Crime and Policing Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

When it was people like me proposing it, it was regarded as comical, but now Idris Elba is in favour of it, as well as experts across the field. I pay tribute to not just those celebrities, but victims and experts, particularly those on the Safer Knives group, of which I am member. It looks at the legal, medical and psychological effects of knife crime, and suggests practical ways of not eliminating but reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries.

New clause 25 seeks to repeal draconian police powers relating to unauthorised encampments. Those powers were introduced to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which became law under the previous Government. These punitive and hostile powers led to the victimisation of Romani, Gypsy and Irish Travellers, who are among the most marginalised groups in UK society.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am clear that Traveller and minority groups absolutely do have rights, but they also have responsibilities. When this law was put in place, there was good reason for it: to redress some of the imbalance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that repealing this law would leave our communities unprotected against unauthorised Traveller encampments? In areas like mine, the police became involved in a game of cat and mouse. Excrement, litter and worse was left in our communities. Would not a repeal leave the police with no powers to tackle the issue?

[Andy Slaughter]

I am afraid that is the sort of nonsense that I hear a lot of the time. Let me read to the right hon. Lady some of the measures that were in force before the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act was passed: temporary stop notices, injunctions to protect land from unauthorised encampments, licensing of caravan sites, possession orders, interim possession orders, local byelaws, the local authority power to direct unauthorised campers to leave land, addressing obstructions to the public highway, planning contravention notices, enforcement notices and retrospective planning, stop notices, breach of condition notices, powers of entry on to land, power of the police to direct unauthorised campers to leave land, and police powers to direct trespassers to an alternative site. That was the position before that Act came into effect. There were ample powers to deal with these matters.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Andy Slaughter]

No, I will not give way again. Frankly, I found the right hon. Lady’s last intervention a bit beyond the pale, so I am not giving her another opportunity. I am afraid that the sort of information she peddles leads to the situation that we are in. The constant threat of criminalisation of nomadic lifestyles has a devastating impact on families. That is why human rights campaigners and international bodies, including the Council of Europe and the United Nations, have raised concerns about the legality of the provisions that I am addressing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 130 to strengthen the law on tool theft.

In early May this year, I joined police officers from Sidcup and Havering in a raid to uncover stolen tools at a boot sale in east London. Unlicensed boot sales are notorious for selling stolen goods. However, I was still astounded by what officers found. As they arrived in police vans and unmarked cars, there was a flurry of action among some traders: stolen goods were hidden, a van tried to flee and the keys to vehicles crowded with tools were suddenly lost. But the police had struck quickly and in numbers. Stolen tools were uncovered across traders’ stalls, six arrests were made and, eventually, officers struck the mother lode—a van overflowing with stolen tools.

The raid took officers to a second site, where even more stolen tools were uncovered. Over 1,650 stolen tools were found, worth around half a million pounds, on just one day. Officers were even able to return some marked tools to their owners. The raid shows why tradespeople must mark their tools properly. If they are marked with the likes of DNA tagging, the police can easily prove they are stolen and lock up the thieves responsible. They can also return the stolen tools to the hard-working tradespeople across the country.

But marking tools alone will not stop tool theft. Vans are being broken into in broad daylight and tools sold openly across the country. It is a disgrace. The law must change to punish the thieves responsible and crack down on the boot sales driving the crime wave. That is why I encourage all Members to support new clause 130, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). First, it would increase fines to better match the severity of the crime, reflecting the cost of replacing tools and repairing damage to vans and of lost work.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that accepting the amendment is one way in which the Government could reach out to businesses and traders and show that they are on the side of local businesses and the people who get up every morning and go out to work—in effect, “white van man”—for whom tools are key to being able to do the job, as are the farm implements that are also subject to theft?

[Mr French]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her vital contribution. We must back the makers, not the law breakers, whether they are “white van men” or rural farmers who are having their tools stolen. The impact on their ability to go to work is significant, but it also has an impact on their families because of their ability to buy food and other goods. We must back the makers and not the law breakers.

Secondly, the Bill would impose tougher sentences on thieves by recognising the seriousness of the crime. Finally, it would require councils to create an enforcement plan to stop the sale of stolen tools at boot sales. These are all necessary changes to help stop tool theft across the country.

Tradespeople and industry cannot afford parliamentary dither and delay. As campaigners, tradespeople, policing experts and industry have told us, action is needed now. Every 12 minutes, a van is broken into and tools are stolen, costing tradespeople thousands of pounds, hurting their mental health and stopping them from earning a living.

Crime and Policing Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend puts that very well. Attacks on retail workers are totally unacceptable. The Co-op and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have done important work to highlight this issue and ensure that measures on it will be enacted through the Bill.

The previous Conservative Government wrote off a number of the crime types I have just talked about as low-level crime, and allowed them to spiral out of control. At the same time, they decimated local neighbourhood policing teams, causing untold damage to our communities, as we all know.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

On neighbourhood policing, I welcome the fact that we have some extra capacity coming into the west midlands, but I have not yet had clarification on whether the money that is coming to the west midlands will cover all the extra national insurance costs. The Labour police and crime commissioner is already saying that his budgets are underfunded under the Labour Government.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The right hon. Lady and I have had this discussion before, and I have made it very clear that the national insurance increases have been funded through the money that is available to police forces this year. That is in stark contrast to the situation under the previous Government, who did not make a proper allocation for the police pay award for last year. This Government had to supplement it when we came into power in July.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I would like to express my appreciation to all those who have worked on the legislation to develop and shape the policies, whether they be the majority developed under the previous Conservative Government or members of the Bill team, who I am sure have provided helpful assistance to Ministers. As I am sure we will hear today, some of the measures in the Bill are the result of amazing people who have suffered the worst experiences, but who have worked to ensure that others do not have to suffer them in future.

