Report of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

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 2020 of the Terrorism Acts, which was laid before the House on 28 April 2022.

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 788. Copies will be available in the Vote Office and it will also be published on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS536]

Crime and Neighbourhood Policing

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the Government’s destruction of neighbourhood policing, noting a drop in the number of neighbourhood police officers by 6,000 and of Police Community Support Officers by 8,500; notes with concern the collapse in charges and prosecutions across all types of crime and an overall charge rate of just 5.5 per cent; is extremely concerned by the record levels of recorded rapes and knife-enabled threats to kill and that more than twenty million people witnessed or experienced antisocial behaviour last year; and calls on the Government to protect communities across the UK by increasing neighbourhood policing, including by ringfencing a proportion of the Police Uplift Programme to deliver neighbourhood officers for every local authority in England and Wales.

The motion is to restore and renew neighbourhood policing, which has been decimated by 13 years of Conservative Government. Before I talk about what is happening in our towns on policing and crime, may I first briefly say something about today’s publication of the police response to the Hillsborough inquiry? Ninety seven people lost their lives as a result of what happened at Hillsborough 34 years ago. Families had to fight for decades against smears, lies and obfuscation to get to the truth, but they still do not have justice 34 years on.

The fulsome apology from the police today is welcome, and so too is their acceptance of some of the bishop’s recommendations about a duty of candour—something the Government have previously voted against—as well as support for families at inquests. But this comes five years after the bishop’s report, and 34 years after Hillsborough. Where is the Government’s response? They promised nearly 18 months ago that we would have a response by the end of 2021, but the months and years keep rolling by. We need a commitment to a Hillsborough law to address this.

The Home Secretary’s predecessor but four, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), took this matter seriously and we welcomed that. To have no response right now shows a lack of respect for the families who have endured so much and the communities who have supported and fought for them. I will happily give way to the Home Secretary if she wants to tell us when the Government response to the Hillsborough report will be published.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

I will address that in my response to the right hon. Lady.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary and look forward to her response. She will know how important that is.

I turn to neighbourhood policing. The number of people who say that they never see the police on patrol on the streets has almost doubled since the Conservatives took office, from around a quarter of the population to half. Half the country say that they never or hardly ever see a police officer patrolling the streets, according to the national crime survey. That is what 13 years of the Conservatives have done.

At the same time, the number of criminals being caught or punished has plummeted. Since 2010, arrests have halved; prosecutions have almost halved; community penalties have halved; and crimes solved have halved. The proportion of cases that collapse because victims give up and drop out has trebled. More crimes are reported and recorded, but hundreds of thousands fewer crimes are solved, hundreds of thousands fewer victims are getting justice, and more criminals are getting away with it.

Every one of us will have these cases in their surgeries: the residents who have complained about drug dealers on the corner, and nothing is done; the street drinkers who make them feel unsafe, and nothing is done; the broken windows and shop break-ins that go ignored; the antisocial behaviour that escalates; the kids who have been expelled from school who just wander the streets and get drawn into gang violence instead, and nothing is done; the repeat offender back out of prison who nobody is following up on; and the domestic abuse victim who has no one to turn to because the police are overstretched and the court delays are so long. More victims are giving up on the whole thing and walking away.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from “House” to end and add:

“welcomes the Government’s efforts to increase police numbers, with 16,743 so far recruited and on track to meet the Government’s 20,000 target by March; notes that there will be more officers than ever before in England and Wales; recognises that, excluding online crime, overall crime is down by 50 per cent since 2010; notes with concern that the Labour Mayor of London has overseen a 9 per cent increase in knife crime while the number of young people assaulted with sharp objects is down nationally by 23 per cent since 2019; notes that adult rape convictions are up by a third in the last recorded year; notes that the Safer Streets Fund rounds have funded 270 projects designed to cut neighbourhood crimes such as theft, burglary, anti-social behaviour, and violence against women and girls; and welcomes the Government’s determination to back the police in giving them the powers they need to crack down on dangerous criminals and protests that wreak havoc on ordinary people’s lives.”

First, let me address the issue of the Hillsborough report. The Hillsborough disaster was a devastating tragedy, and we recognise the significant impact that it continues to have on those affected, their families and their communities. The timing of the Government’s response has been impacted by the need to avoid the risk of prejudice during any criminal proceedings related to Hillsborough. None the less, work has been under way, and has been undertaken across all relevant Government Departments and organisations to carefully consider and address the points of learning included and directed to them in the bishop’s report.

As the National Police Chiefs’ Council is independent of Government, it is for it to publish its own response independently of Government, and that is a step I welcome, but the Government remain absolutely committed to responding to the bishop’s report as soon as practicable. Our focus now is on engaging in a meaningful way with the bereaved families of the Hillsborough disaster prior to publishing the Government’s overarching response. It is critical that lessons can be learned from their experience and that they are not lost as we move forward.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Today’s apology from the police is welcome, but long overdue. Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to commit to a Hillsborough law that would give victims of state-related death or disaster parity of legal representation?

[Suella Braverman]

I pay tribute to the indefatigable work by the campaigners, who have worked for many years to ensure that the truth is known and that justice is done. I am supportive of all work to help them ensure that their voice is heard in the process, but let me take that away and consider it fully before I give a meaningful response.

We have heard from the shadow Home Secretary, and—we are in the awards season—her performance is really worthy of an Oscar. She is strong on alarmism and strong on hysteria, but a little weak on facts. This Government are proud of our record on crime and policing. Since 2010—indeed, since 2019—we have delivered more police and less crime. Thanks to Government funding, our streets are safer and there are fewer victims of crime. I am not complacent, however, and I know that there remain many challenges. I will not rest until we restore confidence in the police and until everyone feels safer in their communities. So let us go through the facts.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Suella Braverman]

I want to make some progress, and I will take some interventions later.

The first fact—achievement No. 1—is that this Government are on track to deliver the most police officers in the history of policing in England and Wales. We are on track to deliver 20,000 new police officers by March 2023, and in that regard I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—he was in the Chamber earlier—for their leadership of that mission.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

In Nottinghamshire we have 405 more police officers as a result of the policing uplift. Many have gone into the neighbourhood policing team, so we have newbie officers in villages such as Keyworth and Ruddington. Will the Home Secretary join me in thanking Inspector Rob Lawton and his neighbourhood team for the brilliant work they do in Rushcliffe, and will she tell the House when the long-awaited review into the police funding formula will begin, so that great forces such as Nottinghamshire police can get the resources they deserve?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I join her in paying tribute to the police leadership in her county and her force. It is thanks to strong leaders in her police force that we have higher police numbers, more bobbies on the beat, and more visible, responsive policing at the heart of our local communities. We will begin consulting on police funding soon, so we can ensure that the resources and money reach the front line where they are needed.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The 231 new police officers in the West Mercia region are very welcome indeed. But this is not just about numbers; it is also about innovation, and West Mercia police has been very innovative with Shifnal Town Council, and potentially other town councils such as Newport, by having a community hub where there can be a permanent police presence. The capital and revenue costs are shared across the community, and there is a one-stop shop for a lot of public services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that model is worth looking at in more detail, perhaps to roll it out across the whole of Shropshire and the west midlands?

[Suella Braverman]

My right hon. Friend is right—there is huge innovation and good practice around the country when it comes to local policing. Police forces are using powers that the Government have given them, and using the numbers and resources we have given them, to be a bit more responsive and more visible, and to ensure that people feel safer and that crime is falling.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Suella Braverman]

I will carry on and come back to the hon. Lady. From Greater Manchester to Kent, and from the Thames valley to the west midlands, on my visits around the country I have seen so many brave men and women join the police, coming forward in their droves to protect the public. On behalf of the British people, I thank them. Nineteen forces have already hit record levels, and the Met, Kent, Norfolk, South Wales, Suffolk, Warwickshire and West Yorkshire police all have the highest numbers of police officers in their history—higher than in 2019, higher than in 2015, higher than in 2010, and higher than the years when Labour was in charge.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary explain why in the west midlands we will still have 1,000 fewer police officers this year than we did in 2010?

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. Gentleman is just not right. As of 31 December, our police uplift programme has recruited an additional 16,000 new officers, bringing us to a total of over 145,000 nationwide, with more—in a welcome sense—female and ethnic minority officers than ever before. That is no accident. That all took planning and funding by this Government. What did Labour Members do? They voted against it.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary is just sort of inventing things there. The police workforce statistics—her own workforce statistics—show that there are 6,000 fewer neighbourhood police officers, and 8,000 fewer PCSOs. Half the country say that they do not see police officers on patrol. How does she explain that shocking decimation of neighbourhood police?

[Suella Braverman]

I disagree with the right hon. Lady’s characterisation, but it is obviously helpful for her to play with the figures. If we look at how we are classifying roles in policing, we see that when it comes to incident and response management, numbers are up. On local policing, the 2022 figures were greater than those from 2015. She can move around the deckchairs and play with the figures all she likes, but the reality is that we are on track to have a record number of police officers.

Let me get back to the facts. Achievement No. 2: crime is down. Despite the naysayers on the Opposition Benches, since 2010, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales—the most authoritative evidence about crime complied by the Office for National Statistics—burglary is down by 50%, robbery is down by 45%, and violence is down by 46%. That is 500,000 fewer burglaries, 180,000 fewer robberies, and 700,000 fewer victims of violence than in 2010. Crucially, overall crime, excluding fraud and online crime, is down by 48% compared with 2010. I hope that Labour Members take this chance to reflect and apologise to the British people for the disgraceful state in which they left this country, and for objecting to our measures to fix the mess that they left.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way—she is generous with her time. Here in Labour controlled lawless London, crime is up, knife crime is up, burglary is up, and violent crime is up. Does she think it a good idea for us to take advice from the Labour party on how to clear up crime in our country, because I don’t?

[Suella Braverman]

I am afraid that Labour’s Sadiq Khan, who has overall responsibility for London’s crime and policing, has a woeful track record. When overall crime is falling, it is rising in London. When people are feeling safer around the country, they are facing more crime in London. I urge Labour MPs here today—there are some, but I think some of them have left out of embarrassment—to get on to Sadiq Khan, get on to their man in London, and tell him to start fighting crime.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

The Home Secretary is being generous with her time. Obviously, the north does not like to be left out, so I point out that the second largest force in England, Greater Manchester police, also went into special measures under Andy Burnham’s mismanagement. Is that a more accurate reflection of what happens when the Labour party is running police forces than the drivel that we heard from the Front Bench?

[Suella Braverman]

I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend makes the point very powerfully. This is about empowering our police and crime commissioners around the country so that they can hold chief constables to account. We know that Labour is more interested in gimmicks and political correctness, rather than common sense, back-to-basics policing, and getting the basics right for people in our communities.

Of course there is more to do and we will keep fighting. Since I became Home Secretary, I have ensured that all forces are committed to attending every residential burglary. I have introduced legislation for tackling disruptive protests, and I have begun a package of work to improve police efficiency, with new counting rules, focusing the police away from non-crime hate incidents. I have introduced new disciplinary processes, plans for better vetting, support for non-degree entry routes, and the clear, hold, build strategy to take on serious and organised crime. I am reviewing the police’s approach to equality and diversity. It is clear for everybody to see—[Interruption.] Labour Members can carp from the sidelines all they like, but they have no plan whatsoever to help the law-abiding majority, while this Government are getting on with the job of delivering common-sense policing.

I believe in the police. I am in awe of their everyday bravery, and I am grateful for their sacrifice. But I want them to focus on getting the basics right. That means the highest professional standards and a relentless focus on cutting crime, with no politically correct distractions. It means common-sense policing.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Home Secretary mentioned disciplinary issues in the police, and police and crime commissioners. Last week the other place debated the lack of action to progress the disciplinary case against former Chief Constable Mike Veale for alleged gross misconduct. The Government say that the issue lies with the PCC, and the PCC says that his hands are tied. Which is it, and what is the Foreign Secretary going to do about it?

[Suella Braverman]

When it comes to decisions and investigations by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, that is an independent process in which I cannot intervene. What it comes down to is empowering chief constables to be able properly to discipline those police officers who fall short. That is why I am engaging in a programme of work to ensure that they have greater powers to take the right action to root out the poor officers in their ranks.

It is essential that the police work to win back public confidence and serve the law-abiding majority. We need visible, responsive policing treating victims with respect and care. That is why I called for the police to turn up to every single burglary—it makes a difference to victims and to the investigation. It is also right that all forces have now committed that officers will visit every victim after a crime such as domestic burglary. People should expect nothing less.

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

Will the right hon. and learned Lady commit to the police going out to every single incident of domestic abuse here today?

[Suella Braverman]

I will get on to what we are doing for women and girls. I am incredibly proud of the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which the Government pioneered and led and is providing a huge amount of resource and powers to those supporting victims of domestic abuse. People want to feel safe—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Opposition Front-Bench Members know how to behave.

[Suella Braverman]

People want to feel safe in their villages, their towns and their cities. The purpose of the police is to fight crime, not to engage in symbolic gestures on social media. That is common-sense policing. That is what the best officers want to do, and they need to be liberated to do their real jobs. We should not be afraid of the term “old-fashioned policing”. That is why I want everybody who has a passion to serve their country or community to feel welcome in the police, whether they have a degree or not. Policing needs the best, the bravest and the brightest to sign up, and not necessarily those who have or need a degree. That is why I asked the College of Policing to introduce a new non-degree entry route for recruits: common-sense policing by the people, for the people.

We are on the side of the British public, who want to go about their business in peace. That is why we introduced and passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which came into force last year. It increased powers for our brave policemen and women and increased sentences for some of the most violent offences. What did Labour Members do? They voted against it.

That is also why we are delivering our Public Order Bill this year. We respect the right to protest, of course, but selfish and disruptive extremists have caused havoc for thousands of ordinary working people—people trying to get to work, to school or to hospital. Just last night, I introduced measures that would have made it easier for the police to take swifter action against groups such as Just Stop Oil. What did Labour Members do? They voted against them. Why? Because they are on the side of the eco-zealots and in the pockets of the militants. They do not care about the law-abiding majority.

