General Press Comments

[Elizabeth Tanner]

Today I announced a Royal Commission on Public Appointments to analyse and assess the systemic weakness of the public appointments system in the UK. As I said during my first speech as Prime Minister I take this issue very seriously, far too seriously to rush into legislation that was poorly written and provided no guarantee to provide the solution needed. The Royal Commission, led by Lord Norton of Louth, will be fully independent from the Government, have the authority to proceed their investigation as necessary and will report back to Parliament - this report will not be subject to cabinet approval, but will be for all MPs to debate and decide.

[Clarice Ashbridge]

The amount of money pledged to reversing a successful policy so the Home Secretary can keep his comrades on the Labour backbenches happy? Almost a billion pounds.

The amount of extra money promised to tackling the real danger of child sex offenders? In the Home Secretary's own words: zero.

There is only one party that will put in further concrete measures and provide to protect our children, and will stand up for our police and the victims of crime rather than the perpetrators: the Conservatives.

[Andy Edwards]

The Government absolutely believes in the ability of the police to do their jobs and to protect workers, families, and children in their communities. We will support law enforcement officers and agencies with more resources- financial and otherwise- to not only go after predators that would target our children but other criminals that threaten the safety and lives of people in our communities.

The Conservatives believe that the repeal of Section 28 will open the door to predators in schools and in our communities- but that's not true. It will open up communication and support for those that need it- and can even help provide support to homosexual-leaning students and give them the safety they need to report more of these predators. When the Conservatives say we won't fund police to catch sexual predators, they're doing that to try and argue in favour of a morally-bankrupt policy; when we say we will, we're doing it to keep our communities safe as we have promised.

We will be giving more resources to police forces to target predators and other criminals; our commitment to safety in our communities is absolute. It's the Conservative relationship with the truth that is wavering now.

[Sir Jack Anderson]

It seems the new Shadow Home Secretary has made the same mistake every Conservative ultimately makes – they don’t aim for efficient public services, but cheap ones. This is the attitude that saw record waiting times for our NHS, our kids in overcrowded classrooms and crime skyrocketing on our streets.

For a quick buck, the Conservatives are prepared for prisons to be less safe and the public to be less safe in the process.

There’s no greater investment than investing in public safety, but if Clarice Ashbridge were Home Secretary we’d see our prisons flogged off to the cheapest bidder and our country less safe as a result.

[Will Frost]

Motivated by his desire to prioritize the wellbeing of convicted criminals over law abiding British citizens, the Home Secretary has confirmed that the Government will spend nearly £800 million of your money to expand the state and renationalize private prisons. It is fundamentally wrong that the Government is asking the British people to hand over hundreds of millions of pounds of their hard earned money because they want to improve the living conditions of prisoners, convicted criminals that are in prison to repay their debt to society and not to enjoy an extended vacation. If prison guards, as the Home Secretary argued in his statement, in private prisons needs additional support they should be given it. That support would cost significantly less than the Government's proposal, and would allow the private prisons system to continue to drive down costs for British taxpayers.

The Home Secretary, in true New Labour fashion, suggests that private prisons could cause increased rates of recidivism... and then fails to cite even a single piece of evidence to prove his point. The reality is this: while New Labour spends hundreds of millions to give convicted criminals a better prison experience, communities across Britain are continuing to suffer under rising violent crime that has gone unchecked. The Government's priorities are out of whack, and as a result they're failing the British people.

[Andy Edwards]

Since the Opposition now cares to talk about facts, let's talk about what they get wrong. Violent crime is not on the rise; in fact, Labour's time in office has seen violent crime decreasing and has fallen to levels not seen in almost 10 years.

Looking at the Crime Survey for England and Wales- which asks for input on all crimes and not just those reported or recorded by police, violent crime has been going down every year that Labour has been in power. Meanwhile, the great Conservative rule from 1979 to 1997 saw violent crimes double in this same survey. The methodology used in this survey, which seeks to paint an accurate picture of all crime, has remained unchanged. As police get better and improve their practices, the reported crime rates go up, but from surveys that conducted we see that the actual crime that people experience- not just report- has been declining.

More and more criminals, and apparently now inept police as the Conservatives are trying to paint them, is nothing more than spin. This Government supports police, it supports justice, and supports victims. We've proven that with legislation to protect the victims of crime- legislation the Tories could have passed long ago and didn't. We've proven that we're dedicated to keeping people safe- crime rates are falling and seem to be on the path to continue that trend. And we've proven we support police- we've helped them improve while the Tories think the police are too inept to do without national task forces.