In addition, considering the context of the legislation, it is right to pay tribute to the excellent work of police officers across the country. Week in, week out, those serving in our police forces put themselves in harm’s way to keep our streets safe. Those who serve and place themselves in danger cannot be thanked enough. Many people ask themselves whether they would have the bravery to stand up and intervene. Officers across the country do so on a daily basis. Thanks to the efforts of the previous Conservative Government, the police force numbered over 149,000 officers in 2024, with 149,769 recorded in March 2024. This was the highest number of officers, on both full-time equivalent and headcount basis, since comparable records began in March 2003.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out those policing numbers. Does he share my concern about the additional police officers we are getting? When I look at our figures for the west midlands, the boost is coming from deployments. I worry about where they are actually coming from and just how much of an increase we are really going to see.

[Matt Vickers]

I wholeheartedly agree. There are a lot of concerns about the neighbourhood policing guarantee and where the resource comes from: whether it is through specials or volunteers—of course, we want to see more of them—or redeployments. When people ring 999, they want to know that they are going to get the response they expected. They do not want to see that depleted to move officers from one bucket to the next. That has real consequences. The biggest hit to our police force numbers at the moment will be the national insurance rise—the tax that is taxing police off our streets.

--- Later in debate ---

On fly-tipping, people across the country are rightly furious to see tossers and fly-tippers dumping waste on our streets and green spaces. They are all too aware of the impact on our environment, wildlife and the ability of others to enjoy communal areas. Amendment 174 recognises the scourge that littering and fly-tipping represent across the country. According to figures compiled by DEFRA for 2023-24, local authorities in England dealt with 1.15 million incidents of fly-tipping, and are estimated to spend more than £11 million of taxpayers’ money cleaning it up each year. That money would be better spent on frontline services.

[Wendy Morton]

According to Keep Britain Tidy, littering and fly-tipping cost the country £1 million a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is money that could go to frontline services, so it is about time we took more stringent measures to change behaviour, along with some good enforcement?

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. A small minority wreak havoc on our countryside and our streets, and create absolute chaos. That is what this amendment is about: tougher sanctions to divert people from doing such mindless things.

The money wasted every year on cleaning up would be better spent on frontline services, such as filling potholes or providing community services. Instead, it is used to clean up after those who have no respect for others or for our natural environment. The most common location for fly-tipping is on pavements and roads, which accounted for 37% of all incidents in 2023-24. The majority—59%—involved small van-sized dumps, or an amount of waste that could easily fit in a car boot. It is therefore logical to conclude that a significant majority of fly-tipping incidents stem from vehicles. Using a vehicle to dump a van full or a boot full of waste should come with real consequences, and the people who do it should feel that in their ability to use their vehicle, as well as through financial penalties. The previous Government increased fines for fly-tipping from £400 to £1,000, but we can go further to deter people from dumping on the doorsteps of others. The amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult on the establishment of a scheme of driving licence penalty points for fly-tippers and those who toss rubbish from vehicles.

In Committee, the Minister pledged to engage with DEFRA on this issue. By passing this amendment, we could go further by committing to undertake a consultation to develop a workable and effective scheme. For the benefit of all those who want to be able to enjoy their green spaces, and for our environment and the wildlife that suffers at the hands of fly-tippers and those who toss waste, I urge Members to support the amendment. Let us send a message to the mindless minority who wreak havoc on our green spaces.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the attention of the House to amendments 167, 168, 170 and 171, which, among other Conservative proposals, aim to strengthen respect orders. We have heard the Minister speak both in Committee and in the Chamber of the role these orders can play in tackling antisocial behaviour. The success of the policy will be contingent on its effective enforcement by the police, and on perpetrators being aware that they will face tough sanctions if they breach the orders. I hope the Government will continue to consider these amendments.

I draw Members’ attention to these amendments as they are indicative of the constructive approach Conservative Members have taken towards improving the Bill in ways that we believe would benefit the legislation as a whole. I hope that Members across the House will give serious consideration to our amendments and new clauses over the coming two days.

The Minister and I have spent more time together than she probably ever envisaged, and I believe we can agree that the Bill contains some sensible and proportionate measures: greater protections for our retail workers, efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour, and more measures to tackle vile and horrendous child exploitation. However, we can work together to go further, and that is what our Opposition amendments seek to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank the hon. Member for all the work he has done on this important issue through tabling the amendment, not just now but in Committee. I do not want to put words into the Minister’s mouth, but I am pretty sure she will be able to articulate some of those officials’ views back to him when summing up. However, I want to ask the Minister, as I am sure the hon. Member and other colleagues would want to, that, as we go through this process—and given that she cares so passionately about this issue—she continues to test that understanding with officials. We owe it to Sarah and the many other victims of spiking to ensure that we get this right. I know the Minister is as determined as I am to ensure that happens, and I really hope that as a result we can fully test officials’ understanding and that view before we finally get the Bill into law, to ensure that we are taking the fullness of action needed to tackle spiking.

That fullness of action is important, because the issues that Sarah encountered and the challenges that far too many people face from spiking right across the country are not ones that we can solve with legislation alone. That is an important part of why we are acting by bringing forward a new clause today, and why we are discussing amendment 19.

If the Bill is finally passed and finally brings forward that specific offence that so many of us have been looking for, I hope that it will not be the end of the story. I hope the Minister will be able to bring forward further action, working closely with police chiefs and commissioners, to ensure that this is drilled into their strategic visions as part of our national strategy to reduce violence against women and girls.