We need to ensure that the police have all the tools to keep people safe. Stop and search is important in fighting crime, reducing violence and saving lives. The Met Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, and the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, Stephen Watson, have both said as much. That is why we have relaxed restrictions and are empowering the police to stop and challenge known knife carriers. It is why I am bringing in serious violence disruption orders imminently. In 2021, stop and search removed nearly 15,000 weapons and firearms from our streets and led to almost 67,000 arrests.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that when stop and search is not done well, it has a huge negative impact on children, parents and the community? Too often, when the police have done stop and search incorrectly, that has gone on to affect communities negatively.

[Suella Braverman]

When we speak to frontline police officers and those who are affected because family members have been victims of knife crime or violent crime, we understand that stop and search is a vital tool not only in reducing violent crime, but in saving lives. The proportionate and targeted use of stop and search is an essential tool that I support the police using.

Let us not forget London. Knife crime is a problem in London and, under Labour’s Sadiq Khan, rates are up by 11%. So, instead of carping from the sidelines, Labour MPs would be far better off using their time by encouraging their Labour man in London to demand that the police get back to getting weapons off our streets. On serious violence, the Government have backed the police with investment and support to reduce violence.

[Yvette Cooper]

On that point, in London, knife crime is down by 16% over the last four years, whereas on average over the rest of the country it has gone up. Will the Home Secretary withdraw the point she just made?

[Suella Braverman]

The data I have is that knife crime has gone up in London, and there are really serious challenges when it comes to Labour’s management of policing in London.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Despite what the shadow Home Secretary said, knife crime in London has risen by 11%. That is proven by “Crime in England and Wales” from the Office for National Statistics, dated 26 January 2023.

[Suella Braverman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. We have made £130 million available over the financial year 2022-23 to tackle serious violence, including murder and knife crime. Take our violence reduction units, which have reached over 260,000 young people who are vulnerable, preventing them from falling into a life of crime in the first place. Our Grip police enforcement programme is supporting the police in the crime hotspots most affected by serious violence. Together, Grip and violence reduction units have prevented an estimated 136,000 violent offences.

We went further. Our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act introduced the serious violence duty: a new legal requirement for agencies to work together to prevent and reduce serious violence locally. What did Labour Members do? They voted against it.

Everybody deserves to feel safe everywhere. I am proud of our safer streets fund, which was launched in 2020 by the Government and has supported 270 projects around the country designed to cut neighbourhood crimes such as theft, burglary and antisocial behaviour as well as violence against women and girls. In Humberside, improved communal entrances to flats are helping to prevent drug dealing, and new storage units are stopping bike and motorbike theft. In Northampton, funding has supported improvements to the security of thousands of homes that were vulnerable to burglary with alleyway gates installed to prevent an easy escape for offenders. In Essex, the use of public space protection orders has resulted in a significant reduction in nuisance and antisocial behaviour.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I am conscious that the responsibility for antisocial behaviour has been moved across to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Does the Home Secretary think that is because the Prime Minister has no confidence in her ability to take that forward?

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. Lady is wrong. Antisocial behaviour is about a criminal and policing response to behaviour that blights communities. The Home Office leads on antisocial behaviour, but of course we work in partnership. Those who know about tackling antisocial behaviour will tell her that it requires a policing response and a heavy local authority response. That is why, working as a team, we need policing and local authority partners to work in partnership, and that is what my colleague, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and I are doing as a team.

Countless projects across the country have set up neighbourhood watch groups, increased CCTV and introduced wardens to improve community engagement, all to help the law-abiding majority. The crime survey for England and Wales estimates that there has been a decrease of 24% in neighbourhood crime since December 2019. However, let me be clear: drugs are an underlying cause of antisocial behaviour, which blights communities. The illegal drug trade wrecks lives and also requires a targeted approach. Our strategy on illicit drugs will cut off supply and give addicts a route to a productive and drug-free life, while reducing the recreational use of drugs. The Home Office has invested £130 million in that effort. Through our flagship county lines programme, we have closed down 2,500 county lines and made 8,000 arrests. We have safeguarded thousands more people, preventing them from falling into this wicked, destructive business. Border Force has made major seizures and Project ADDER—addiction, diversion, disruption, enforcement and recovery—is another success. That is all targeting the supply and use of drugs. We will continue, because this is so closely related to antisocial behaviour. That will include restricting access to nitrous oxide.

Tackling violence against women and girls is a priority not just for the Government but for me. Every woman in the Chamber will know that feeling—on the street, on public transport, at work or school, online, and sometimes, tragically, in the home—of feeling unsafe, on guard and threatened. That has to change. Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth is the first national policing lead on violence against women and girls. Addressing the issue is now a strategic policing requirement just like tackling terrorism, serious and organised crime and child abuse. I am proud of the action we have taken since 2010. Of course, there is more to do, but let us not ignore the huge and important progress made so far.

The Government have criminalised forced marriage, revenge porn, failing to protect a girl from female genital mutilation and virginity testing. We introduced Clare’s law, new stalking offences and stalking protection orders, and the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour. We passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and we are now backing a new law on street harassment. That is a track record of which I am proud.

Let me just say this to the Opposition Front Benchers. Labour, frankly, is in no fit state to lecture the Government about protecting women after the Scottish Labour party voted in favour of the SNP’s gender recognition Bill. If enacted, the Bill would allow predatory men to access women-only spaces. It would allow sexual offenders to more easily harm women, an obvious and serious risk to women’s safety.

The shadow Home Secretary was asked last year to define a women—she likes touring the media studios. She just could not do it, saying it was a rabbit hole she did not need to go down. Let me help her. The answer is an adult human female. How can the right hon. Lady even begin to fight for the safety of women when she cannot even define one?

[Jess Phillips]

I think a woman is an adult human female. I wonder whether the Home Secretary will commit that, when one is beaten up by her husband, every single call to the police on domestic abuse will receive a response?

[Suella Braverman]

I will just get back to the point I was making: the shadow Home Secretary does not have any legitimacy on fighting for the safety of women when she cannot even define one.

Rape and sexual violence are devastating crimes that can have a long-lasting impact on victims.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, but she has not answered the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) asked. We have been very clear: women are adult females, and when they are abused, and when they are raped, they are not getting justice. Hundreds of women every day are being denied justice and denied the protection of the courts because no rapists are being prosecuted. The Home Secretary is refusing to commit to having police officers go to the homes of those adult females, those women, who are being abused every single day. Will she now commit to saying that the police will go to every single domestic abuse case—yes or no?

[Suella Braverman]

Let me get on to what we are doing on rape and serious sexual offences, and on domestic abuse. I am very glad that more victims and survivors are coming forward and reporting these crimes to the police. More needs to be done by the whole of the criminal justice system. Through the rape review, the Government took a hard and honest look at how the entire criminal justice system dealt with rape. In too many instances, it simply had not been good enough. In December we published a rape review progress report, setting out the progress made in the 18 months since the publication of the action plan. The number of cases referred by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service was up by 95, the volume of cases charged was up by two thirds, and the number of cases reaching the Crown court was up 91% compared to 2019 averages.

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

The wealth of evidence to the Home Affairs Committee is that specialist rape and serious sexual assault units in police forces mean that more investigations go better, with more prosecutions and victims being treated better. So why is it that not all our police forces have those specialist units? If the Home Secretary is really serious about being on the side of women, why does she not make all police forces have those units?

[Suella Braverman]

I am absolutely committed to getting better outcomes for victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and that does require more specialism. That is why Operation Soteria, which we initiated and we have driven forward, is focused on ensuring that there is much better collaboration between the police and the CPS, more specialism in the system, and better practice on the ground when it comes to supporting victims of rape and serious sexual offences through the investigative process.

The increase in the number of independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers has been hugely beneficial for victims going through the process, which I am incredibly proud of. It has made a massive and significant difference to the timeliness of investigations and to outcomes. The big challenge we face is ensuring that victims of rape and serious sexual offences continue their support for investigations. We need to reduce victim attrition and increase the participation in, timeliness and progress of these very important investigations and prosecutions.

We cannot shy away for one moment from the fact that some police officers have behaved atrociously. That is why we are taking action to ensure that our police forces deliver the highest professional standards. I have made it clear to chief constables that they must take immediate action to get rid of anybody in their ranks who is not fit to wear the uniform. I have led the work for better vetting and better standards within the police. I am pleased that police chiefs have agreed to urgently check their officers and staff against the police database, so that they are better able to root out anybody who is unfit who may have slipped through the net. I am also reviewing the police dismissals process, because it needs to be easier to sack officers who behave in such a way. Police vetting guidance is being strengthened so that staff are clear about what is required and know they have a legal duty to go by the book. Lastly, the Angiolini inquiry will now cover wider vetting issues and toxic cultures within the police, as well as the cases of Couzens and Carrick. I back the police to raise their standards and restore confidence in their integrity.

In conclusion, it is a well-worn phrase but it bears repetition: keeping the people safe is the first duty of any Government. This Government have achieved a huge amount. I am proud of our track record of delivering more police and less crime, but we will never lose sight of the need to go further and of the greater work we need to put in. We stand unequivocally and unapologetically on the side of the law-abiding majority.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Investigatory Powers Tribunal Judgment

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

Today I wish to notify Parliament of a recent Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) judgment regarding compliance issues identified within a specific MI5 technology environment, and outline the handling of those issues once identified by MI5 and the Home Office.

The IPT judgment in this case has found that MI5 unlawfully held data within the relevant technology environment between late 2014 and April 2019, and that the relevant Home Secretaries acted unlawfully for the period from December 2016 to April 2019, by approving warrants concerning material held in the technology environment in which applicable statutory requirements had not been complied with and failing to make adequate inquiries of MI5, despite being presented with compliance risks. During the proceedings, MI5 and the Home Office conceded a breach of article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights—regarding privacy rights—and, consequently, of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further to this, the tribunal has noted that it was not the case that MI5 should never have held the material at all, only that some small part of it had been retained for too long, and that the material had been used for valuable national security purposes.

When the scale of the issue became clear in 2019 the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), established an independent review conducted by Sir Martin Donnelly. His compliance improvement review identified three areas where improvements could be made. These were improvements to support an effective compliance culture across MI5; improvements to ensure more effective sharing of information between MI5 and the Home Office to identify emerging issues; and improvements to ensure increased legal input to the MI5 management board and ensure closer joint working between MI5 and Home Office legal advisors. The review made a total of 14 recommendations to address these issues. The then Home Secretary and the director general MI5 agreed with the review’s conclusions and immediately began a programme of work to address them.

In 2021 Mary Calam independently verified the implementation of Sir Martin’s recommendations. She concluded that

“a huge amount of work has been done through the [compliance improvement] programme and the remediation work. Not all Sir Martin’s recommendations have yet been fully implemented, but significant, measurable progress is evident. MI5 have used the [compliance improvement”] review to make fundamental changes across the whole organisation and develop a new legal compliance operating model intended to cope with future changes in technology and data.”

Today, all 14 of these recommendations have been addressed and MI5 continue to work on further improving their legal compliance. DG MI5 and I discuss this every quarter at the ministerial assurance group, the setting up of which was one of Sir Martin’s recommendations, and my officials maintain close contact with their MI5 counterparts in respect of legal compliance.

While the judgment is clear that there has been unlawfulness by MI5 and former Home Secretaries in the past, this relates to the period between late 2014 and April 2019 and between December 2016 and April 2019 respectively. There have been two programmes of work undertaken within MI5 focused on legal compliance: the introduction of further governance structures to ensure a more open and robust relationship between MI5 and the Home Office, and changes to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office’s inspection regime since the compliance issue came to light. The effort to address the compliance issues has been consistent and sustained since 2019.

I am aware the judgment has found that former Home Secretaries unlawfully approved warrants between December 2016 and April 2019, and I know this will trouble members of the House. However, all data obtained was in good faith and it was considered necessary and proportionate for the purposes of national security and the department took swift action in conjunction with MI5 in 2019 once the issues were identified.

I would also like to reassure Members that while this case has outlined widespread corporate failings between the Home Office and MI5, these issues are historical and the Home Office has taken steps internally to increase collaboration with MI5 and ensure there is appropriate resourcing in place within the relevant Home Office teams responsible for investigatory powers.

I also wish to be clear that there has been no finding by the tribunal that MI5 misused the data in question, nor any suggestion of this at any time during this process. As the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, noted in 2019, none of the risks identified relate in any way to the conduct and integrity of the staff of MI5.

Finally, l would like to reference the endorsement the tribunal has provided on the robustness of the oversight regime and safeguards contained within the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, including the adequacy of the measures available to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.



MI5 carries out a challenging mission to protect national security and has made significant progress in respect of legal compliance since the issues were identified by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in 2019. Its officers work on extremely complex and often fast paced issues to keep this country safe and I am grateful for their continued dedication and professionalism. I would like to reaffirm to Parliament that they have my full support and I am committed to continuing to drive forward change in this area to ensure the use of investigatory powers by ail relevant agencies is as compliant as possible.

[HCWS532]

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Appointed Person Report 2021-2022

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

I am today laying before Parliament the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) appointed person report covering England and Wales for the period 2021-22. The appointed person is independent of Government and scrutinises the circumstances and manner in which search and seizure powers conferred by the Act are exercised under particular circumstances.

I am pleased that we are now able to publish the appointed person’s latest report. Having considered the circumstances in which the relevant powers were used, the appointed person is satisfied that the criteria required for justifying the searches without prior judicial approval were met and that the powers of search were exercised appropriately.

In 2021-22, there has been a decrease in the number of cases where search and seizure powers are used without prior approval, although we are seeing a number of new agencies report across the country that have not submitted reports previously. Notably, three separate cases related to the seizure of cryptoassets. Seizing cryptoassets without judicial approval is largely due to agencies having to move quickly before the assets are accessed from another device and moved elsewhere. Proposed reforms in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill are designed to enable the seizure of cryptoassets in more circumstances than at present.

The appointed person has also recognised our progress against previous recommendations and has made no new recommendations for the period. This suggests that the powers are being used in accordance with the Act. These powers are important for agencies to act quickly in live operation to search and seize potential criminal assets, so we are pleased to see that they are being used appropriately. We will continue to monitor the way that the powers have been used closely.

Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office.

[HCWS524]

Windrush: Lessons Learned Review Recommendations

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

Today I am updating Parliament on Home Office delivery of the recommendations set out in the Windrush lessons learned review, published in March 2020.

Since my appointment as Home Secretary, I have made a commitment to resolving the outstanding issues related to Windrush and have met members of the Windrush Working Group both to hear their feedback and more formally at the most recent cross-government Windrush Working Group which I was honoured to co-chair with Bishop Derek Webley.