[Will Frost]

The Home Secretary's total ineptitude when it comes to interpreting crime data would be amusing if it didn't have such grave ramifications for the future of our country. The British Crime Survey that he cites as justification for a drop in violent crime in this country doesn't even record most violent crime! The researchers who run the study openly admit that the BCS looks primarily at, "vandalism, burglary, vehicle-related thefts (including bicycles),other household thefts, theft from the person, common assault, wounding and robbery." What's left out are a number of serious violent crimes like rape, murder, attempted murder, stabbing and so on. The Home Secretary should have a strong mastery of these facts; he is after all the man the Prime Minister has chosen to tackle rising crime in this country. Unfortunately for him and for this country, he has just demonstrated how little he knows.

So let's actually look at violent crime. Since 1997, the number of recorded homicides in this country has increased from 606 to to 765. That amounts to an increase of over 26%, and more importantly, represents over one hundred more innocent British citizens who lost their lives as a result of unchecked violence in this country. It's important we keep all of this in perspective: while the Government is wasting nearly £800 million to renationalize prisons, more and more British people are losing their lives at the hands of violent crime because of this Government's abject failure to do anything about the problem. This isn't just about politics, peoples lives are on the line. The Home Secretary just doesn't seem to get it.

It should be deeply concerning for every British person that the Home Secretary, the man in charge of our country's crime reduction strategy, is blissfully unaware of how just how significantly violent crime is rising in this country. And while he attempts to spin himself out of the problem, accusing me and my party of not fully backing the police, I would just say this. It's the Prime Minister, and not the Conservatives, who believes that the police officers of this country are, "institutionally racist."

[Andy Edwards]

While the Leader of the Opposition wants to get into fights over statistics now- this Government recognizes that behind those numbers there are victims. Victims of the crimes themselves, the families and neighbors of victims who might have some spill-over direct effects, and communities that are made less safe. That's why this Government took the lead on looking out for victims and making sure they were cared for and compensated; meanwhile the Leader of the Opposition is talking about statistics.

The Leader of the Opposition and head of the Conservative Party says that violent crime is rising when the best trends for violent crime have been going down since Labour came to power. That is a fact. Now he wants to say he's not actually talking about violent crime but about homicides- which the latest figures includes deaths such as the tragic deaths of 58 Chinese nationals that suffocated in a lorry coming to the UK. Again, the Leader of the Opposition only wants to look at the statistics rather than at what the numbers actually mean. If we just want to go by numbers, then we can talk about how the homicide rate under Conservatives rose as well during their time in Government. But crime isn't about numbers- and it's definitely not about picking what numbers you want from different sources just to make a spin argument

This Government is absolutely committed to reducing crime. But there's more to reducing crime than just tossing out statistics and saying that this is it. Arrests don't on their own stop murders; otherwise the Conservatives' supposed "tough on crime" approach would have ended all crime rather than see violent crime double during the years they were in power. We will continue to empower police, we will hire more officers, and we will give them the resources they need to catch criminals. But we're also going to go after the causes of crime and provide support to victims to meaningfully reduce crimes and reduce the number of victims; we've put forward legislation to do that and the Opposition will see more in the coming budget.

[Will Frost]

"But there's more to reducing crime than just tossing out statistics and saying that this is it." Did the Home Secretary seriously just say that? Is New Labour now no longer interested in facts, science, and evidence? Or is it that the Government believes that evidence should be relied on only when it supports the conclusions they are trying to draw? The Home Secretary got in front of the press just minutes ago to say he was happy I "finally" was interested in having a conversation about the facts, and now here he is dismissing their relevance altogether. This is seriously the epitome of the New Labour spin and sleaze that the British people are so sick and tired of.

The contradictions and back tracking from the Home Secretary are coming at a head-spinning rate, but what remains consistent is that violent crime under this Government has increased. I'm sorry if the Home Secretary doesn't like the data, I'm sure that's a very frustrating position to be in. Frankly, my party and I don't care. Because the data coming out of his office proves that violent crime is increasing, no matter how he tries to fudge the numbers or frame the information. The Home Secretary's shameful attempt to use the deaths of 58 Chinese nationals as a means to say, "Oh look, things aren't actually that bad," is a deplorable political tactics that should have no place in our country's democracy. Despite Labour spending massive amounts of taxpayer money in the hopes of combatting crime, more people are being killed. That, Home Secretary, is a fact.

The moment this Government stops making excuses for their abysmal performance, and starts actually working on behalf of the British people, is the moment that I will give them the credit they deserve. Until then, I am going to spend every day as Leader of the Opposition holding them to account for their record of failure.

[Amelia Lockhart]

I am glad that Parliament has voted to reject the Conservative Party’s poorly drafted legislation on public appointments. The vote was not one between action and inaction, but on whether we should legislate badly on public appointments or allow for an evidence-based process to deal with the issue, and I am glad that Parliament has backed sober and evidence-based approach to the issue of appointments. I look forward to hearing the final recommendations of the Royal Commission, chaired by the Conservative Peer, Lord Norton of Louth, when they are presented to the House.