We need to make sure that forces appropriately prioritise spiking cases, that officers are appropriately trained to encounter them and take them seriously, ensuring that deadlines around collecting CCTV are not missed before crucial evidence is deleted. We need to ensure that right across the country, there is not a single force that is not taking this issue with the seriousness that it deserves. I will certainly be reaching out to both my police and crime commissioners to urge them to do exactly that, and I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts about how this Government can make sure that we use all the powers and tools at our disposal to ensure that police forces are doing so too.

If we are to deter possible perpetrators of this crime, it is important that the severity of this new legislation and the new penalties are well understood, too. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure that we are disseminating the action we are underlining today, and hopefully bringing into law in due course, to ensure that right across the country no one is under any illusions that spiking is not a deeply serious offence. It will be treated as such by this Government and by the police, who will go after them with the full force of the law.

For far too long, victims like Sarah and far too many people—typically women—right across the country have been left exposed to spiking. They have been left feeling like they are victims and left to go through their experiences alone. Fantastic organisations like Spike Aware UK have done all they can to champion their cause, to bring them together, to mobilise and to reinforce the need for change, but it is only through action nationally and delivering through our police forces right across the country that we can finally do justice to the severity of this issue and to the passionate campaigning of constituents like Sarah, who for far too long have felt that they have been suffering alone. I am glad to see this legislation coming forward and to see this specific spiking offence included. I look forward to working with the Minister to ensure that we can deliver it in as ambitious a way as possible.

[Wendy Morton]

As we have heard, the Bill is broad in scope. Before I turn to the couple of amendments that I support, I want to recognise that the Bill’s scope is evidenced by the breadth and number of amendments and new clauses. It is worth gently reminding ourselves that a number of the measures were carried over from the Criminal Justice Bill, which sadly fell due to the general election almost a year ago, though there are obviously new clauses and amendments. I hope the Minister is in listening mode, in change mode and is willing to work across the House, and I hope that she accepts some of these amendments, because they would go a long way to further improving this legislation.

I have read through the Bill, and much of it goes right to the heart of the communities we seek to serve and represent. There are topics in the Bill that regularly pop up in my inbox and I am sure into colleagues’ inboxes as well. I want to cover two specific areas. The first is fly-tipping and littering—an issue that I have spoken about on many occasions in this Chamber since I was first elected. I support the amendments and new clauses tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).

In an intervention earlier, I touched on the cost of littering to the country. I think I said that it was £1 million, but I meant £1 billion; I hope that can be firmly corrected, because it is a big difference. The principle is the same—it is money that could go back into our communities—but £1 billion spent on managing littering and fly-tipping is a huge amount of money that could otherwise buy a huge amount of services for constituencies up and down the country.

[Lola McEvoy]

Does the right hon. Lady’s calculation of £1 billion account for how people feel, for the degradation of pride in areas where people fly-tip, and for the failure of local services to be able to afford to collect and clean up rubbish tips on the side of our roads? I wonder if there is a multiplier effect in how people feel about their areas because of all this fly-tipping.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. There is a social and community cost that is difficult to evaluate. I am fortunate to have some fantastic volunteers and groups, including the Wombles group, that go out and litter pick. I do not mind going out and helping when I can. There is a great sense of a community coming together, but nothing is more frustrating than litter picking a street, walking back and finding that one of the tossers has just tossed some more litter out of their car.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I do not think the right hon. Member was pointing at her shadow Minister when she was accusing somebody of being a litter tosser—I think it was just a dramatic gesture, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), does the right hon. Member agree that when people see potholes unfilled, litter uncollected, overgrown verges and general disrepair—when they are walking through decline—they feel hopeless, not just about their communities, in which they take such pride, but about the ability of their council and elected officials to act on their most immediate priorities? Does she agree that when we restore pride in place by fixing these problems, we help to create a confidence that politics can deliver a better community?

[Wendy Morton]

That is an important point about pride in where we live and about hope. As I travel around the country, I often take a mental note of the number of potholes I drive across; there is a noticeable difference from one authority to another. I have to say that Walsall is quite good at the moment when it comes to filling potholes.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about litter and communities. My local authority of late has been successfully prosecuting some litterbugs. I have seen a couple of examples on social media just this week of individuals who have been treating the high street in Pelsall as their own personal litter bin, and the local authority has gone after them and fined them. That sends a strong message, but there is more we can do. Although much of this is about clearing up after these people, we also need deterrence to stop this happening. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect for the community and antisocial behaviour, for want of a better word, and it is a burden that we should not expect the taxpayer to keep shouldering. We have reached something of a tipping point, and we need to do something more than letting people walk away with a slap on the wrist.

Whether it is bin strikes, as we have seen in Birmingham, rural fly-tipping or littering, a lot of our communities feel absolutely fed up and overwhelmed, and they want action. I support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister because, taken together, they form a serious and joined-up response that would help to protect and support not only our communities and those who want to keep them clean, but the local environment and wildlife too.

Similarly, it is often local farmers who face the burden of fly-tipping. When fly-tipping happens on their land, the cost of removing it falls to them. It hardly seems fair that they are left to foot the bill for waste that they did not create. Amendment 172, on clean-up costs, seeks to address that. I have heard time and again from frustrated landowners and farmers that the system often punishes the victims of fly-tipping, not the perpetrators.

[Lola McEvoy]

Does the right hon. Lady have any thoughts on the idea that people who hire somebody privately to take away their rubbish are often being held accountable for that third-party company dumping the rubbish illegally? People are at a loss to know what they are supposed to do.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes another important point about tackling waste crime—I think that is the technical phrase for it. Again, that is something that I see locally. Enforcement matters, but there also has to be strong reminder—I hate to use the word “education”, so perhaps “reminder” is best—to our constituents: if somebody comes to you and says they will clear your rubbish away, your need to think carefully about where they are putting that rubbish. In my constituency, fridges and mattresses have been dumped. I was driving down Bridle Lane last year and saw a whole lorry or van-load of rubbish that had been fly-tipped in the middle of the road. That meant that the road had to be blocked. That is outrageous and it needs to stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I rise to support amendment 19, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I hope that the Minister listened to the compelling case that my hon. Friend made, and to the compelling case made by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on the issue of spiking more generally.