Since the injustices of Windrush came to light, there has been a concerted effort across the Home Office to right the wrongs suffered by those affected. This work continues and we are making sustained progress delivering on the recommendations and the commitments made in our comprehensive improvement plan.

In her report last year, Wendy Williams concluded that 21 out of 30 of her recommendations had been met or partially met. She acknowledged that the scale of the challenge she set the Department was significant and that change on this scale takes time.

Since then, we have made further progress in delivering against Wendy Williams’ recommendations. For example, in June 2022, the “Serving Diverse Communities—Acting on Our Values” learning package was launched across the Home Office, starting with recommendations 24 (learning for senior civil servants) and 29 (diversity and inclusion). The learning package for recommendation 6—the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world, will be launched in the coming weeks.

The Department continues to make progress on compensating those unfairly impacted. As of December 2022, the Windrush compensation scheme paid out or offered £64.08 million in compensation to Windrush victims across 1,417 claims. £53.98 million of this has been paid and over 59% of claims—3,025—have received a final decision.

The Home Office regularly reviews the best way to deliver against the intent of Wendy Williams’ Windrush lessons learned review. As such, after considering officials advice, I have decided not to proceed with recommendations 3 (run reconciliation events), 9 (introduce a migrants commissioner) and 10 (review the remit and role of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration) in their original format. Extensive consideration has been given to how to deliver these recommendations in appropriate and meaningful ways: ensuring that individuals have opportunities to tell their stories; amplifying the voices of individuals engaging with the immigration system; and driving scrutiny of the Department.

On reconciliation events specifically, on the balance of expert advice received on how to approach this incredibly sensitive subject, I am persuaded that there are more effective ways of engaging with those impacted.

The Department has undertaken a significant programme of face-to-face engagement with the communities impacted by the Windrush scandal since 2018. Surgeries were held in community halls and places such as churches, mosques and care homes, as and where the need was identified. The engagement events were held in most major cities across the UK and including regions such as the west midlands, London and south-west. The events were hosted by senior members of the Windrush programme and provided individuals with the opportunity to speak to them about the impact the scandal had had on their and their family’s lives. Over 3,000 people were reached through these events.



This engagement with communities is further supported by the £500,000 Windrush community fund which was launched in 2020 and provided funding to grassroots organisations and charities with grants of up to £25,000 each to promote the Windrush schemes in innovative ways. Regular dialogue hosted by senior officials are held in forums with external stakeholders from Windrush communities who provide feedback and scrutiny of our engagement and communication efforts. This type of engagement will remain an important part of our work. Further, I look forward to celebrating the contribution that the Windrush community has made to our country in the upcoming 75th anniversary celebrations.

Recommendations 9 and 10 relate to the establishment of a migrants commissioner and a review of the role of the ICIBI. As Home Secretary I remain committed to the importance of scrutiny, both internal and external. There are a number of ways in which we are inviting this challenge and scrutiny in a more efficient way. In October 2022, the Department established the Independent Examiner for Complaints. This office will ensure that customers who are not satisfied with the final response to their complaints have an opportunity to have their case reviewed independently by the IEC, helping the Home Office to identify learning and wider lessons from complaints to improve its service.

The IEC provides scrutiny of the Department’s complaints procedure. Beyond this, I remain committed to the importance of scrutiny. I welcome the insight and challenge that I and the wider Department have received from our colleagues in the Windrush Working Group. Professor Martin Levermore, in his role as independent advisor, has been constructively challenging and very supportive in the development of the Windrush compensation scheme. This has included proactively providing suggestions on improvements to the scheme, such as enhancing linkages between the compensation scheme and the Windrush status scheme, which the Department is now actively working on delivering.

External bodies are not the only source of scrutiny. As Wendy Williams identified, the very culture of the Department needed a fundamental shift, bringing policy development and service delivery into contact with those who are impacted by it, including those who might not agree with it. This is how we shift culture and subject ourselves to scrutiny and this is how we are changing.

I am proud of the efforts made by teams across the Home Office, but we know there is more to do. Many people suffered terrible injustices and the Department will continue working hard to deliver a Home Office worthy of every community served. Wendy Williams acknowledged that our ambition to achieve genuine cultural change requires ongoing reflection and a commitment to constant improvement. She acknowledged that the scale of the challenge she set the Department was significant and that change on this scale takes time. The Home Office keeps the Home Affairs Select Committee updated on progress against the recommendations and will continue to do so.



An update on each of the recommendations is provided in the table available as an online attachment.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-01-26/HCWS523/.

[HCWS523]

Strengthening the Response to Serious and Organised Crime

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

The Government are today launching a consultation on two proposals to strengthen the law on serious and organised crime.

Law enforcement agencies frequently encounter articles which they suspect are being used in serious crime but which they are unable to act on under existing legislation. The Government are therefore consulting on a proposal to create new offences to criminalise the making, modification, supply, offer to supply and possession of articles for use in serious crime. Such articles include, for example, vehicle concealments or “hides” used to transport illicit commodities, sophisticated and bespoke encrypted communication devices, templates for 3D-printing firearms components, and pill presses used to make illicit drugs.

The Government are also consulting on proposals to improve and strengthen the existing powers on serious crime prevention orders under the Serious Crime Act 2007. This includes enabling a broader set of law enforcement bodies to apply for such orders, as well as strengthening their monitoring arrangements.

The consultation seeks views to inform the Government’s policy development. The consultation will run for eight weeks and will close on 21 March 2023. If taken forward, both proposals would require changes in legislation when Parliamentary time allows.

A copy of the consultation document and two related impact assessments will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on www.gov.uk.

The Government are also announcing a package of measures to strengthen how police forces in England and Wales tackle serious and organised crime and protect our communities from harm. The approach is being led jointly by the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s serious and organised crime lead, with implementation supported by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, the National Crime Agency, the College of Policing and the Local Government Association.

We are investing around £2 million to support the roll-out of “Clear, Hold, Build”, which is an evidence-based, end-to-end local partnership approach that will reduce serious and organised crime in the highest harm hotspot areas in England and Wales. This includes new serious and organised crime community co-ordinators in the Regional Organised Crime Units to support police forces to deliver the most effective and efficient partnership response, and a performance management and information system to enhance police forces’ ability to understand, capture and respond to their local serious and organised crime threat.

Later this year the Government also plan to publish a new strategy to update the “Serious and Organised Crime Strategy”, which was published in 2018.

[HCWS513]

Counter-terrorism Disruptive Powers Report 2021

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

I have today laid before both Houses the “Counter-Terrorism Disruptive Powers Report 2021” (CP 779). Copies of the report will be made available in the Vote Office and online at gov.uk.

It is important that there is transparency in the use of our national security tools. Publishing this report ensures that the public are able to access a guide to the range of powers used to combat terrorist threats to the United Kingdom, the extent of their use, and the safeguards and oversight in place to ensure that they are used properly.

[HCWS504]

Police Conduct and David Carrick

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on misconduct and vetting in the Metropolitan Police Service following the horrific David Carrick case, and I thank you for your statement.

Yesterday was a dark day for British policing and the Metropolitan police, as an officer admitted being responsible for a monstrous campaign of abuse. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing sympathy to the victims and in thanking them for their courage in coming forward. It is intolerable for them to have suffered as they have. They were manipulated and isolated, and subjected to horrific abuse. For anyone to have gone through such torment is harrowing, but for it to have happened at the hands of someone they entrusted to keep people safe is almost beyond comprehension. The victims have shown extraordinary strength and courage. Their testimonies were essential in ensuring that Carrick faces justice for his crimes. It is thanks to them that this vile predator has been taken off our streets, and the public are safer as a result.

The police perform a unique and critical function in our society. Every day, thousands of decent, hard-working police officers perform their duties with the utmost professionalism. They feel pride in putting on their uniform and want only the best for the communities they serve. I know that they will share our collective disgust that a fellow officer could be responsible for such a despicable betrayal of everything that they stand for. It is imperative that this cannot happen again, so I am grateful for Lady Elish Angiolini’s assurance that she will look at this heinous case as part of her inquiry.

From the moment I became Home Secretary, I have made it clear that things have to change. Public trust is precious. Our model of policing by consent cannot work effectively without it. I discussed this case yesterday with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, and I am encouraged by the action he has taken so far with his team to root out officers who are not fit to wear the badge. This effort is being spearheaded by a new anti-corruption and abuse command, but there is still some way to go to ensure that the force can command the trust of the people that it serves.

It is vital that the Metropolitan police and other forces double down on their efforts to root out corrupt officers. This may mean more shocking cases come to light in the short term. It is a matter of the utmost importance that there are robust processes in place to stop the wrong people joining the police in the first place, which is why the Government have invested in improving recruitment processes and supporting vetting as part of the more than £3 billion that we have provided for the police uplift programme. I expect this work to continue at pace, and for all chief constables to prioritise delivery of the recommendations made by the police inspectorate’s recent report on vetting, counter-corruption and misogyny.

It is now for the Metropolitan police to demonstrate that they have an effective plan in place to rapidly improve their vetting processes. Much of the impetus for change must come from within policing, but this Government will continue leading from the front. As I have made clear, we are bringing forward part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry to make recommendations on how forces can improve culture and tackle the root causes of police criminality and misconduct. The inquiry was established by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I pay tribute to her commitment and leadership on these critical issues.

As well as ensuring that vetting processes are watertight, there must be fair and effective arrangements for dealing with those who behave or act in a wholly unacceptable way while serving. Baroness Casey recently identified concerns about the misconduct and dismissals process within the Metropolitan police: it takes too long, it does not command the confidence of police officers and it is procedurally burdened. Bureaucracy and process appear to have prevailed over ethics and common sense. That is why I have announced an internal review into police dismissals. The review’s terms of reference are being published today.

This case will rightly throw a spotlight once again on women’s safety. No one should suffer abuse or feel frightened or harassed, whether they are at home, out and about or online. We are taking concerted action to prevent violence against women, support victims and survivors, relentlessly pursue perpetrators and strengthen the system as a whole.

On rape specifically, we are focused on delivering improvements across the board, so that victims get the support they deserve and cases are pursued rigorously from report to court. There have been some important steps forward since the publication of the rape review in 2021. The number of referrals and charges has increased nationally, while new operating models for the investigation and prosecution of rape are being developed through Operation Soteria.

None of that can undo the suffering of Carrick’s victims, but I assure the House that this Government will not shy away from challenging the police to meet the standards we all expect of them. Change must happen and, as Home Secretary, I will do everything in my power to ensure that it does. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

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

This is a truly shocking and appalling case, and I welcome the statement today. A serving police officer has admitted to some of the most serious and devastating crimes. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the bravery of the victims who have come forward, but we must face up to the further evidence that this case has brought up of appalling failures in the police’s vetting and misconduct processes, which are still not being addressed by the Government and are not addressed in this statement. Given the scale of the problems not just in this case but in previous cases, the Home Secretary’s statement is very weak and shows a serious lack of leadership on something that is so grave and that affects confidence in policing as well as serious crimes.

We have seen repeated failures by serving police officers to respond to or take seriously allegations of violence against women by a serving police officer. Allegations of domestic abuse have not been taken seriously in the vetting processes. In this case, there was a failure to suspend David Carrick when rape allegations were made in July 2021, even though the Met police knew there had been domestic abuse allegations two years previously. A misconduct process concluded that there was no case to answer, despite the repeated alarms raised. A full vetting check was not triggered, and David Carrick’s permission to carry firearms was restored.

Most shocking of all is that this happened at the height of the alarm about Wayne Couzens and the deeply disturbing murder of Sarah Everard. This undermines confidence for women and for victims but also for police officers who are working so hard—especially women police officers, who may themselves have reported misogynistic abuse, and officers who are doing excellent work every day to tackle violence against women and girls and know that confidence in that work is being undermined.

We support the new Met Commissioner’s determination to take action, but this is not just about the Met. Concerns about misogyny and culture have been raised in Sussex, Hampshire, Derbyshire, Gwent, Police Scotland and other forces. There has been a lack of leadership from the Government on police standards for years. After the truly appalling murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, Home Office Ministers promised change. The then Home Secretary promised to set up processes that would prevent this from happening again, and that has badly failed.

There are still no legal requirements on vetting. Forces can effectively do what they want. They do not even have to check employment history and character references, and some do not. They do not even have to interview people beforehand. When the inspectorate came up with the damning conclusion that hundreds, if not thousands, of police officers who should have failed vetting are still in the job, including corrupt and predatory officers and officers who have committed offences of indecent exposure and domestic abuse, the Policing Minister refused to even make it a requirement for police forces to follow the recommendations of the inspectorate. They just shrugged and said that it was a matter for police forces to follow. There has been no response to make it compulsory to follow vetting guidance or to follow the reforms.

All we have in this statement is a continuation of the existing Angiolini review and a new review on dismissals. I welcome that new review, because there are concerns that the dismissals process has become more difficult and worse since well-intended reforms were introduced that have not worked as intended, but it was announced in October, and it still has not started. All the Home Secretary has done is re-announce it today. The Home Secretary has dismissed as “woke” some of the things that police forces have been doing to tackle misogyny, increase diversity and improve their response to communities and to crime, even though they are about tackling some of the most serious crimes.

It is also about how seriously Ministers take tackling violence against women and girls more broadly. We know that the charge rate for rape has dropped to a shameful 1.5%—it has dropped by two thirds over the last seven years. Again, Home Office Ministers promised that tackling violence against women and girls would become part of the compulsory strategic policing requirement. It has been reported that that has not happened. Can the Home Secretary confirm that, nine months after Ministers announced it, she has not made it a strategic policing requirement to prioritise violence against women and girls?

After the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving officer, Labour called for change. After the horrific murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, Labour called for leadership. After the shameful case of Child Q, Labour called for reform. After the shocking Charing Cross station report, Labour demanded action. After the Stephen Port inquiry, Labour called for reform. After the cases right across the country of abuse and misogyny, Labour has demanded change. Conservative Ministers promised that action would be taken, but they have failed to do so.

Labour will change the law. Labour will overhaul the vetting, misconduct and standards system, because it is time for change. We are letting down police officers across the country who do excellent work and are being let down by these failures in the system. Most of all, women are being let down. It is too late for all the warm words in the Home Secretary’s statement. What is she actually going to do to make sure that standards are raised?

