could be used for fishing expeditions, rather than the very specific powers that they replace. Could the Home Secretary give some words of reassurance from the Dispatch Box that the broadening of bulk data collection without specific dates will not be used for fishing expeditions, which might affect the privacy of ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but the powers could be applied to any bulk dataset collection, of which she knows there are many across Government. Provisions are in place to ensure that innocent people’s data is not held but deleted, and that our security services and other organisations that will utilise these powers always do so carefully and cautiously. There are relevant safeguards in place, as I have made reference to—the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the tribunal—if there is wrongdoing. The proposals are put forward for a very specific reason. The Government have given thought to mission creep and broader expansion, and we feel that this is a modest extension that will give significantly greater protection to the British people.

[Mr Jones]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) just said, we need to give confidence to the public that what we are rightly doing to protect ourselves has that level of security in it. There is no judicial oversight of internet connection records. If we are to give these powers to the Security Service—which I approve of—we should be able to say to the public that they are proportionate and that there is an independent process to ensure that they cannot be abused. Surely, judicial oversight throughout should be important.

[James Cleverly]

The right hon. Gentleman specifically spoke about judicial oversight, but there is oversight—

[Mr Jones]

There isn’t.

[James Cleverly]

There is oversight by the Secretary of State through the warrant process, and oversight of the whole process by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Through the Committee on which the right hon. Gentleman sits, there is oversight of the Secretary of State’s function.

[Mr Jones]

I agree, and I support that oversight, even though this Government have not made our job on the ISC easy. Unless I am missing something, there is no judicial oversight of internet connection records in the Bill. If we want to give people confidence, that backstop of judicial oversight should be important.

[James Cleverly]

As I said, I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman specifically said that there is no judicial oversight—

[Mr Jones]

There isn’t.

[James Cleverly]

I am not disagreeing, but there is oversight. The Committee on which the right hon. Gentleman sits is part of that oversight process.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has just touched on the importance of the oversight role of the ISC, particularly in relation to these additional provisions. I wonder whether he remembers the passing of the National Security Act 2023. During the final stages of that important piece of legislation, the Government tabled an amendment in lieu promising that they would progress a review of the memorandum of understanding within six months of the Act coming into force to ensure there was an updated and robust relationship between the ISC and the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, the ISC having been unable to secure a meeting with the Prime Minister since 2014, remarkably. Given the nature of the ISC’s important role in these provisions, I wonder whether the Home Secretary could update us on that review.

[James Cleverly]

That is not an element of this Bill. On a commitment for the Prime Minister to meet with the Committee, I will look at the details.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[James Cleverly]

I want to make progress to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak in this debate is able to do so, but I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Yvette Cooper]

On that point, will the Home Secretary encourage the Prime Minister to go before the Intelligence and Security Committee at the soonest opportunity? My understanding is that that has not happened for 10 years.

[James Cleverly]

I cannot make a commitment on the Prime Minister’s behalf. Members of the Committee will know that I appeared before the Committee in my previous role, and I think it is important that Government do make themselves available for this scrutiny. As I say, it would be inappropriate for me to demand of the Prime Minister attendance anywhere, but I will pass on the right hon. Lady’s point.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I will assist the Home Secretary with a little context. When I was a ranking member of the Intelligence and Security Committee between 2010 and 2015, it was a matter of routine that the Committee went to see the Prime Minister once a year, usually in the Cabinet Room. That stopped in 2014. Successive Prime Ministers have failed to reinstate it, although it must be said that the shortest-lived of them did offer to meet with the Committee, but sadly ceased to be Prime Minister before that became possible.

[James Cleverly]

The lengths that some people will go to to avoid Committee scrutiny. I am trying to remember where I was; it has been such a long time since I looked down the page of this speech. All such applications must be necessary and proportionate and subject to independent authorisation or inspection.

The Bill will also strengthen safeguards for journalistic material within the Investigatory Powers Act’s bulk equipment interference regime, aligning it with changes to the bulk interception regime that are under way to ensure compliance with obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. Prior judicial authorisation will be needed before material obtained through bulk equipment interference can be selected for examination using criteria where the purpose is to identify, or is highly likely to identify, confidential journalistic material or confirm a source of journalistic material. Prior judicial approval is also necessary before such material may be retained for purposes other than its destruction. The other measures in part 5 of the Bill will ensure that the resilience and protections of the regime are maintained and enhanced.