I want to put on record my support for my constituents, Colin and Mandy Mackie, and their organisation, Spike Aware UK. I do not think any of us can fully comprehend their experience: the police knocked on their door to tell them that their 18-year-old son had died at college from a drug overdose, but they subsequently found out that his non-alcoholic drink had been spiked by five ecstasy tablets. As other Members have said, there was no support or help for the family in that situation. The police assumed that he had died of a drug overdose although they did not know that, and they subsequently apologised to the Mackies for their treatment of them.

What I particularly admire about Colin and Mandy is how they have focused their efforts on ensuring that their experience is not shared by anyone else. That is why I very much welcome the inclusion of spiking in the Bill, which is a continuation from the Criminal Justice Bill introduced in the previous Parliament. The point to be made is about certainty, and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East brings certainty to the situation. I have been in this House with previous Ministers who have been told by officials that spiking was already covered by legislation, and therefore there was no need for specific mention of spiking.

[Wendy Morton]

On that point, will my right hon. Friend give way?

[David Mundell]

Given the strictures on time, I had better not.

Previous Ministers said that there was no need for specific legislation on spiking, because it was already covered. Campaigning, including by your colleague, Madam Deputy Speaker, the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), and by my former colleague, Richard Graham, demonstrated that there was a need for a specific measure, and that if we are going to have a specific measure, it needs to bring certainty.

Part of that certainty is for the benefit of the police and others. The police should know that that reckless behaviour is also a crime, and there should not be any dubiety when they arrive at a venue to find someone in a partially conscious state or unable to articulate what has happened to them. It will also allow campaigning to be clear that whatever the circumstances, a drink is spiked or a person is injected, and that is a crime. Amendment 19—or perhaps another amendment that the Government might bring forward in the other place—would bring clarity, which is important. That is what we need to bring about. As the hon. Member for Hitchin said, that can lead to the greater training of the police and NHS workers to be able to support people in a spiking situation. I hope the Minister will reflect on everything that has been said today.

The final point I will make relates particularly to Scotland. We need to have a common approach across the UK; it should not matter whether somebody is spiked in Glasgow, Manchester or Cardiff. That is not to disrespect the devolution settlement and the different approaches of the criminal justice system. The effect and the impact should be the same wherever people are, and the criminality should most certainly be the same, whether the behaviour is intentional or reckless.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

T6. Since taking office almost a year ago, the Home Secretary has spectacularly failed to put a cap on illegal immigration or a deterrent in place, and this weekend’s record number of boat crossings demonstrates that she has clearly completely failed to take control of our borders. What can she say in all honesty to my constituents about her plan, because clearly it is not working?

[Yvette Cooper]

Given that the right hon. Member was a member of the previous Government, her question might be rather more plausible if she apologised for the 100-fold increase in small boat crossings under her Government’s watch and for the quadrupling of net migration as a result of the policies that she supported in government. If she wants to support stronger action against illegal migration and the gangs that are organising it, why will she not support the counter-terrorism powers that this Government are putting in place to go after them?

Immigration System

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of trust and confidence, because when people feel that the system is not working or is not under control, or that there is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality, trust is undermined. For generations, people have valued the work of those who have come to the UK in order to work, contribute, study and be part of communities, but it has to be controlled and managed. It has not been controlled and managed, and that has undermined confidence too.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I know a gimmick when I see one, and we have seen one here today. The Home Secretary says that net migration must come down, but she does not say to what level or by when. What does she think the cap should be?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am not sure the right hon. Lady’s Front-Bench team can answer that question. We have made clear that net migration needs to reduce substantially. We had years of targets from the previous Government which all failed and were all over the place, which undermines confidence. We should address the issue of confidence by taking a different approach: step by step, we will make progress and deliver, rather than just adding to the talk and the rhetoric.

Crime and Policing Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady makes an important point about neighbourhood policing. Does she agree that local police stations should be integral to this plan?

[Yvette Cooper]

Local police stations are a matter for local forces, but they can be a central part of neighbourhood policing, which, sadly, has been heavily cut back in recent years. In fact, in many areas of the country, neighbourhood policing has been cut by a third or nearly half. At the heart of the Government’s plan is rebuilding neighbourhood policing.

We plan to put 13,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on the beat over the course of this Parliament, kick-started with £200 million of funding in the next financial year. We will reverse the damage done by the Conservative Government through years of cuts to community police. There are half as many PCSOs as there were 14 years ago, and many thousands fewer neighbourhood police officers. Some 54% of people say that they never see an officer on the beat—that figure has doubled since 2010, as too many neighbourhood police have just disappeared.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

There is much in this Bill that I welcome, because of course it was announced by the last Government. However, this Government need to go further, and we will push them to do so.

A major part of the Bill is its increased focus on neighbourhood policing, which is commendable. I have always advocated in this Chamber for greater levels of neighbourhood policing on our streets and more visible policing in our communities. I pay tribute to my own neighbourhood policing team in Aldridge-Brownhills, who serve my local community day in, day out. They are truly locally based officers who care about our local community, and I thank them for all they do on our behalf.