[Suella Braverman]

It is disappointing that the shadow Home Secretary has resorted to cheap political lines; I do not think that today is a day for political attacks. There is a human tragedy at the heart of this case, and ultimately, politics should be set aside. I am willing to work with anybody—the inspectorate; the politician with overriding responsibility for the Met police, who is a Labour politician, Sadiq Khan; all the chief constables; and everybody in the Chamber—to bring about change and safety, and to improve standards in our police forces around the country.

That is why I support the Met Commissioner’s statement yesterday, in which he accepted that there were failings. There is no question about that: there were failings in the system when it came to vetting and checking, and there were failures by the Met police. It is clear that culture and standards in the police need to change, which is why I will not shy away from challenging chief constables around the country on the standards that they uphold and instil in their individual forces.

Police constables and police leaders have all accepted the recommendations set out in the inspectorate’s comprehensive report, which was commissioned by the Government in response to Sarah Everard’s murder to look more closely at the procedures that have been put in place and how well they have been working when it comes to vetting, checking, monitoring and disciplinary processes related to policing. That report clearly identified several concerns and failings in policing, and made recommendations, the bulk of which were aimed at police constables, the College of Policing, and the National Policing Board.

All those recommendations have been accepted and we are closely monitoring the delivery of those improvements in rigour and standards when it comes to the entry processes, vetting and checking for new recruits to policing. We have also ensured that Lady Angiolini will look more closely into the culture of policing so that we can better implement and deliver systems that will root out misogyny, predatory behaviour, sexual assault or any other offensive behaviour that might lead to criminal activity within policing.

Let me be clear, however, that I am proud of the Government’s track record on supporting women and girls in the criminal justice system. We put in place the groundbreaking Operation Soteria around the country to improve practices when it comes to the police investigation of rape and serious sexual offences in the prosecution and court resolution phases. We are already seeing signs of improvement when it comes to supporting victims of those heinous crimes through our criminal justice system. We also introduced a raft of new offences, such as on upskirting, stalking, female genital mutilation and forced marriage, to better protect women and girls in society, and our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which expanded the definition and protections available to victims of domestic abuse. I am proud of the leadership and initiative that we have demonstrated when it comes to standing up for women and girls.

We will not be complacent, however, because of course we can go further and do more. I am keen to focus on the solutions and move forward, so that we do not see repeated incidents and tragedies, such as the one that we are talking about today.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

There is no doubt that it is a sorry, and in fact tragic, state of affairs that the House has convened to discuss this issue again today. The Home Secretary will fully recognise that reviews have been commissioned since 2021, which led to the Angiolini inquiry, and obviously this will feature in part 2. It would be welcome if the Home Secretary would explain how that will work and when it will report. Since then, we have had not only the Angiolini work, but the Louise Casey review, which was damning, and the inspectorate’s report, which, I am afraid, was also damning on a raft of issues, such as security, vetting, misogyny, practices and the whole culture of policing, as mentioned by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).

The recommendations are already there. In fact, if I may say so to the Home Secretary, previous Policing Ministers and I put forward proper recommendations for the strategic policing requirement. There are issues that could be resolved so that people could be held to account sooner rather than later through that requirement. I urge her to consider, particularly after the tragic cases that we have heard about in relation to the Carrick incident and his victims, putting much of that on to a statutory footing. If we do not, we will be here again and again to pay tribute to victims while, frankly, parts of the law enforcement system continue to fail the British public and fail victims.

[Suella Braverman]

I reiterate my thanks and tribute to my right hon. Friend for her leadership when she was in this role. She led from the front in the fight to protect women and girls and to uphold their safety. Lady Elish Angiolini has confirmed that she will consider the Carrick case in her inquiry and, as I mentioned, part 2 will be brought forward. We expect it to provide an examination of the wider issues in policing, such as culture, vetting and the safety of women, which are relevant to the appalling case that we have heard about this week. I confirm that violence against women and girls will be included in the strategic policing requirement.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and I put on record the SNP’s tribute to the victims in this case for their bravery in the face of ongoing trauma.

The charges that have been brought against David Carrick are incredibly disturbing—49 charges, including 24 counts of rape against 12 women over two decades, with accounts of domestic violence and coercive control. Through that, the Met has sought to protect its own, which is also incredibly disturbing and has led the former Victims’ Commissioner Dame Vera Baird to question the commitment to culture change at Scotland Yard.

It has been reported that the Met is checking back through 1,633 cases of alleged sexual offences involving 1,071 officers in the past decade. What retrospective action does the Home Secretary expect from that review? It should be a worry to all of us that those officers are still out there in their jobs, and that we may face what David Carrick reportedly told women when he flashed his warrant card: “I’m a police officer, you’re safe with me”—a chilling prospect. How does she intend to ensure that the review is thoroughly carried out? What updates can the House expect?

Lady Elish Angiolini has worked with Police Scotland to improve standards on this, and work is ongoing in Scotland too. How can women and people with vulnerabilities have the confidence that, if something happens to them while they are in London, the Met will respond in a proper way that respects their dignity?

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. Lady asks a series of good questions. To give more detail about the Met Commissioner’s commitments to strengthen the procedures, there is already a strengthening of the vetting of officers; an active review of historical cases is ongoing, where there may be a flag on the system for domestic incidents; and a data washing process is ongoing to ensure that the Met’s data is being very extensively checked against rigorously managed national databases. That is all being led by a new anti-corruption and abuse command unit, which is instilling an institutionally higher standard of managing and overseeing the important issue of vetting.

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

Apparently Carrick was known as “Bastard Dave” by his colleagues, in the same way as Wayne Couzens was known as “the rapist”, but alarm bells were not rung. The most worrying aspect of this is the culture of cover-up and complacency that has allowed such abuse to happen on an industrial scale by certain individuals—in this case, for 17 years.

When the new Met Commissioner appeared before the Home Affairs Committee, we were encouraged that he expressed his determination to root out that mindset and those offenders. I ask the Home Secretary to comment specifically on his queries and concerns, however, about the difficulty of sacking officers; about why professional standards are not investigating more of those cases; that it is not suitable to put officers who have been accused of serious offences on to light duties—they should be fully suspended—and that there should be a duty of care for whistleblowing. What urgent action will she now take on those issues to restore some confidence, particularly in the Met and especially among women?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point about the disciplinary process. Indeed, Sir Mark Rowley himself has spoken at length—not just at the Select Committee, but more broadly—about the challenges he has faced in trying to dismiss patently inappropriate officers. He has come up against a heavily bureaucratic process that is not working, and that is why I have today launched a review into the process of police officer dismissals. I want to ensure that we have a fair and effective system for removing those officers who are simply not fit to serve.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

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

This case, which has rightly shocked the nation, is yet another appalling example of systematic failures within the police to confront male violence against women and girls, and the sexist culture that exists within the police. Again and again, the Home Affairs Committee has heard evidence of how weak or non-existent vetting and misconduct processes have allowed violent male officers to continue harassing and abusing women—not just in London, but in forces across the country.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has, as I understand it, made specific demands of the Home Secretary in relation to changes to the dismissal of officers, so could she just update the House as to what she is going to do about those specific requests, and why do we need a review when it is quite clear—from the recommendations of His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the reports that the Home Affairs Committee has produced—what needs to be done? We do not need another review; we just need action.

[Suella Braverman]

It is important that we look closely at exactly what is happening in the police misconduct process. Concerns have been raised—not only by Baroness Casey, but by Sir Mark Rowley—and what I want to do is ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose. For example, concerns have been raised about the presence of legally qualified chairs, who are somehow applying a quasi-judicial approach to a system that should be much more akin to an internal human resources disciplinary approach. That has so far been highlighted as not being fit for purpose; not fit for achieving the goal, which we all want, of empowering chief constables to make decisions on disciplinary matters and for those to be sustained.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

Well, here we are again—it feels like groundhog day—questioning one of the Ministers in a Government I support about the culture within the Metropolitan Police Service. What is going to change? I listened carefully to the Home Secretary as she listed the new offences that this Government are putting on the statute book for protecting women and combatting male violence against women and girls, but the real challenge is the culture towards women that exists within our police service and throughout our criminal justice system. Can I just repeat the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel): when are we really going to fully use statutory power to protect women from male violence?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend raises a good point about police culture, which is why we need to ensure that we have a good analysis of exactly what that means. We have some important findings from the inspectorate, and also from Baroness Casey—her findings are interim, not final—which set out serious concerns about the police culture that is leading to pockets of this unacceptable behaviour. We have already commissioned the Angiolini inquiries, and we must let those run their course, and on the basis of those robust findings we will be able to take the right action to ensure that this kind of behaviour is rooted out, that these kinds of individuals are not allowed into the police force in the first place, and that we can better protect the public and restore their confidence in policing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Mother of the House.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I completely agree with the very strong questioning put by the shadow Home Secretary, and I also agree with what was said by the former Home Secretary and the current Chair of the Select Committee.

I have two questions. The first is about timing. As hon. Members have said, successive Metropolitan Police Commissioners have complained that the regulations this House has put in place in statutory instruments prevent them from sacking officers who they know are unfit to be in the Metropolitan police, so that puts a responsibility on us to change those regulations. Can I suggest that the Home Secretary, in consultation with the Metropolitan police, brings forward draft regulations, and let us consult not in the overall generality of a review, but on those specific draft regulations? We will be 100% behind her when she brings to the House changed regulations, so that the Metropolitan police are able to manage the force in the way we all want to see them manage it.

The second point about Sir Mark Rowley and the response to the Carrick situation is that this is not just about change in the future, but about dealing with the individuals who are currently in senior and management positions in the Met who seemed to think it was all right for Carrick to be given extra responsibilities and to be promoted. The management suitability of those officers really ought to be examined by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and we need a bit of transparency about that. Will the Home Secretary urge the commissioner, whom we all support in his determination to change the culture, to publish transparently what tracking he has gone through of when Carrick was looked at and nothing was done, because all of those senior officers have colluded? Will she also look through all of the officers, at horizontal level, who were part of the banter and the immediate culture of this officer, and who did nothing to report him and therefore were colluding in the perpetration of these atrocious crimes?

[Suella Braverman]

I want to do what works, which is why I have taken very seriously what the Met commissioner has said about the process relating to police misconduct hearings and disciplinary processes. I have been clear that where there is a role for Government, we will act, but it is important that we look carefully at the issue. That is why the review I have just announced will cover issues such as the legally qualified chairs, to ensure that they are striking the right balance and making the right decisions. It is important that we ensure that the trends in the use of misconduct sanctions and the consistency of decision making in cases of sexual misconduct, other violence against women and girls and such offences are appropriate. Those are the kinds of things we need to look at very carefully.

When it comes to the Metropolitan police, as I have said, the Met commissioner has instituted a new anti-corruption and abuse command specifically to look at any other risk factors and any other issues relating to this kind of incident. An extra 100 officers were drafted in to use covert tactics to identify officers who act in a corrupt or predatory manner, including those who abuse their positions in the police. I am encouraged by those early commitments by the Met commissioner, and I think we need to get behind him so that we can radically improve the system.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I think Sir Mark Rowley’s statement yesterday was pathetic. It was a statement of the blindingly obvious, and anybody can say sorry for what has gone on. This is an absolute scandal, and I wish to support what the Mother of the House has just said. In no comment that has been made has there been any suggestion of the accountability of anybody else in the Metropolitan police over many years for this man’s conduct. His egregious behaviour was known—there were seven or eight allegations regarding his behaviour—yet nothing was done. We have had excuse after excuse after excuse. We can worry about the future, but there are people in the Metropolitan police who enabled this man to continue being a threat to women and girls, and they should be sacked.

[Suella Braverman]

It is important to note that David Carrick’s initial vetting to join the Metropolitan police took place in 2001, prior to the introduction of national standards on vetting, and prior to the regime that has been in place since 2017, which was introduced to ensure consistency in decision making. My hon. Friend rightly expresses frustration with the situation, and I agree. It is incredibly frustrating to be here yet again after another tragedy. But I would just gently push back. I have confidence in Sir Mark Rowley. He joined the leadership of the Met recently, and he has not hesitated in accepting the enormity of the problems that the Met police currently face. He has presented a plan and is already taking tangible action to deliver on it. He understands that there is a problem with confidence in the Met police, and challenges and problems with standards and performance. He is honest and frank about those challenges and does not shy away from fixing them.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Who will be conducting the internal review, when will it report, and will the Home Secretary ensure that previous Metropolitan Police Commissioners will also give evidence to it?

[Suella Braverman]

The review will be carried out in a comprehensive and extensive way to command confidence among police officers, members of the public and other stakeholders. I want it to report swiftly. I am wary of having more reviews, reports and inquiries; we need action. My impression is that there is a real problem with the process. I need to identify exactly what needs fixing and thereafter we can take swift action.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

May I mirror the Home Secretary’s comments and pay tribute to the victims of David Carrick, and urge other victims to come forward if they have any concerns about serving police officers, or anybody else? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to support Sir Mark Rowley in his quest to get rid of the rot in the culture of the Metropolitan police? I hear that he is now investigating nearly 1,000 police officers and staff, so we must prepare ourselves for further revelations, similar to those about Carrick. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is important that the police and crime commissioner for London, and his Deputy Mayor for policing and crime, also play their part? Perhaps they have been missing in action over the past seven years.

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ultimately, the politician responsible for the performance of the Metropolitan police is the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and ultimately he should be held politically responsible for failings within the Met. Greater support, greater priority and greater focus from him would do no harm.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

My respect goes out to the brave women who have come forward, but women should not need to be brave. The system should protect them and believe them when they speak out. On 20 September 2021, Byline Times reported that more than half of Met officers found guilty of sexual misconduct kept their jobs. A report today states that some women who report sexual abuse or misconduct may then see one of those officers, because the Met cannot guarantee that they are not using their power to do that. What has been exposed in the Met is structural and institutional, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State agrees with that or even understands it. Does she agree that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, was right to sack Cressida Dick? The Secretary of State’s approach in the Chamber today, and the slow “kick the can down the road” or “do another review,” serves only to inflict more pain on women and girls. She needs to take that on board if she is to do her job properly.