The Bill will also make improvements to support the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in effectively carrying out their role, ensuring that the world-leading oversight regime remains resilient, including powers to enable the IPC to appoint deputies, delegate some of their functions to judicial commissioners and the newly created deputies, and put certain functions on a statutory basis. The Bill will ensure there is a clearer statutory basis for reporting errors to the IPC.

[Joanna Cherry]

I sense that the Home Secretary is coming to the end of his speech. We have mentioned parliamentarians and journalists, but I want to talk about another important group: trade unions. Some people fear that the Bill will open the door even further than its parent Bill on the surveillance of trade unions. Does the Home Secretary agree that there should be no place for the surveillance of trade unions in a democracy? If so, will he consider amendments to the Bill to ensure that that does not happen, including a redraft of clause 5?

[James Cleverly]

I take the point that the hon. and learned Lady puts forward. There are a number of organisations not explicitly mentioned in the Bill where that argument could be made, and I am not sure it would necessarily be useful or right to list them all, but I will take on board the point she makes in good faith—genuinely.

The Bill will bring the Investigatory Powers Act up to date with the modern age, provide greater clarity, make the system more resilient and retain the world-leading safeguards of civil liberties and commercial integrity. Above all, the Bill will mean that the men and women who work so incredibly hard to keep us safe, often without recognition, have the tools they need to do so in the modern era. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson.

National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

I am today announcing the Government’s decision on pay for the National Crime Agency (NCA) for 2023-24, supporting the Government’s manifesto commitment to strengthen the NCA.

The NCA remuneration review body (NCARRB) report on pay for NCA officers at grades lower than deputy director for the NCA will be laid before Parliament today and published on gov.uk.

I would like to thank the chair and members of the review body for their work on gathering evidence from the NCA, the Home Office, HM Treasury and the trade unions, resulting in their detailed, comprehensive report. The Government value the independent expertise and insight of NCARRB and take on board the useful advice and principles set out in response to my remit letter of 15 August 2023.

This Government are committed to supporting the NCA in its fight against serious and organised crime (SOC) and on 13 December 2023 announced their new five-year SOC strategy. The NCA plays a pivotal role in leading the SOC law enforcement system to disrupt and dismantle the most harmful organised crime groups operating in and against the UK. In particular I would like to highlight the key contribution of NCA officers towards disrupting the organised crime groups that facilitate small boat crossings. A strengthened NCA needs to be able to set clear strategic and operational direction and develop shared capabilities to drive efficiencies. A strong pay framework is vital to the NCA being able to deliver this role and maintain its operational performance.

SOC is evolving rapidly in both volume and complexity, and I have been clear that the NCA needs to transform to meet new and evolving threats, and to tackle the highest harm offenders, head on. Part of this transformation includes being able to attract, recruit and retain the right people, particularly those with technological skills.

I have accepted the review body’s recommendations in full. The award for 2023-24 is as follows:

A total consolidated pay award of 7% in remuneration costs (IRC) for all officers grade 1-6. The spot rates for grades 1 to 5 and the minima and maxima of the standard pay ranges for grades 1 to 6 will also be raised by 7%.

A 7% increase to the London and south-east weighting allowance.

Building upon the NCA’s overall pay strategy and exceeding the historically high pay uplift given in 2022-23, this award represents the highest settlement the agency has received in its history.

In reaching this decision, I have given due consideration to a number of factors including: the value NCA officers add to the public by protecting them against the threat of serious and organised crime, the impact of inflation on officer pay, and delivering value for the taxpaying public. The award will be fully funded within the NCA’s existing budget. I am positive that the award for NCA officers will support the agency in its mission to disrupt and dismantle the most harmful organised crime groups operating in and against the UK.

[HCWS249]

Home Office Funding 2023-24

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

The Home Office net cash requirement for the year exceeds that provided by the main estimate 2023-24. The supplementary estimate has not yet received Royal Assent.

The Contingencies Fund advance is required to meet commitments until the supplementary estimate receives Royal Assent, at which point the Home Office will be able to draw down the cash from the Consolidated Fund in the usual way, to repay the Contingencies Fund advance.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £2,600,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for Home Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £2,600,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS235]