Sadly, my neighbourhood policing team will soon find itself without a permanent, dedicated home, because the Labour police and crime commissioner has decided to sell off the family silver right across the west midlands. As well as selling off the police station in Aldridge in my patch, he is selling our next nearest police station in Sutton Coldfield. He has already sacrificed the next nearest one in Kingstanding—that building is going to become a Domino’s Pizza takeaway. The Government want more police officers. That is great, but in the west midlands, their own police and crime commissioner does not want to house them. It is unacceptable that police stations across the west midlands are slowly being phased out, diminishing the role of neighbourhood policing, all at a time when more power is being sucked towards central Birmingham and the PCC headquarters at Lloyd House.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Wendy Morton]

I will not, because of time.

That headquarters has benefited from a staggering £33 million-worth of upgraded decoration as a result of local communities losing their local police stations—including the former Brownhills police station—in phase 1 of the closure programme. Surely, that is not right.

I draw the Minister’s attention to several written parliamentary questions to which I do not believe I have received a full answer—in particular, my question concerning the funding of the proposed 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers. While those new officers are welcome, as I have stated, the Government have not yet fully said how they will be funded after the first year, so I would be grateful for clarity on that. It is imperative that there is certainty that those are fully funded new officers who will be added to base budgets for future years, not a one-off Government expenditure, after which the local taxpayer will pick up the tab through an increase in the precept.

The Government face similar questions regarding their decision to fund national insurance increases. Once again, they have been circumspect in their responses to my questions in Westminster Hall and to written parliamentary questions. It is very important that the Minister comes clean today and clarifies that the grant given to police authorities to cover the Chancellor’s job tax is not just a one-off, but will be added to those authorities’ base budgets. As the Minister is very aware, if that is not the case, this will be yet another stealth tax by the back door by this Government, punishing our constituents.

There is so much in the Bill that I would like to talk about, but before I conclude I will touch briefly on knife crime. I welcome the Government’s commitment to halving knife crime, which comes on the back of a series of measures passed by the last Conservative Government. Sadly, in 2017, my constituent James Brindley lost his life to knife crime in Aldridge. Since then, his parents have dedicated their lives to helping eradicate the scourge of knife crime. They have established the James Brindley Foundation to help educate young people across the borough of Walsall to turn their backs on carrying a knife. Back in August 2022, I was really proud to be present at the unveiling of one of a number of knife bins across the borough, funded through that foundation with help from local businesses and sponsors. James’s parents have a simple ask, and I will be a bit cheeky and press the Minister on it today: will she work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to see whether knife crime prevention could be considered for inclusion in the national curriculum?

My constituents demand safety, which is why the last Conservative Government fully funded 20,000 new police officers. We welcome the 13,000 new police officers, but my constituents want them to be fully funded and housed in the neighbourhood. The Bill fails to give all the guarantees that I am looking for. On that basis, I hope the Minister can provide me with some clarity when she sums up the debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend and neighbouring MP makes a valid point; £3.7 million is the equivalent of about 67 police officers. That is a recurring expense, not a one-off. In places such as Devon and Cornwall, the police will face a £6.3 million tax bill each year. Greater Manchester will be hit with a whopping extra tax bill of £11.9 million each year. Those are just a few examples, and the list goes on.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The estimated cost for the west midlands is in the region of £12.8 million, which is a huge amount of money. What this Government do not seem to understand is that when the pressure of national insurance is put on to businesses, people cannot squeeze and squeeze profit margins; in the end, that will impact employment, training, and so on. When it comes to the public sector, if we keep squeezing and squeezing, the money has to come from somewhere. Does that mean reduced public services—fewer police officers, as in this case—or will the burden come back on the taxpayer?

[Esther McVey]

My right hon. Friend might have hit on a point, as the burden could well come back to the taxpayer. Remember that this is tax—it is money that will be going on tax, and a bill that the Government are imposing. However we look at it, it is money that the frontline police service are being deprived of. Let us consider the financial burden that the changes will place on the police force. Employer national insurance contributions represent a significant cost for everyone, but they will hit the police especially hard. For police forces that employ a number of police officers and staff to protect our communities, the cumulative cost of the increase will run well into the tens of millions of pounds. To put that into perspective, take West Yorkshire, where the figure of £11.2 million per year is the equivalent of 220 police officers. That is potentially 220 fewer police officers keeping our communities safe as a direct result of the Government’s Budget.

Let me name a few other places, such as my home area of Merseyside—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—Thank you very much indeed. It will be paying an extra tax bill every year of £7 million, which is roughly 130 police officers. Kent will be paying more than £6 million, which is about 100 police officers a year, and Thames Valley police will face an £8 million tax bill every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate. She recently highlighted the significant increase in costs to police forces resulting from the Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions. I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to our local neighbourhood police teams for their dedicated work in supporting citizens and communities across my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency. They protect the public, help tackle crime at the grassroots level, and often go way above and beyond.

Let me turn to the impact of the increased employer national insurance contributions on police forces. Tempting though it is, I will refrain from delving into the decision by the Labour police and crime commissioner to close and sell off the police station in Aldridge. However, I want to make it clear to my constituents that I will continue to stand up for them and for our share of policing resources.

According to HMRC’s impact assessment, the Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions—I would actually call them choices—will affect approximately 1.2 million employers, which, as we have heard today, includes police authorities. It is my understanding that for the West Midlands specifically, this policy choice—let us remember that that is what it is—will cost a staggering £12.8 million. In my view, that is £12.8 million that should be spent on frontline policing, especially if this Government are genuinely serious about tackling crime. If an average officer’s wage is, say, £35,000, by my calculations that £12.8 million could fund the equivalent of an additional 365 police officers just in one policing authority area alone.

Last week, I raised that issue in the Chamber with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), particularly because she seemed a little unaware of the cost. I was left unclear about its local impact. I ask the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention to confirm whether the funds awarded to police authorities for the upcoming financial year to cover increased national insurance costs will be added to base budgets, or is this a one-off grant? In addition, has the new funding for the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers promised in the Labour party manifesto taken into account the additional burden of national insurance increases from April?