We must also review all cases that the criminal police officers have presided over. If they are bad, they are bad—they are not just bad in one case; they are bad in all cases. In Brent, after the tragic murder of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, the police took pictures of their bodies. The pain that their mother goes through—I speak to her on a regular basis, and every time there is something like this it inflicts more triggering pain on people who have gone through it, and the police were slow to act. The Secretary of State can do something about this. The new commissioner, Mark Rowley, has said that he needs more support in being able to sack officers, not another review or report. He needs things to change. As chair of the London parliamentary Labour party, I wonder whether the Secretary of State is willing to listen to voices from the London PLP and work with us, as well as the Met Commissioner, to change the law on this issue.

[Suella Braverman]

There are some fair points there. What I find instructive on this issue, albeit on an interim basis, is the interim report by Baroness Casey, which looked into the Met and its standards on vetting and procedures. It made for concerning reading. She is currently carrying out an in-depth inquiry into this subject, and she found that the Met does not fully support the local professional standards units to deal effectively with misconduct. Effectively, the structure relating to individual commands is not working, and there is uncertainty about what constitutes gross misconduct and what will be done about it. There are important lessons to be learned from Baroness Casey’s inquiry into the Met, so that we ensure that things such as this do not happen again.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

David Carrick is now one of the UK’s most prolific rapists, and he did that while serving as a police officer. It is utterly disgusting. Does the Home Secretary agree we should review sentencing laws? We have already done that for people who kill emergency workers, so how about reviewing the sentencing law so that if a police officer commits these horrible crimes, we increase their sentence? Does she also agree that the managers who knew about this should be sacked immediately—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please remember sub judice. We should not be talking about sentencing. Home Secretary, just answer the points you can.

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend voices the frustration and disappointment we are all feeling today at a serving police officer having been found responsible for such heinous and appalling crimes. An abuse of trust has shattered public confidence in policing, and undermined the safety of women and girls. We will not shy away from doing what is necessary to ensure that cases such as this are not repeated, and so that women and girls in particular can have confidence in policing around the country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

I too commend the bravery of the women involved in this case, but some of them would not have needed to be brave if action had been taken. As a former police officer I am disgusted and ashamed by what I have heard. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said that 800 of his officers are under investigation. Has the Home Secretary requested similar figures from other police forces? What is the impact on the operational capability of police officers? Finally, as the Mother of the House rightly pointed out, police officers are not employed. They are not subject to employment law; they are appointed. Staff associations within the police service, such as the Police Federation, play a very important role in disciplinary and conduct issues. What engagement is the Home Secretary having with them?

[Suella Braverman]

The inspectorate reported late last year on that issue, looking at the performance of forces all over the country on vetting and the monitoring of disciplinary matters in policing. The inspectorate made 43 recommendations, largely focused on chief constables around England and Wales, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council. They have all been accepted. There are deadlines for spring this year, and later this year, and we are closely monitoring the implementation and delivery of those recommendations.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

We hear reported on the BBC that this monster, David Carrick, perpetrated a campaign of terror against his “girlfriends”. He put drugs in the car, he restrained people with police handcuffs, and he said “Who would anyone believe? You or me? I’m an important person. I guard the Prime Minister. I am a police officer.” That highlights the lengths to which that monster would go, and the challenge for those victims to come forward. Does the Home Secretary agree that, as well as the welcome measures that she has set out, all of which I support, one positive thing we can do is bring forward the victims Bill, to strengthen the support of the criminal justice system for those women, provide better support, and beef up the role of independent sexual violence advisers? I know that is not in her Department’s remit, but will she work with me and her colleague the Justice Secretary, to see whether we can get parliamentary time for that Bill as quickly as possible?

[Suella Braverman]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the groundbreaking work she did when she was in government to support women and girls and their safety. She is absolutely right, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister is committed to introducing the victims Bill. I am particularly supportive of increasing the number of independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers as they have made a huge difference to the experience of victims going through the criminal justice system. They can make the difference between a victim withdrawing and a victim persisting and reaching a conviction. I therefore think that, yes, putting through more resources and introducing important legislation is vital.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Yesterday, when the Education Secretary was asked on the radio if the Government could say that women could trust the police, she replied:

“It’s very important that we do trust the police.”

I think that is a no. We cannot have a situation where women who would ordinarily turn to the police to rescue them from dangerous situations—whether out on the street, domestic violence or as the victim of abuse—feel that they cannot trust the person from whom they might seek help and that they might be violated by them. I endorse what everyone has said about needing to address the culture in the police force, but will the Home Secretary set out a timetable and tell us what immediate action she will take to address that, so that women who are in danger feel that they can look to the police for support?

[Suella Braverman]

I am the first person to say that this is obviously a disappointing, frustrating, sobering and chilling day for policing. It is regrettable and shameful that this has happened. I would also say that poorly behaved and criminal police officers are a minority and that we have tens of thousands of very brave, dedicated men and women all over the country who will be feeling the equivalent level of shame and disgust that we are expressing. This is not in their name. This is about changing the system to root out poor behaviour and so that everybody can be proud to be serving in our police force.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

This case has once again highlighted the terrible internal processes in our police forces and the inability of people to speak up in a culture that actively works against their doing so. So many police officers will not raise issues with fellow officers because they fear for their jobs and their employment. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to do a root and branch investigation into the culture in the police forces, particularly with regard to the ability to speak up and for whistleblowers to have their voices heard?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Police culture and whether there is a culture of fear, with people scared to speak up and call out unacceptable behaviour, is exactly what part 2 of the Lady Angiolini inquiry will cover. We need to pinpoint that precisely so that we can take action to ensure that there is an open, welcoming and professional environment in which everybody can thrive.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

There are many similarities between the experience of women in the Met police and women in the armed forces. Both are organisations in which we should have complete faith, but both organisations have failed to act on many occasions where there have been situations of misogyny.

There are two big issues: the crimes of the perpetrator himself and the failure of senior officers to act and take action when concerns were raised. The Home Secretary has talked about how action will be taken on offenders, but she has said much less about what will happen with senior officers who were aware of such behaviour and covered it up. Will she say some more about that?

[Suella Braverman]

That goes to the point about the structures in place to monitor new recruits closely and ensure that those who are newer to policing get the right training and support from their senior leaders. That is why, in our historic police uplift programme, which will result in record numbers of police officers when complete in a few months’ time, a large part of that resource has gone to increasing vetting capacity and recruitment, so that proper standards and quality assurance are injected and really part of the process of recruiting new police officers.

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

We operate on a model of policing by consent, and I am afraid that too many people—especially women and girls—will be saying, “I don’t consent. I don’t agree to this model of policing in the country any more.” This is just the latest example of what we have seen in the Met. Such cases set back trust in the police and make it more difficult for decent, law-abiding officers to do their jobs. It is shameful that Carrick’s case has been allowed to carry on for so long, with information apparently known to the force and other forces without being shared and without action being taken.

There are clear lessons that we can learn about data sharing, improving whistleblowing, suspending officers without allowing them to operate on light duties and removing officers whom we are deeply concerned about. It is great that we are having these reviews and that we are trying to learn lessons from them, but I think what people want is concrete action and quickly. Will the Home Secretary please advise when we will see that?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend raises the right point about action. That is why a review of vetting capacity was carried out by the uplift programme as recently as October last year, to which 36 forces responded. It showed that 25 had increased their capacity and vetting units between February and October last year. I see that as action. I see that as police forces responding to the call to improve their services and resources and ensure that there are better processes and better systems in place to vet properly and monitor rigorously the behaviour of their professionals.

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

As a former detective inspector in the Metropolitan police, I, like everyone, am shocked, revulsed and horrified to hear of the abhorrent crimes of PC Carrick and the failure of the Metropolitan police and other police services, which allowed those crimes to go undetected and unprosecuted for almost 20 years. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of honest, hard-working and brave serving and retired police officers everywhere, I offer my sincere apologies to the victims of these cases, whose needs must be prioritised and given our complete and unquestioning support.

Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House that an investigation will be launched immediately, as identified in her review announced today, to identify and prosecute to the full extent of the law or see the most severe disciplinary action taken against any police officer or member of the police staff, past or present, who failed in their duty to protect the public in public office by not reporting or investigating complaints against PC Carrick or by preventing him from being arrested, prosecuted and brought to justice before now?

[Suella Braverman]

I cannot comment on the individual case, but late last year Baroness Casey’s review concluded on an interim basis that it is taking too long to resolve misconduct conduct cases within policing. Officers and staff do not believe that action will be taken when concerns around conduct are raised. Those are just a sample of some of the serious concerns that she identified when it comes to the process in place for monitoring and disciplining police officers for unacceptable behaviour. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his service in the police force. Whatever needs to be changed, we will do it.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Women in Stroud and around the country have woken up with their trust and belief in our police service badly shaken yet again. From speaking to local women, I know that issues in the Met undermine their confidence in Stroud police. They can see that Gloucestershire constabulary is working hard to protect them and that it is open to change. However, when we know that women are routinely not reporting violence, abuse and harassment in part because of a lack of faith in the police, and with each force doing something completely different, what is my right hon. and learned Friend doing to ensure that all forces get their act together and show the country that they are speaking to each other and that national change will be made on this issue?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of women’s confidence in policing. Tangible steps and measures have already been taken, after legislating in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to address concerns surrounding data extraction from victims’ devices during investigations. We are well on the way to ensuring that victims are not without a phone for more than 24 hours. That has been a real deterrent to women coming forward with complaints about rape and other serious sexual offences. We have led with the groundbreaking Operation Soteria programme, a radical transformation in the way the police investigate rape and serious sexual offences. We are also protecting the wellbeing of victims during trials by offering pre-recorded evidence for rape victims. Those are just a few of the measures we are taking to send the message to women and girls, “Come forward if you are a victim. If you do, the police will be there to support you.”

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

The Home Secretary just mentioned that she wants women and girls to come forward with allegations of rape. The charge rate for rape is 1.5%. That means the vast majority of cases never go to court, let alone secure a conviction. This is not working for women and girls. They have courage in coming forward, but to know that they will never secure a conviction is a slap in the face yet again. What real action is the Home Secretary going to take to change and reverse that?

[Suella Braverman]

I have worked with cross-Government colleagues for several years in my former capacity as Attorney General on matters such as Operation Soteria. Operation Soteria is groundbreaking. It is producing real change in the way that victims of rape and serious sexual offences experience the criminal justice system. We are seeing an increase in referrals by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. That is a sign of progress. We are seeing an increase in the rate of charge by the CPS passing the case on to His Majesty’s Courts Service. We will see an improvement in the number of convictions we secure. I agree that there is a lot to do, but progress has been made.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

The first allegation of serious sexual assault was made against David Carrick in 2003. Over the course of the next 18 years, there were eight or nine allegations of rape. Through all that, he was not suspended from work. In fact, during that period he was actually promoted within the force. What is common to all these cases is that there appears to be some kind of omerta or closing of ranks between senior personnel when a criminal allegation is made against one of their brethren. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the time has come to outsource disciplinary decision making to another force or, at the very least, an officer who does not know the policeman who is the subject of this kind of allegation?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the failings. In sum, the Metropolitan police should have carried out a re-vet of David Carrick in 2011. That was not done until 2017. The Metropolitan police acknowledges that this would not have necessarily changed the vetting outcome. Systemic problems are prevalent and that is why we need to take action to fix them.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

We are back again, Home Secretary. I am just exhausted by the number of times in this House we have to talk about this issue. Women in Lancashire have seen what has happened. They have seen what has been in the newspapers about David Carrick. They saw what happened with Wayne Couzens and so many other cases. They want to know why there is no legal requirement for vetting when officers move between forces. Yes, we are talking about the Met today, but we could equally be talking about the Lancashire constabulary. I would like to know what plans are in place to legally require vetting when officers move between forces, to stop perpetrators moving around the country to avoid justice.

[Suella Braverman]

We need to ensure the right system is in place to properly identify inappropriate candidates. What we have seen thus far is that there are inappropriate processes and people who are not right for policing are falling through the gaps and falling through the net. That needs to change. That is why I am glad that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has already committed to instilling an anti-corruption and abuse command unit to look properly at how inappropriate people are getting into the police force. We will take further action to look at the disciplinary process. The reports that are currently running their course need to conclude so we have an evidence base to take the appropriate action, in legislation if necessary.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

This is an utterly shameful and appalling case. I have seldom seen such a palpable sense of shock in this Chamber as we have witnessed today. In responding to these terrible crimes, I hope the Home Secretary will also look at the Benjamin Hannam case from a few years back. It is deeply worrying that someone who had been a member of a banned extremist group, National Action, managed to be recruited as a probationary police officer.

[Suella Braverman]

All cases are abhorrent where confidence in policing is shattered and the reputation of the force is undermined. That is why we want to ensure that chief constables take the recommended action, which has been set out comprehensively: increasing minimum standards for pre-employment checks; establishing better processes for managing risks relating to vetting decisions; and ensuring that the quality and consistency of their vetting decision making is improved.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I undertook the police service parliamentary scheme with both the Metropolitan police and the Avon and Somerset police, going into the homes and situations of the country’s most vulnerable people, overwhelmingly women. That those women cannot be confident about police officers is abhorrent. We have heard nothing from the Home Secretary on what she will do to finally introduce mandatory national views on vetting. People in Bristol, particularly women, want to know that all police officers are being vetted appropriately, and that that applies across the country. Will she now commit to that being operationalised?

[Suella Braverman]

The Government legislated in February 2020 to strengthen police complaints and disciplinary systems to make them more transparent, more proportionate and more accountable. New powers for the Independent Office for Police Conduct include the power of initiative to ensure that it can commence investigations without the requirement of a referral from the police, as well as measures to streamline and speed up decision making. They build on previous reforms and, as I announced today, we will carry out a more in-depth review into the disciplinary process. If legislation is needed to change, we will do that.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

This is an utterly shameful and shocking case. The vast majority of police officers in the Met and across the country believe in and perform to the highest professional standards. They see fellow officers who do not have appropriate action taken against them and the problem is that they just do not believe that appropriate action will be taken. Chief constables are tearing their hair out because they know they have some officers who are not fit to be in the police service, but they cannot dismiss them easily. May I join the calls from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for the Government to bring forward legislation to revise the dismissal procedures for police officers? The sooner we get rid of police officers who are not fit to serve, the better it will be for all concerned.

