Police Conduct and
David Carrick
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I remind
Members of the sub judice rule. [Interruption.] Please, this is
very important for all of us. In deciding how to apply the sub
judice rule, I have to balance the public interest of the House
considering matters of policy and public concern as soon as
possible and the public interest in respecting the respective
roles of Parliament and the courts. One of the purposes of the
rule is to prevent the House even appearing to exert pressure on
judicial decisions. This is why the rule applies until
sentencing. Even though there has been a guilty plea, the sub
judice rule applies in the case of David Carrick, except to the
extent I have permitted reference to the case to give context to
the statement. In particular, Members should concentrate on
policy issues and avoid speculation about sentencing. I now call
the Home Secretary.
12:35:00
The Secretary of State for the Home Department ()
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 (). 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.
12:42:00
(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?
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, ; 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.
(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 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 ().
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.
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 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.
(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 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 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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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.
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.
(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 (): when are we really going to
fully use statutory power to protect women from male violence?
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.
(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?
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.
(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.
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.
(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?
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.
(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.
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ultimately, the politician
responsible for the performance of the Metropolitan police is the
Mayor of London, , 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.
(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 , 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.
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.
(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 ( )
Order. Please remember sub judice. We should not be talking about
sentencing. Home Secretary, just answer the points you can.
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.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind Members that aspects of this issue are sub
judice. Please stay well away from anything relating to things
that are still before the courts.
(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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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?
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.”
(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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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.
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.
(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.
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.
(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?
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.
(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.
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.
(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.
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.
(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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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 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 . 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?
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.
(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?
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.
(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.
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.