Unlike the constituencies of some of my rural colleagues, my constituency is on the periphery of the west midlands; it is not entirely rural, but it is not exactly urban either. Consequently, we often find ourselves competing for resources with Birmingham and to some extent Walsall. I would be grateful for clarification today on the 13,000 additional officers promised in that Labour party manifesto, with the West Midlands police and crime commissioner saying that they will be funded by a neighbourhood policing grant. Can the Minister confirm how long the Home Office has budgeted for these additional officers, or will individual forces need to precept the ongoing costs? I ask because it is not just this year that we must consider; we must also look to the future.

I will conclude by saying that we need clarity and we need answers. My constituents need reassurance that they will not be left facing the consequences of yet another poorly thought-out Labour policy or broken manifesto promise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As I have just said, the PCC I spoke to last week did not raise any concerns about the financial settlement. Obviously, the PCC and the chief constable use that money in the way that they decide for Cheshire. I have certainly had conversations with the chief constable of Cheshire, and the right hon. Lady is right that I have received a letter from the chief constable that was copied to a number of Members of Parliament in Cheshire.

I accept and recognise that the changes to national insurance contributions will have an impact on public sector budgets, including policing. Although the decision to increase national insurance was made to ensure the sustainability of essential public services, I recognise that the changes create additional cost pressures for police forces. It is useful to note that in 2003, and in 2011 under the coalition Government, there was an increase in employer national insurance to fund the national health service and wider national priorities. So this is not unusual; Governments of both complexions have taken forward changes to national insurance.

It is also worth noting that the changes introduced in the Budget last year broadly return national insurance contributions revenue as a proportion of GDP to the level that they were before the previous Government’s cuts to employee and self-employed national insurance contributions. That sets the context, and this has been done in a way that does not result in higher taxes in people’s payslips.

[Wendy Morton]

When the right hon. Lady says that this change will not impact on employee’s payslips, she completely misses the point: whether in a business or the public sector, we cannot just keep squeezing and squeezing and expect things to continue as they are. If it is a business, we squeeze them out of business—there are no jobs; there will be no pay packet. If we keep squeezing the public sector, there will be no public services.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Lady, who I think was Chief Whip under the disastrous premiership of Liz Truss, I am not really prepared to take lessons on economic stability and how to run the economy from a Government that trashed the economy and that caused such devastation to many families through the rise in interest rates and mortgages. I think perhaps a little humility might be in order.

We have set aside funding to protect the spending power of the public sector, including the NHS, from the direct impacts of the increase in employer national insurance. That is why we are providing compensation of £230.3 million to support forces with the cost of changes to national insurance and to ensure that no force is left out of pocket as a result. The right hon. Member for Tatton may like to know that that is similar to the funding provided by the previous Government in the 2024-25 police funding settlement to cover the additional costs of pension changes. Again, this is not unusual.

The right hon. Lady may have concerns about the £3.7 million pressure reported by her local police force as a result of the changes and the impact that that could have on officer numbers. As set out in the settlement papers, however, we are fully covering those costs. Actually, Cheshire is getting £3.9 million in national insurance compensation for next year—more than the anticipated need. That is alongside the £200 million that we are investing in neighbourhood policing to ensure not only that officer numbers are maintained, but that visible policing in our communities increases. Our mission is clear, and the funding provided in this settlement will ensure that forces across the country are equipped to meet the challenges that they face and to protect our communities.

As I have said a number of times this afternoon, I of course recognise that any additional pressures on forces are concerning. That is why we will continue to engage closely with forces and finance leads to ensure policing has the resources it needs.

I thank the right hon. Member again for securing this debate, and thank all those who have spoken. We are compensating for the national insurance increases to ensure that forces have the resources they need to protect visible neighbourhood policing. Our position could not be clearer. We will work in lockstep with the law enforcement system in our shared effort to keep people safe, whether that involves restoring and protecting the long-standing tradition of British policing, such as neighbourhood policing, or acting to combat the most dangerous emerging threats. This Government are wholly committed to providing the police with the powers, resources and tools that they need to protect the public.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

My constituents do not object to immigration per se, and it is a myth that people who voted for Brexit did so purely on the basis of racism—far from it. People across my constituency want a fair immigration system, in which people stand in turn and come to this country fairly. Where the system has fallen down, and we now see ever increasing numbers of people choosing to come here illegally across the channel, we must have a deterrent to deal with the issue. Without that, we will continue to see and feel the effects of too many people coming into our country illegally.

My constituents are clear that the way to smash the people smugglers is to have a strong deterrent. Look at Australia: when illegal migration first emerged as a major problem in 2001, the Howard Government took swift action to break the smugglers by having a deportation strategy. That policy was of course dismantled by the incoming Labour Government in 2007, yet the same Government were forced to reintroduce the Howard Government policy after five years of ever increasing numbers making their way to Australia through people smugglers who saw the elephant in the room—an immigration policy that had no deterrent. That is exactly what we have here in this country: an inadequate measure to deal with a major issue. Illegal crossings are up 30% since the general election. We need to see action, and now, not just tinkering around the edges of legislation. We need to see deterrents in place and working. Currently, there is no deterrent to stop the boats.

Turning specifically to the Bill, it repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Much has been said about these two pieces of legislation, but what I see in front of me in this Bill amounts to sheer madness. It means that asylum seekers can refuse to take a scientific age assessment and consequently no longer be treated as over 18. How on earth do the Government plan to identify adults pretending to be children if they legislate to allow them not to have to take a scientific age assessment? That surely acts as a further tool in the armoury of the people smugglers, who I am sure are already poring over this legislation and identifying the loopholes. What does it mean for the safeguarding of those in our country who are tasked with dealing with these individuals?