[Suella Braverman]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. As Baroness Casey identified in her interim review at the end of last year, the misconduct process takes too long. Officers and staff do not have confidence in the process. Allegations relating to sexual misconduct and other discriminatory behaviour are less likely than other misconduct allegations to result in a case-to-answer decision. There is a real need for action to take place. That is why we will come up with proposals on the back of the review I have announced today.

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

When Sarah Everard was abducted from a street in London not far from my constituency and brutally murdered by a serving police officer with a history of predatory behaviour, the then deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police said there was zero tolerance of misogyny in the Met. The appalling crimes of David Carrick show that that was clearly not the case. The current commissioner says that there are between 800 and 1,000 officers currently under investigation for abuse. Can I ask the Home Secretary, because she has not answered this question so far today, what she is doing to ensure that there are actually consequences and accountability for the enablers in police forces up and down the country who protect abusers and allow them to continue their activities under the cover of their warrant card? Dealing with that issue is an essential prerequisite for zero tolerance to mean anything at all.

[Suella Braverman]

The action that needs to be taken has been set out incredibly widely and comprehensively in several reports. That action includes increasing the minimum standards for pre-employment checks; establishing better processes for assessing, analysing and managing the risks relating to vetting decisions, corruption investigations and information security; improving the quality and consistency of decision making when it comes to vetting; and extending the scope of the law relating to the police complaint and misconduct procedures. There is a very clear plan of action that is necessary among chief constables, the College of Policing and the NPCC, and the Home Office is monitoring and taking action where necessary.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Today’s exchanges show the depth of violence against women and girls, even by some of those in whom the public should have the greatest trust, and public confidence in policing will therefore be rattled. The Home Secretary said that David Carrick had been recruited before tightened vetting rules were introduced. Will my right hon. and learned Friend work with local police chiefs to find out how many people in their forces they view as potentially dangerous to the wider public, so that they and we can reassure our constituents as soon as possible that there are no David Carricks lurking in Gloucestershire or elsewhere?

[Suella Braverman]

That is exactly why, for the Met, the Met Commissioner has instituted a review of historic cases in respect of which there may be a flag for a domestic incident, and the Met is rigorously checking its data against national databases. I encourage all chief constables to take similar action to ensure that similar cases can be rooted out and action taken.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The problems that Mark Rowley faces in the Metropolitan police run very deep indeed. I have been supporting a constituent of mine with her allegations of threatening and controlling behaviour against a senior police officer. In the two years that I have been supporting her, the police have completely failed to investigate the case properly. They have failed to consider the impact on children, failed to interview witnesses and failed to get essential medical records. It is senior officers who are standing in the way of this investigation, as was the case with Wayne Couzens and with David Carrick. Mark Rowley is making specific requests for him to be assisted in making the changes he needs to make in the Metropolitan police. We cannot wait for another review, so will the Home Secretary commit to sitting down with Mark Rowley and give him the resources and support that he needs now?

[Suella Braverman]

May I clarify one point that I referred to earlier about some of the findings of Baroness Casey? I want to be clear that she found that allegations relating to sexual misconduct and other discriminatory behaviours are less likely than other misconduct allegations to result in a case-to-answer decision. I think I might have said the opposite earlier.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why I have built a strong relationship with Sir Mark Rowley. I spoke to him yesterday and have been speaking to him regularly about exactly what action we are taking, not only from a parliamentary and legislative point of view but from an operational perspective on the ground.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

This is an appalling case and another very dark day for the Metropolitan police, for our trust in them and, in particular, for women’s trust in them. It is not the first and I fear it will not be the last. Although I applaud what the Government are doing in terms of the better prosecution of rape cases and support for victims, those things are after the fact; we need to work on prevention, which comes through culture, as many others have said. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are two aspects of that culture? There is the casual day-to-day misogyny that we see in the nicknames used by some—not all—for their fellow officers; there is also the institutional misogyny and denial that we see in the multiple reports that were made to the Metropolitan police and the opportunities for vetting that were all missed and resulted in many, many more rapes. Will my right hon. and learned Friend work with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to address both of those aspects of the culture?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I must say that the vast majority of police officers uphold the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism, but there are pockets of culture where standards fall short. We need to root that out, and the first thing to do is to identify exactly what form it takes and the extent to which it is prevalent. We will then know the steps that we can legitimately take to stop it happening again.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

David Carrick was a Metropolitan police officer, but many of his crimes were perpetrated in Hertfordshire, where many of them would have been reported. As a Hertfordshire MP, I pay tribute to the bravery and perseverance of the rape survivors. Will the Home Secretary say whether the actions or inaction of Hertfordshire police will be looked at as part of any review? May I press her, as many colleagues have done, to confirm that she will introduce the vetting of officers when they transfer between forces? Will she also look into outsourcing disciplinary actions?

[Suella Braverman]

The Carrick case will be looked at by Lady Angiolini, and hopefully the issues to which the hon. Lady referred will be fleshed out. I am interested in her point about the transfer of police officers. It has been identified that insufficient vetting is taking place when police officers move between forces; we need to take action to improve that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is another case in a long list of cases, and it is about not just misogyny but race and homophobia. When Sadiq Khan called in the then commissioner and asked her to produce a report about what she was going to do, rather than doing her work she walked out the door, and she had the backing of this Government, rather than their backing Sadiq Khan. Now that we know this is a systemic problem in the Metropolitan police and probably among police around the country, is it time that we moved disciplinary matters away from the police force concerned and allowed women and other victims to be able to report to an independent service when it is regarding a police officer, without fear or favour and without fear that it will be covered up?

[Suella Braverman]

It is important that we ensure that whatever disciplinary process is in place actually works. It is clear that there are serious questions about the efficacy of the process, the time it takes and the process-heavy experience, and that ultimately bureaucracy and procedure are prevailing over ethics and common sense. We need to ensure that the system is fit for purpose and that police officers who fall short in their behaviour are dismissed.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

This is a policing issue, but it is not just a matter for policing: it is also a societal issue and about how we deal with predators who are determined and devious. The issue is fundamentally about safeguarding and the professional misjudgments that are made that allow this behaviour to go unreported. Will the Home Secretary raise with her Cabinet colleagues the issue of safeguarding and the need for it to cut across all policy areas to ensure that vulnerable people are protected?

[Suella Braverman]

We have a designated Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), who is sitting alongside me. In the Home Office we definitely prioritise the welfare of women and girls and victims of crime more generally. A huge project of work is ongoing and there are important relationships with stakeholders. It is important that there is confidence among victims and that those who are directly affected by these heinous crimes are supported by the criminal justice system in the maximum possible way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank very much the Home Secretary for outlining her plan of action to respond in a positive and strong way. Trust in the police is an essential component of the justice system. Although it is clear that trust has broken down, we cannot forget that there is an overwhelming number of decent and solid policemen and policewomen in our forces throughout the United Kingdom. It may take some work to rebuild trust in the screening process, so how does the Home Secretary intend to ensure that all local forces implement the lessons learned in the Met to restore confidence? Confidence restored is what we need.

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is now a large amount of work for not only the Met but the wider policing family to do to restore and rebuild trust and confidence among the general public and women and girls. I visited some local forces, including Kent police before Christmas. Kent is a very good example: the force is really leading from the front, instituting a whole raft of operational measures to support victims of serious sexual offences and rape, and rebuilding trust with local communities. So it is possible and I am heartened by the progress I see around the country.

Tier 1 (Investor) Route: Review of Operation

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

In March 2018, following the Salisbury poisonings, the then Home Secretary Amber Rudd committed to a review of individuals who had entered the UK under the tier 1 (investor) immigration route, prior to reforms made in 2015.

I am now providing here the Government’s final response summarising the findings of that review.

The tier 1 (investor) route had allowed individuals (primarily non-EEA nationals) investing in the UK to enter, and eventually settle in, the UK. It was launched in 2008 and at that time required applicants to be able to demonstrate they had access to £1 million of available funds to invest in UK Government bonds and shares or loan funds to UK companies. The UK had operated some form of investor visa programme for high-net-worth personal investment since 1994. The tier 1 (investor) visa route was ultimately closed on 17 February 2022.

I can confirm that the Home Office considered the cases of the 6,312 tier 1 (investor) migrants and tier 1 (investor) adult dependants who obtained leave between the launch of the route on 30 June 2008, and the introduction on 6 April 2015 of a requirement to open a regulated UK bank account before applying for a visa under the route. Each case was reviewed for potential links to criminality or other risk factors. Officials also considered whether there were wider risks presented in the design and implementation of the route at that time, and the overall economic benefit of the route.

The review of cases identified a small minority of individuals connected to the tier 1 (investor) visa route that were potentially at high risk of having obtained wealth through corruption or other illicit financial activity, and/or being engaged in serious and organised crime. I should stress that the work carried out only implies that a particular individual potentially poses a risk of having connections to criminality; it does not mean guilt has been proven. UK law enforcement have access to this data and are taking action as appropriate under their operational remits. Information on all high-risk individuals has been discussed with the Home Office’s independent operational partners and a range of actions has been and is being considered including, where appropriate, immigration action. Given the importance of ensuring the independence of the law enforcement process, I am unable to say more on the operationally sensitive work being taken forward in this area. While unable to comment specifically due to the operational sensitivity of the work, as an example of the range of actions we are taking, I can say that we have already sanctioned 10 oligarchs who had previously used this route as part of our extensive response to Russian aggression in the Ukraine.

The Home Office is robust in refusing leave where this is appropriate. During the operation of the tier 1 (investor) visa programme, the route has had a refusal rate for main applicants and their dependants of 7.9% for entry clearance applications and 4% for leave to remain applications, and for main applicants seeking indefinite leave to remain (settlement) the refusal rate is 2.2%¹.

The lessons learned from this review, and from ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the tier 1 (investor) route and the impact of reforms made between 2014 and 2019, formed a significant part of the evidence base on which the Government made their decision to ultimately close the route on 17 February 2022. The Home Office has found that there are inherent difficulties in an investment-based immigration route based on passive wealth, both in terms of security and economic value. I am determined this Government will ensure such mistakes are not repeated.

In that spirit, I am setting out in more detail broader systemic findings from the review:

The route attracted a disproportionate number of applicants from the countries identified in the UK’s national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing 2020 as particularly relevant to the cross-border money laundering risks faced and posed by the UK.

The review did not find evidence of a systemic failure across financial institutions to carry out appropriate customer due diligence checks on tier 1 (investor) visa applicants in the period in question. However, there was evidence of high-risk tier 1 (investor) applicants seeking out and exploiting financial institutions that had the weakest customer due diligence controls. In a number of instances, financial institutions associated with multiple high-risk migrants at the time have since been issued significant fines by the Financial Conduct Authority. This has been due to the firms’ handling of customer due diligence for high-risk clients in general rather than specifically for tier 1 (investor) visa applicants.

The review found that the particular risks presented by the tier 1 (investor) route compared with other visa routes meant that the immigration system was not as well equipped to respond. UK Visas and Immigration are trained immigration caseworkers, but the risks posed by this route would require specialist expertise in detecting financial criminality. Cases linked to historical allegations of corruption or financial crime are complex, may be based on suspicion or allegations only, and not evidenced by criminal enforcement action in the country of origin. Complex financial crimes such as corruption and embezzlement can also remain undetected for significant periods of time.

I recognise that the UK’s openness to global business carries risks that malign actors will take advantage of our systems to pursue corrupt and criminal ends. We must ensure that kleptocracies such as Russia are not able to act with impunity overseas. That is why the UK has taken strong action since the start of the war, and why we will continue to do so in the years to come. We have swiftly implemented the strongest set of economic sanctions ever imposed, against a G20 country. This stands at 1,200 individuals and 120 entities linked to the Russian state. In total, we have frozen over £18 billion in Russian assets since the war began.

We have established a new combatting kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency to investigate criminal sanctions evasion and high-end money laundering. And we have brought forward new and robust legislation to prevent corrupt elites from abusing our open economy, including establishing a new, open register for overseas entities owning property in the UK.

The Government are clear that any future visa route to facilitate investment-based migration must not offer entry solely on the basis of the applicant’s personal wealth. We are continuing to consider options to bring forward alternative provisions to support investment-based migration benefiting the UK economy on a fundamentally different model within the innovator visa programme, placing more emphasis on the applicant’s track record as an investor in innovative business and an assessment of their plans to actively engage in such activity in the UK. We will ensure any new provisions are brought forward carefully.

¹ Entry clearance refusal rate 30 June 2008 to Q3 main applicants and dependants.

Refusal rate for tier 1 (investor) leave to remain from 30 June 2008 to 2020.

Settlement for main applicants (indefinite leave to remain) April 2013 to 9 December 2022.

[HCWS492]

Migration and Economic Development

Suella Braverman Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the UK’s migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda.

One hundred million people are displaced globally. Others want to move to a different country, often for economic reasons. This presents an enormous challenge for sought-after destinations such as the United Kingdom. Since 2015, this kind and generous country has welcomed nearly 450,000 people through safe and legal routes. The British people are eager to help those in need and they support controlled migration. They have opened their homes to refugees. But they do not want open borders.

For decades the British people were told that this was immoral and that their concerns and opinions did not matter. Even today we see from certain quarters an unhealthy contempt for anyone who wants controlled migration. Such an attitude is unhelpful. Moreover, it is fanciful. We do not have infinite capacity. Already we are struggling to accommodate new arrivals, meaning that we spend millions every day in hotel bills alone.

We cannot tolerate people coming here illegally. It is not legitimate to leave a safe country such as France to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. We have to break the business model of the people-smuggling gangs. Their trade in human cargo is evil and lethal, as we were tragically reminded very recently.

There is a global migration crisis and it requires international solutions. In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), backed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), signed a ground-breaking migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda. They deserve enormous credit for their work on this. We agreed that people who come to the UK via dangerous, illegal and unnecessary means can be relocated to Rwanda to have their asylum claims considered there. Those in need of protection will be given up to five years of support, including education and employment training, along with help with integration, accommodation and healthcare.

Being relocated to Rwanda is not a punishment but an innovative way of addressing a major problem to redress the imbalance between illegal and legal migration routes. It will also ensure that those in genuine need of international protection are provided with it in Rwanda. It is a humane and practical alternative for those who come here through dangerous, illegal and unnecessary routes. By making it clear that they cannot expect to stay in the UK, we will deter more people from coming here and make such routes unviable.