As it stands, the Bill would enable an unintended consequence around refusing a rescue, whereby someone on a small boat can claim they are a parent with a child and can therefore refuse rescue by French authorities, refuse return to France and continue to the UK. We need an understanding and a plan for what to do with someone who cannot be returned. We need third-party agreements, which are vital. That is why we put the Rwanda scheme and the Albania scheme in place. Guess what? It works. It is a route of return and a deterrent. Those coming illegally to the UK from Albania know that they will be returned.

Disappointingly, the minute that this Labour Government came to power and signalled their intentions to scrap the deterrent within our immigration policy, the number of channel crossings once again started to rise—30% in seven months. I accept that as a Government we had far more to do, and our loss of trust with the British people was not least on this issue, but this Bill and this Government’s repealing of the Rwanda legislation will do nothing to improve the trust of this House and the British people and do nothing to make them believe their borders are safe. All it does is tinker at the edges. Our constituents want to see action, not just words.

In all honesty, I cannot see anything in this Bill that gets to the heart of the problem, which has to be to smash the gangs. What is worse, I am left fearing that this proposed legislation simply gives a green light to the people smugglers that this country has open borders without any form of deterrent. For that reason alone, I cannot support this legislation.

Police Grant Report

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

It isn’t utter rubbish—it’s a fact. Anyway, I shall go back to the people who are engaging with the debate. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) that I send a massive thanks to Chris Duffy, who sounds like an amazing officer. I imagine that he is happy in his work because he works with a dog. Maybe giving every police officer a dog is the answer—that is not Government policy, and neither is clipping people round the ear, however much we might want to.

I say to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) —I will repeatedly say this—that I am from the West Midlands police force, and there has not been a year since I was elected to Parliament when the problems with the funding formula have not been raised with me. The west midlands is one of the areas that the issue affects deeply, so I massively hear that point. Two attempts that the previous Government made to look at the funding formula were abandoned, so we felt very much that this year we had to create a stable system. I remind hon. Members that this is our seventh month in government, but we absolutely hear the arguments about the funding formula, which was not reformed in the last 14 years. We have inherited this.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

May I press the Minister on the specific point about the west midlands? She is talking about funding in the west midlands and I am also a west midlands MP. How does she think that the whopping bill that the west midlands force will face from employer national insurance contributions will impact on its budget? When it comes to money, if she is so passionate about neighbourhood policing, as indeed am I, what assurances can she give that funding from the abhorrent sale of Aldridge police station will come back into services for residents of Aldridge-Brownhills?

[Jess Phillips]

The first thing I would say is that it will cost West Midlands police nothing because the Home Office is going to fund it. Apart from the amazing world we have apparently lived in with policing for the past 14 years, Aldridge police station was shut down under the budgets that the right hon. Lady’s Government gave to local areas. I am led to believe today that those were like milk and honey.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Jess Phillips]

I imagine the point that the right hon. Lady is going to make is that we have a Labour police and crime commissioner, but they can only work with what they are given. I was not going to give way to her, but go on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I think that the hon. Lady is agreeing with me that the closure of Aldridge police station has come on the watch of the Labour police and crime commissioner, who delayed and delayed making that decision for years.

[Jess Phillips]

I do not disagree that that is how the budgets are given out, but the number of police stations that were closed under the last 14 years of Tory Governments is phenomenal. I believe that a Member mentioned earlier the ones closed by Boris Johnson when he was the Mayor of London. Maybe the right hon. Lady would have heard me already talking about the west midlands, had she been in the debate. I note that a previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is coming into the Chamber, but for most of the time there have been no Conservative Members in here for any of this debate.

Will my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East please pass on my massive respect to Coggy? The Policing Minister wanted me to confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) that she met Unison last week, and she is absolutely happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the terrible and tragic losses of life in her constituency and in the wider area of Essex.

We are all looking forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) reopening the Chichester custody suite, which he has now become responsible for. Many Members, including him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), have talked with great passion about the importance of neighbourhood policing and the problems of antisocial behaviour in our areas. We face few things more often as Members of Parliament than complaints about failures on antisocial behaviour in our neighbourhoods. I will not do what the previous Government did, and pretend that everything is world-beating and the best it could ever be and that nothing will ever be better than anything that they could ever do. I am not going to do that.

Knife Crime: West Midlands

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John, during your first chairmanship in Westminster Hall. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this important debate and for providing many of us from across the west midlands with the opportunity to contribute. The tragic and devastating effects of knife crime have been a central concern for communities across the west midlands and in the Walsall borough, particularly for those of us who represent constituencies that have been impacted by such violent acts.

Knife crime is a problem that cannot be ignored. It requires the attention and action of all of us in this House and beyond. In December 2023, I secured a debate on knife crime in the west midlands and highlighted the shockingly high rates of violent incidents in our communities. Sadly, as we enter 2025, the statistics remain deeply troubling. In the 12 months to March 2024 alone, West Midlands police recorded 7,000 knife-related offences, which is sadly a 70% increase from 2016. But these are not just numbers: families, friends, loved ones and entire communities are affected.

We must, as a nation, reflect on the devastating toll that these crimes take on real lives, because behind each statistic lies a story of personal loss and grief, of families torn apart, and of communities shaken to the core. In my constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills, we are reminded of the heart-wrenching consequences of knife crime through the loss of James Brindley, who tragically lost his life in 2017. James was just 26 years old when he was fatally stabbed by a 17-year-old as he walked home from a night out.