There has been a great deal of misinformation about Rwanda. I visited Rwanda myself several years ago. She is a state party to the 1951 United Nations refugee convention and the seven core United Nations human rights conventions. It is a safe and dynamic country with a thriving economy. It has an excellent record of supporting refugees and vulnerable migrants. The UN has used Rwanda for the relocation of vulnerable migrants from Libya—and this was first funded by the European Union. Many migrants, including refugees, have already built excellent lives in Rwanda. Our partnership is a significant investment in that country and further strengthens our relationship.

A myth still persists that the Home Office’s permanent secretary opposed this agreement. For the record, he did not. Nor did he assert that it is definitely poor value for money. He stated, in his role as accounting officer, that the policy is regular, proper and feasible, but that there is not currently sufficient evidence to demonstrate value for money. As he would be the first to agree, it is for Ministers to take decisions having received officials’ advice. Once the partnership is up and running, he will continue to monitor its efficacy, including value for money.

In June, the first plane was ready to relocate people to Rwanda. Our domestic courts—the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—upheld our right to send the flight.

However, following an order by an out-of-hours judge in the European Court of Human Rights, the flight was cancelled. The European Court of Human Rights did not rule that the policy or relocations were unlawful, but it prohibited the removal of specific people. This was a “without notice” order and the UK was not invited to make representations to oppose it. As a result, we have been unable to operate relocation flights pending ongoing legal proceedings, but we have continued to prepare by issuing notices of intent for those eligible for relocation, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently outlined a comprehensive new approach to illegal migration.

A judicial review was brought against the Rwanda partnership by a number of organisations and individual asylum seekers. The first part of proceedings considered a case that the partnership is unlawful; the second part argued that UK domestic processes under the partnership are unfair; and the third part argued that the policy is contrary to data protection laws. Today in the High Court, in a judgment spanning more than 130 pages, Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift held that it is indeed lawful for the Government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom. The court further held that the relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with the refugee convention and with the statutory and other legal obligations on the Government, including the obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998.

This judgment thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership. Earlier today, I spoke to my Rwandan counterpart, Minister Vincent Biruta, and we confirmed our joint and steadfast resolve to deliver the partnership at scale as soon as possible. It is what the overwhelming majority of the British people want to happen. The sooner it is up and running, the sooner we will break the business model of the evil gangs and bring an end to the illegal, unnecessary and unsafe channel crossings. Now that our courts have affirmed its legality, I invite the Opposition to get behind this plan. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

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

The Government have failed to stop criminal gangs putting lives at risk and proliferating along our borders; they have failed to prosecute or convict the gang members; and they have failed to take basic asylum decisions, which are down by 40% in the last six years. Instead of sorting out those problems, however, they have put forward an unworkable, unethical and extremely expensive Rwanda plan that risks making trafficking worse.

The Home Secretary describes today’s court judgment as a vindication, but I wonder whether she has read it, because it sets out evidence of serious problems in Home Office decision making. It also identifies the significant financial costs of the scheme and the very limited number of people who will be covered, and certainly identifies no evidence that it will act as a deterrent or address the serious problems that we face.

The court concluded that the Home Office’s decision making in each of the eight cases considered was so flawed and chaotic that those individual decisions have had to be quashed. There were cases of literally mixing up evidence and the names of individuals, so the Home Office was making decisions on the wrong people; there was confusion between teams in Glasgow and Croydon about who was deciding what and which information should be shared; and evidence of torture and trafficking was not considered. We also know that the Home Office attempted to send heavily pregnant women to Rwanda.

That is a damning indictment of the decision-making process in the Home Office, which we know is not working because no decision has been made on 98% of the small boat arrivals in the last 12 months. Ministers seem to have decided that they are so incapable of getting a grip on the asylum system and of taking asylum decisions effectively here in the UK that they want to pay a country halfway across the world to take those decisions for us.

On the lawfulness of the decision, the Court accepted that Rwanda does not have the processing capacity, including interpreters and legal support, needed to take asylum decisions, but it concluded that the agreement was still lawful because of two key points: the number of people Rwanda takes will be very limited; and lots more money will be provided by the UK Government. The Home Secretary did not tell us about any of those things. Will she now tell us, first, how many people she expects to send to Rwanda next year? Rwanda has said that it can accommodate 200 people. That is the people from 0.5% of this year’s channel crossings. The Home Office itself has said that there is no evidence that the scheme will act as a deterrent, and that the scheme is unenforceable and has a high risk of fraud.

Secondly, can the Home Secretary tell us the full cost? The Court said that significant additional funding would be provided. The Government have already written Rwanda two cheques this year: one for £120 million, and another this summer for £20 million. Millions more are promised—but how much more? How much will the scheme end up costing per person? It looks as though it will be more than £1 million per person.

Thirdly, the Court judgment says that there is no evidence that the UK Government sought to investigate either the terms of the Rwanda-Israel agreement or the way it had worked in practice. Why on earth not? That agreement was abandoned, and there is evidence that it increased trafficking and the activity of criminal gangs. Convictions for people smuggling have already dropped by 75% in two years; convictions for people trafficking are already pitifully low; and a former chief constable has warned that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will make that worse. Time and again, the Government have failed to tackle the criminal gangs driving the problem, and to make them pay the price. Instead of pursuing this unworkable, unethical, extortionately expensive and deeply damaging policy, the Government should use the money that they are investing in it to go after the gangs that are putting lives at risk. All that they are doing, time and again, is chasing headlines, which is a damaging distraction from the serious hard work that is needed to tackle the gangs and sort out the asylum system.

The Home Secretary has said that the Conservatives are in the last chance saloon. Their policies put them there, and have let the country down. They are always ramping up the rhetoric, and never doing the serious, hard work, or using common sense. Britain deserves better than this. Britain is better than this.

[Suella Braverman]

I am very disappointed by the response from the shadow Home Secretary, and I am concerned that she is seeking to go against a legitimate, rigorous decision set out exhaustively by our independent judiciary, and is still suggesting that this is an illegitimate scheme. We see in the judgment that the scheme is lawful on several grounds. The judgment looked at the legislative authority for the scheme. It looked very closely at the claims that it breached articles 3 and 14 of the European convention on human rights, and article 31 of the refugee convention. It looked closely at whether it was fair, and at whether the right of access to justice was respected. It looked very closely at other public law grounds. On all those claims, the Home Office won. The Court concluded that it was and is lawful for the Government to make arrangements to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda, and for asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda, rather than in the UK. The judgment is a comprehensive analysis of the reasons why.

The right hon. Lady asks about the eight individual cases. We accept the Court’s judgment on those cases. We have already taken steps to strengthen the caseworking process, including revising the information and guidance given to individuals during their assessment for relocation, but we have been clear throughout that no one will be relocated if that is unsafe for them, and support is offered to individuals throughout the process to ensure that it is fair and robust.

The simple truth is that Labour Members have opposed every one of our efforts to deter illegal migration. They opposed the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, life sentences for people smugglers, and the removal of foreign national offenders, including drug dealers and rapists. All they offer is obstruction, criticism, the performative politics of opposition, and magical thinking. What do they actually offer? They say that we should return to the failed Dublin scheme—no matter that it was ineffective, and no matter that the EU does not want it. Labour Members want safe and legal routes as the answer, no matter that this Government have done more than any other in recent history, offering sanctuary to more than 450,000 people by safe and legal routes. No matter that Labour Members cannot define what routes they would stand up themselves, or that our capacity is not unlimited, and that there are more than 100 million people displaced globally. Would Labour give them all a safe and legal route to the UK?

We cannot indulge in fictions. A fundamental reason why Labour Members cannot articulate a plan is that they cannot be honest with the British public about what they really want. The shadow Home Secretary could not even decide whether she would repeal illegal entry, even though she voted against it. Labour’s solution would be to turn our crisis of illegal migration into a crisis of legal migration, with open borders by the back door. Unlimited safe and legal routes are simply open borders masquerading as humanitarianism. Last week the Prime Minister and I announced our plan to tackle small boats. Today the Court affirmed the legality of a central piece of that plan, and tomorrow Labour still will not have a plan.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Although the High Court ruled that the Rwanda policy is lawful, as has been said there were only eight asylum claimants. Those cases have all been set aside by the Court, which said in its ruling that the circumstances of each claimant had not been considered properly. Latest Home Office website figures currently show that more than 160,000 individual cases are outstanding. Furthermore, as the Home Secretary—in whom I have the greatest confidence—stated, the European Court judge who issued the injunction clearly did so without proper consideration of the Rwanda policy, and such rulings do not command our respect.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that for all those reasons it becomes more essential than ever to apply the “notwithstanding” formula to the new legislation that the Prime Minister has announced for mid-January? That must also distinguish in our own law between genuine refugees and illegal economic migrants, not only in the interests of saving life, but also to prevent organised criminality, and to assert UK parliamentary sovereignty, overriding the European convention on human rights, and at the same time dealing comprehensively with the current backlog of those 160,000 outstanding asylum cases.

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The European Court of Human Rights did not rule on the lawfulness of our policy. It did not rule that the policy or relocations were unlawful, but it did none the less prohibit the removal of individuals on the 15 June flight, via interim and injunctive relief. We have a proud tradition of defending fundamental rights in this country, and we will always retain a robust approach to protecting and preserving human rights. However, that does not mean that we will have a migration system that can be abused and exploited by those who do not have legitimate claims to be here. As the Prime Minister announced last week, we will be bringing forward legislation to ensure that we have a robust migration system and secure borders.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

This is a dark day indeed with this judgment, particularly when the Home Secretary comes to the House to imply that having morals is fanciful. Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council has called the policy

“wrong in principle and unworkable in practice”,

and I am certain that this will go to appeal as charities and those involved in the issue have stated. SNP Members will never get behind this policy—not in our name—and I remind Members that slavery, apartheid and marital rape were all lawful at one time, but none of them were right.

The Court found that the Home Office had failed to consider properly the circumstances of the eight who challenged the policy. How exactly does the Home Secretary intend to approach such cases now, and what will happen to those eight individuals? What happens to those who have already been issued with notices of intent, and what confidence can they have in a system that previously did not properly consider the cases of eight people?

The Home Secretary claims that this will be a deterrent. The Tories also claimed that the hostile environment would be a deterrent and that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would be a deterrent. Now they claim the Rwanda policy will be a deterrent. None of them is working because they fail to recognise the desperate circumstances that drive people to come here in the first place. Safe and legal routes will work and prevent people from losing their lives in the channel.

The Home Secretary talked about the trade in human cargo. We all want to tackle the people smugglers who exploit people in the most vulnerable of circumstances. However, what else is the Rwanda policy but state-sponsored people trafficking? How many people are actually going to be removed to Rwanda? It is going to be a tiny proportion, so any deterrent effect that the Government claim is not going to be proper. What is the total cost of this unworkable scheme? How much money has been spent on it already? How much has gone on the legal case? How much of it would have been better spent dealing with the catastrophic backlog of cases that the Tories have created?

[Suella Braverman]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s ideological zeal is blinding and preventing her from taking a rational approach. I am proud of the fact that we have welcomed 450,000 people through safe and legal routes to this country since 2015. I do not think that anyone can claim that we are not forward-leaning on all of this. She and her party need to be honest about their position with the British people: they stand for open borders and uncontrolled migration.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Parliament has legislated, our courts have ruled. We are apparently stopped by a Russian judge, woken from a bar, to issue an injunction. Can this stand?

[Suella Braverman]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Neither the Prime Minister nor I are deterred from delivering on this policy, which is an essential part of our wider plans to break the business model to stop illegal migration. We have a legitimate basis for it. It has been upheld after being rigorously tested in our courts. We will continue to move quickly to honour the will of the British people.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The Home Secretary says that Britain has a proud tradition of supporting asylum seekers. That is true in part, but it is not true under her tenure. She is pursuing a vile policy, which is brutal towards the individuals concerned, and continually tells us that it is illegal to seek asylum. It is not; it is clearly there in all international conventions. Will she for once have a sense of humanity towards people who are desperate and victims of wars, environmental change and human rights abuse—and exploited to boot? Cannot she just hold out a hand of friendship and understanding towards these desperate people, rather than the brutal assertion that she is making?

[Suella Braverman]

The right hon. Gentleman talks regularly about safe and legal routes being a means to an end of illegal arrivals. The reality is that our safe and legal routes have already allowed 450,000 people to come here since 2015, with 300,000 in the last year alone—the highest number that we have seen in several decades. However, that needs to happen in conjunction with deterrent policies if they are to have any effect and if we are to stop the practice of people taking lethal and unlawful journeys across the channel, jumping the queue, undermining the British people’s generosity and breaking the law.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

While the judgment is welcome, it will not solve the problem not just because of the relatively few numbers that can be deported to Rwanda but because each case must be fought individually, and human rights lawyers will fight every single case individually. That is the problem. Surely the only serious way in which we can deter migration across the channel is by having the legal right not just to process people when they arrive on our shores but to arrest them and detain them until their asylum application is dealt with. Does anything in the refugee convention stop us doing that? If not, why are we not doing it? If the Human Rights Act stops us doing it, can we not apply for a notwithstanding clause in our new legislation to deal with that problem?

[Suella Braverman]

This is exactly why the Prime Minister made an announcement last week, and the Immigration Minister and I are working intensively to prepare legislation, which will be introduced next year. It will deliver a scheme along the lines my right hon. Friend describes, whereby if you come here irregularly or illegally—on a small boat, putting yourself and others at risk—you will be detained and swiftly removed to a safe third country or to Rwanda for your asylum claim to be processed.

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

In her statement, the Home Secretary confirmed that the permanent secretary at the Home Office had concerns about the cost and that she overruled him. We have spent £140 million so far and not a single individual has been removed. When the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) was Immigration Minister, he said that the average cost of removing people would be £12,000—something that was not based on any fact. If she is so confident about the scheme that she took a decision to overrule the permanent secretary, will she not today publish all the costs of the scheme, so we can all take a view on whether it is a good use of taxpayers’ money, or whether it is simply a way of fulfilling one of her weird dreams?

[Suella Braverman]

The right hon. Gentleman needs to get his facts right because actually the agreement was struck between my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, and the Rwandan Government. But I support the work she did and the achievement she struck. The agreement represents a long-term policy. It is expected to last for at least five years, and the costs and payments will depend on the number of people relocated, when that happens and the outcomes of the individual cases. Of course, we have been held up by litigation. Once the litigation process comes to an end, we will move quickly to deliver that and deliver value for money.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am saddened that following last week’s tragic events neither the shadow Home Secretary nor the SNP Front Bench are prepared to say that people should not be getting into these boats in the first place. They should be claiming refuge and asylum in one of the 149 convention countries, many of which they will have gone through. I welcome today’s judgment from the High Court. Is it not even better than Rwanda that people stay safe on land in France and do not make the crossings in the first place?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People should not be making this journey, they should not be crossing through other safe countries and they should not be choosing to come to the United Kingdom via those means. The sooner we are able to deliver a policy that reflects that, the better.

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

The courts have been very clear: it is wrong to have a blanket approach to the treatment of refugees, just as it would be wrong to decide that everybody caught speeding could never drive again. What matters is treating each case on its merits. We have seen already how poorly the Government treat refugee children who are here. The Home Secretary talks about being honest, so let us finally have some honest, straight answers. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Home Secretary confirm whether she intends to deport children, or those who are looking after children and are here as refugees to Rwanda? Yes or no—will children be on those flights, Ministers?

[Suella Braverman]

We have been very clear that families are not subject to the Rwandan policy, but the broader point is this. The hon. Member’s reading of the judgment is different from mine. There has been an extensive and exhaustive analysis of the legal claims brought against the Government, and the Court has been pretty emphatic on the legality of the policy. It concluded that the scheme is compliant with our ECHR and refugee obligations.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Two months ago, I visited the Hope hostel in Kigali. Not only was the accommodation of a high standard, but the Rwandans I spoke to expressed hope that those coming would, in due course, obtain jobs and move out to their own homes, thus allowing more refugees to come and take their place. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this policy is not just lawful, but humane in that it offers refugees real hope?

[Suella Braverman]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend reiterates a point dealt with extensively in the body of the judgment. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to that judgment, in which there is a complete analysis of the exact support that people will receive when they are in Rwanda, the monitoring that will go on to ensure that their welfare is safeguarded, and the track record that Rwanda has demonstrated in supporting refugees from the region in previous instances.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is frustrating to sit here and listen to the Secretary of State, because none of us is denying that this is a legal ruling, but whether or not it is lawful, this plan is immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers. Does the Secretary of State agree that, instead of wasting taxpayers’ money on defending the policy through the courts, the Government should focus on stopping these dangerous crossings and tackling smugglers and trafficking by providing more safe and legal routes and sanctuary for refugees? Rather than dealing with the problem after people arrive here, we must deal with it at source so that they are never put in the position where they make a dangerous crossing over the channel.

[Suella Braverman]

As the justices made clear at the beginning of their judgment, they are not opining on the politics or the morality of the Rwanda scheme; they are simply opining on the lawfulness. That is why I have huge confidence in the judgment that has been handed down today.

If we are talking about the broader issues, I gently disagree with the hon. Lady, as the House would imagine. I think that what is actually unacceptable is that her party is peddling a mistruth to the British people. It is saying that we can have an unlimited and open borders policy, that we have unlimited capacity and that everybody is welcome. Unfortunately, the reality is that that is not the case. We have to take a pragmatic, measured and compassionate approach to our migration—that is what is sensible and is required by the British people.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Central to solving the crisis of illegal migration is the prevention of further loss of human life in the English channel, so I welcome not only today’s judgment, but the commitment that my right hon. and learned Friend made in her statement to delivering the Rwanda partnership

“at scale as soon as possible.”

However, it is clear that there will be continued legal challenges to it, either on an individual basis or on a whole-policy basis, so may I push the Home Secretary further on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash): that the legislation coming in the new year, which I look forward to supporting, really must include a “notwithstanding” clause to ensure that we can prevent the further loss of human life in the channel?

[Suella Braverman]

What is essential is that we introduce, consider and pass legislation that will be robust and resilient and actually deliver on our stated political objectives. That will require an exhaustive analysis of the legal methods but, simply put, we are in the process, we are in the sausage machine, as they would put it, so it is not a pretty sight, but nothing is off the table.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary said over the weekend that she is considering leaving the European convention on human rights in order to prevent people from claiming asylum. Is it possible to do that without breaking our commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?

[Suella Braverman]

What I think is clear is that there are evident challenges with the way in which international conventions and agreements relating to migration are working in the 21st century. I think there are legitimate questions that, at an international level, all nation states are grappling with; I have seen that at first hand when I have spoken to my counterparts in the Calais group or other international partners. There is an unprecedented scale of illegal migration and there is unprecedented pressure on domestic resources. I think that looking at how we can forge a new set of agreements to work better together is definitely a reasonable approach.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Were more safe and legal routes to be made available, they would quickly be taken up and the trade in small boats would then continue unabated—wouldn’t it?

[Suella Braverman]

Yes.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Can the Home Secretary assure the House that if someone arrives on the shores at Dover to claim asylum in order to be able to join a child, a spouse or an elderly parent here in the United Kingdom under the right to family life, that individual will not be put on a plane to Rwanda and separated from his or her family for the rest of their lives?

[Suella Braverman]

Anyone arriving here irregularly will be eligible for consideration. We will consider every case on its individual merits. We have excluded families from the scheme, but we will also ensure that the decisions are made on a lawful and rational basis.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I welcome the ruling and the Home Secretary’s comments. It is clear from what we are hearing from Opposition Members that there is a great gulf between their views and those of the vast majority of the British people. Overwhelmingly, my constituents will want to see the Home Secretary’s and the Prime Minister’s proposals implemented as quickly as possible. In particular, there is genuine concern about the speed of the processing of the many cases. Although additional staff are being taken on, the pitiful number of cases with which they are dealing each week needs to be dramatically increased. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that action is being taken to ensure that that happens?

[Suella Braverman]

Processing asylum claims is one core element of meeting the challenge more broadly. That is why it is right that we are increasing the number of caseworkers, increasing their specialism and streamlining the process. Ultimately, we want to bear down on the number of people waiting for a decision from the Home Office.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Home Secretary says that she is taking a deterrent approach, but it is plain that today’s judgment cannot and will not function as a so-called deterrent. The whole point of this vile policy of expelling asylum seekers to Rwanda is that expulsion was supposed to happen automatically and rapidly for anyone without a prior permission to come here via a refugee scheme. However, today’s High Court judgment found that each and every individual case must be assessed first, so there will be nothing automatic about it, and under this Government there will be nothing rapid about it either. Will the Home Secretary therefore put a permanent end to this useless cruelty, provide safe and legal routes, and ensure that such routes actually function? The one from Afghanistan currently does not.

Will the Home Secretary also stop saying that this policy has the support of the British people? According to a recent YouGov poll, just 10% of them support it. The British people are better than this vile British Government.

[Suella Braverman]

I think the reality is that we are supported in taking control of our borders. That was reflected in both the 2016 referendum and the 2019 general election. We have made it clear that we will do whatever it takes to ensure that we make progress on stopping illegal migration, bring an end to this lethal journey, and, ultimately, restore integrity to our immigration system.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I welcome today’s judgment, but I find it deeply frustrating that one isolated judge can delay this process for six or seven months. Will the Home Secretary give me some sense of the timescales following the judgment? When will the first flights take off? That is what we all want to see happening, and my constituents will begin to rest easy when they can see those flights taking off.

We will probably have to strike agreements with other countries. Can the Home Secretary assure me that when we do strike such agreements, they will not be delayed in the way in which this has been delayed, and we will not go through exactly the same motions, which take oh, so long?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is right. We have always maintained that this policy is lawful, and today the court has upheld that. We know that further legal challenges are possible, and we will continue to defend this policy vigorously in the courts. However, once the litigation process has come to an end, we will move swiftly in order to be in a position to operationalise the policy and deliver on our promise.

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

Can I caution the Home Secretary gently against getting overexcited about a decision at first instance? Often, important constitutional decisions at first instance are overturned on appeal. A recent example was when the last Prime Minister but one unlawfully prorogued Parliament. I think an appeal is inevitable. In the meantime, removals to Rwanda cannot take place because of the interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights. Perhaps she would like to explain to some of her Back Benchers the concept of an interim order issued by a judge sitting alone to preserve the status quo, which happens, I believe, in English law regularly by way of injunction.

The Home Secretary seems to be implying that she will obtemper the order of the European Court of Human Rights issued under article 34 of the convention, which the United Kingdom is bound by. I know she is not a great fan of the convention, and a lot of her Back Benchers are asking her about the notwithstanding clause, so is it her intention to domestically legislate her way out of our international treaty obligations?

[Suella Braverman]

It is not appropriate for me to speculate on the claimants’ response or whether there will be any appeals following today’s judgment. We welcome today’s findings and we will vigorously defend any appeal on the substantive matters of the lawfulness of the policy. We have been clear that, in designing and introducing our legislation next year, we will have to ensure that it is sufficiently robust to promote a scheme to ensure that if people arrive here illegally, they will be detained and swiftly removed to a safe country for your asylum claim to be processed.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents welcome the High Court judgment and want the relocation flights to Rwanda to take off as soon as possible. They will be very concerned to hear that they could be subject to further judicial delay. Could the Home Secretary outline to my constituents how long she anticipates that judicial delay will be? When can I tell my constituents that the flights will take off?

[Suella Braverman]

The reality of litigation is that there are appeal rights. There is a hearing on 16 January, in which the claimants and the Home Office will make representations on any applications to appeal. The court will decide the next steps, if any, in UK litigation. I am considering the Home Office’s position with my legal team, so it would not be appropriate to discuss our strategy in the meantime. There is a hearing on 16 January to consider appeal applications.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. and learned Lady tries very hard to find a way forward and a solution, which I acknowledge, and I defer to the High Court ruling. I say with great respect to the right hon. and learned Lady that, clearly, we have a duty of care. Along with many others in this House and in the nation, I do not believe that the scheme fulfils our moral obligation. Should other ways of dealing with the situation be identified, such as better regulation of the English channel, better processes in France or more acceptable ways of migration, will it be reconsidered? There has to be a more compassionate approach.

[Suella Braverman]

The solution involves a multifaceted approach. That is why we are working closely with the French. I was pleased to strike an agreement last month with my French counterpart to bolster co-operation on the channel, and information and intelligence sharing. For the first time ever, UK Border Force officials are working hand in hand with our French counterparts. That is why I have worked closely with other Interior Ministers from European nations on similar issues. That is why we need to work on our asylum backlog and introduce legislation. The Rwanda scheme is one element of a multidimensional programme. We need all elements to work in tandem.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

As the Home Secretary knows, Stoke-on-Trent has already done more than its fair share, and this has put huge pressure on our local public services, so does she agree that it is really important that we now get on with delivering this policy and get on with those flights as soon as possible?

[Suella Braverman]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, his Stoke parliamentary colleagues, the local authorities and all those involved in supporting asylum seekers in Stoke. I know that a high number of people are currently accommodated in his area. It is therefore vital that we stop people coming in the first place, and delivering the Rwanda partnership is key to making that happen.

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is the super-rich and those on luxury yachts, not small boats, that people should be scared of. Asylum seekers are people just like us; they have hopes, dreams and aspirations. This policy could be legally sound but it is immoral and a waste of taxpayers’ money. This cruel Government should be ashamed of themselves. The Home Secretary said in her statement:

“This judgment thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership…It is what the overwhelming majority of the British people want to happen.”

Of course, the Rwanda partnership was not in the Tory manifesto, so can she evidence this support from people across all four nations wanting the Rwanda deal? Scotland certainly does not, and Scotland will continue to reject these xenophobic policies.

[Suella Braverman]

The reality is that stopping people taking the journey in the first place is the compassionate and pragmatic approach. It delivers for the British people, but it also sends a message to the people smugglers, the human traffickers and those who are deliberately taking the journey to come here for illegitimate means, not to do so. That is the sensible approach.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I welcome the judgment today that confirms that the Government’s policy is legal and will be a step forward to implementing what the Prime Minister said last week. The Home Secretary is right to say that we need to break the business model of the people smugglers. Does she agree that it is not enough just to go after the supply, even though those people are immoral and parasitic, and that we also need to destroy the demand for these journeys in the first place? The way we will achieve that is by making it clear that those that come by boat will not be allowed to stay in this country. That is what worked in Australia, and that is what will work here.

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have met Australian officials who were involved in the design of their sovereign borders programme, and they say that once they were able to remove illegal entrants to Papua New Guinea or Nauru, they saw a dramatic change in the numbers of people attempting the journey in the first place. That is the model on which our Rwanda scheme is based.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

If every country took this Government’s approach, this Rwanda approach, the countries that already host the overwhelming majority of refugees—the Jordans, the Lebanons, the Pakistans and the Ugandas of this world; the first countries—would be required to host all of them, while wealthy western countries such as the United Kingdom could pick and choose if and when they wanted to help out. What this Government are arguing for is an end to the international system of refugee protection, is it not?

[Suella Braverman]

I really disagree with the moral high ground that the hon. Member seems to be taking, in the light of Scotland’s paltry record on taking asylum seekers. It has refused to take anybody who has come here on a small boat, and that is unacceptable.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the statement today and the judgment, but will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that she will continue to use every tool in her power to stop these boats? As we can see, the Opposition and the human rights lawyers will try to stop the good work that the Secretary of State is doing, but the people of Doncaster are tired of been taken advantage of by these illegal immigrants. Will she confirm that she will continue to use every power that she has?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend speaks not only for the people of Doncaster but for the people of Britain in expressing the sentiment that the British people are tired and want this problem to be fixed. It is only this Government who are going to do it.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

How many of the people who were pulled from the channel last week does the Home Secretary think should be sent to Rwanda?

[Suella Braverman]

The incident last week was tragic. People died. Precious human lives were lost. People had been exploited and took a journey that was unlawful, lethal and, in the end, tragic. That is what we want to bring to an end.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

The High Court found that the Home Office has to consider an asylum seeker’s particular circumstances before deporting them to Rwanda. Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that this defeats the scheme’s original purpose, which was to have applications assessed in Rwanda under Rwandan law? As such, will she reconsider?

[Suella Braverman]

The judgment is very clear that our arrangement, under which people will be relocated to Rwanda for their asylum claim to be processed and for them to be resettled there, has been found to be lawful. There was an extensive analysis of all the potential legal claims that could render it unlawful, and the Home Office won.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for responding to questions for more than 50 minutes.