James’s death sparked an outpouring of grief in the community and led his parents Mark and Beverley to found the James Brindley Foundation, a charity committed to reducing youth violence and promoting positive change in our community. The foundation’s work, particularly its #LifeOrKnife campaign and its commitment to providing knife amnesty bins across the Walsall borough, plays a vital role in providing young people with the tools and support they need to make better choices. The installation of the bins, coupled with education and mentoring, which is also crucial, and partnerships with local businesses, is an inspiring example of grassroots action to tackle knife crime.

One initiative I want to highlight is Project Ray of Hope, which was born from the success of the visit of the “Knife Angel” to Walsall in 2023. I went to see the “Knife Angel” and it is one of the most poignant sculptures I could ever have imagined. Just to stand and see it is incredibly powerful. The project, which the James Brindley Foundation is working on, aims to create a permanent public art installation in the heart of Walsall to serve as a poignant reminder of the damage caused by serious youth violence. Importantly, the project aims to engage young people throughout its development, providing them with an opportunity to shape the future of their community through creative expression. This collaboration between the James Brindley Foundation and Walsall council exemplifies the positive role that local organisations can play in raising awareness and providing solutions.

I am aware of the Government’s announcement of the coalition to tackle knife crime. I urge Ministers to include the James Brindley Foundation in this critical initiative, if they have not done so already. The Government should be working closely with this type of organisation, whose expertise and community engagement are essential to exploring effective solutions to this pressing issue. As we all acknowledge the important contributions of organisations such as the James Brindley Foundation, we must also turn our attention to the broader question of how we as a society are responding to knife crime. The Government have a critical role to play, but so too do our local leaders and public services.

The Labour police and crime commissioner and the Mayor have significant responsibilities to ensure that our communities are safe. Yet I fear that, in many cases, we are not yet seeing the level of leadership required to tackle this scourge effectively. Policing and public safety must remain a top priority. The west midlands has one of the highest rates of knife crime in the country, with 175 knife-related offences per 100,000 residents recorded in the region last year. Yet at a time when we need effective leadership, the response from our police and crime commissioner and the Mayor is not good enough.

I have long campaigned for a greater share of police resources in my constituency, including maintaining the police station in Aldridge, which is crucial for ensuring that our community feels safe and has the support it needs to tackle crime at the local level—yet it still remains under threat of being sold off by the police and crime commissioner.

The police must also be empowered to act swiftly. The proposed devolution of powers over policing to the Mayor could, if handled correctly, provide a more direct and focused response to this ongoing issue. I very much hope that the police and crime commissioner will not waste valuable taxpayers’ resources by taking legal action to resist the proposed changes.

It is time for strong leadership. It is time for a change in approach—one that acknowledges the scale of the problem and responds with the urgency it deserves. That includes ensuring that local authorities, our police and our third sector organisations work together more effectively to prevent knife crime and protect vulnerable young people from falling into the trap of gang violence and criminal exploitation.

I believe that one area where we can make a tangible difference is in education. I have long added my voice to calls for the integration of knife crime prevention into the national curriculum, an initiative that could serve as a powerful tool to raise awareness and shape the next generation’s understanding of the devastating consequences of carrying a knife. We need to teach our children about the risks, but we must also equip them with the support they need to resist peer pressure and make better choices. That is why I continue to back the campaign for knife crime prevention to be made a compulsory part of school education. It is a move that has already garnered significant support.

Furthermore, the Government should widen the scope of knife bans. Far more knives are banned now than was the case in 2010, which is good, but it is an issue that all parties should be concerned about. I know the Government continued the policy of banning zombie knives in September, which is great. However, more can and should be done, which is why the previous Government sought to increase the maximum penalty from six months to two years for the offences of private possession, importation, manufacture, sale or supply of prohibited offensive weapons, and for selling knives to those who are under 18.

I am aware that the current Home Secretary commissioned a rapid review to understand how such weapons are sold online and delivered to under-18s, to identify gaps in legislation and to find the most effective ways to close them. I commend that effort, but now we need to ensure that it leads to swift action that strengthens our laws and holds those responsible to account. Rapid reviews must lead to rapid actions.

I reiterate the importance of collaboration across all levels of society. We must work together to reduce knife crime and ensure that our communities and our young people have the support they need to build a future free from violence.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

These are really serious crimes. For someone like Alexis Jay, who worked in this area over very many years before she led the independent inquiry, and for others who have been working in this area over very many years, it has to be about the victims and survivors, but it also has to be about getting serious about delivering change and making sure that change happens in practice. Therefore, it has to be about how we make sure that there are proper monitoring processes to follow up change, rather than just thinking, “Well, an announcement has been made,” but nothing changes and nothing is actually done. Far more important than the debates taking place on social media is the practical plan for delivering change.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The Government have been very keen to set up 60 reviews since coming into office, including one on social care, but they have refused a formal request from Oldham council for a national statutory inquiry into child sexual abuse, grooming and gang rape. Why not let sunlight, transparency and justice into the process?

[Yvette Cooper]

I say to the right hon. Lady that, as I made clear in my statement, we support the independent review that Oldham council is planning to set up. We have also suggested that it work with those who were involved in the Telford inquiry, which was extremely effective; Tom Crowther, who led that inquiry, has agreed to that. Interestingly, one of those who gave evidence to both the Telford inquiry and the national inquiry has described how she found it much easier to give evidence to the Telford inquiry and thought it was more effective at getting to the nitty-gritty of what had gone wrong in Telford. I suspect that that is why the previous Government, of which the right hon. Lady was a part, said repeatedly to Oldham council that it should pursue the local inquiry. We want to make sure that there are proper investigations, inquiries and reviews wherever there is evidence that needs to be pursued. Most importantly of all, there have to be police investigations to get justice.