Police Reform White Paper

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 26 January.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on police reform.

A little less than 200 years ago, speaking at this very Dispatch Box, Sir Robert Peel declared that

‘the time is come, when … we may fairly pronounce that the country has outgrown her police institutions’.

Those words could just as well have been spoken today.

Policing is not broken, as some might have us believe. Last year, the police made over three quarters of a million arrests—5% more than the year before. Some of the most serious crimes are now falling, with knife crime down and murder in the capital at its lowest recorded level. However, across the country things feel very different. Communities are facing an epidemic of everyday crime that all too often seems to go unpunished—and criminals know it. Shop theft has risen by 72% since 2010, and phone theft is up 58%. At the same time, in a rapidly changing world, the nature of crime is changing. Criminals—be they drug smugglers, people traffickers or child sexual abusers—are operating online and across borders, with greater sophistication than ever before.

The world has changed dramatically since policing was last fundamentally reformed over 60 years ago. Policing remains the last great unreformed public service. Today, as this Government publish a new policing White Paper, I set out reforms that are long overdue. They define a new model for policing in this country, with local policing that protects our communities and national policing that protects us all.

Since taking office, we have already restored a focus on neighbourhood policing that the last Conservative Government eroded. They pulled bobbies off the beat, and now over half of the public report that they never see police on patrol in their local area. It was a foolish error, because neighbourhood policing works. Across the world, the evidence shows that visible patrols in high-crime areas work. The last Labour Government put more officers on the streets, and confidence in policing hit record levels. The Tories cut them, and confidence fell.

This Government are righting that wrong, with a target of 13,000 more neighbourhood officers by the end of the Parliament, and we have already put 2,400 back on to the beat. We have also introduced the neighbourhood guarantee, so that every community has a named, contactable officer. I also intend to end the distortive ‘officer maintenance grant’ that was introduced by the last Conservative Government, who had to replace the 20,000 police officers lost on their watch. The results were perverse: uniformed officers hired but stuck behind desks, with 12,000 men and women in uniform now working in support roles, including—absurdly—some 250 warranted officers working in human resources. I intend to end that by introducing a neighbourhood policing ring-fence, which will ensure that forces are putting uniformed officers where the public want and need them: out in the community, fighting crime on our streets.

However, we must do more. Today, policing happens in the wrong places. We have local forces responsible for national policing, which distracts them from policing their communities. At the same time, we have forces of various shapes and sizes, and quality varies widely force by force. This Government’s reforms will ensure that we have the right policing happening in the right place. That starts with the creation of a new national police service.

At first, the force will set standards and lift administrative tasks off local forces. In time, it will draw in all national crime-fighting responsibilities, including counterterrorism policing, serious organised crime, and fraud. This will ensure that local forces are no longer distracted by national responsibilities, while at the same time creating an elite national force that is expert at fighting the ever-more sophisticated criminals who are operating nationwide, across our borders, and online.

Alongside the new national force, we will replace the patchwork of 43 local forces that has remained almost unchanged since the Police Act 1964. That model has been straining for decades, and today it is simply not fit for purpose. Our 43 forces are of varying sizes: some have just 1,000 officers, others over 8,000, and the Metropolitan Police is 30 times larger than our smallest forces. As a result, some forces are not equipped to handle complex investigations or respond to major incidents.

Meanwhile, the duplication across force headquarters means that money is wasted, drawing resource away from front-line policing. We will introduce a smaller number of regional forces responsible for specialist investigations, including murder, serious sexual offences and public order. Within these forces, we will introduce smaller local policing areas. These will be focused exclusively on local policing, tackling the burglaries, shoplifting and anti-social behaviour that too often go unpunished today. It is vital that we set these new forces up in the right way, so I will soon launch a review to determine the precise number and nature of the new forces. Its work will be completed this summer. Taken together, these reforms will put the right policing in the right place: an elite national force will tackle nationwide crime; regional forces will conduct specialist investigations; and local policing will tackle the epidemic of everyday crime.

Our structures are outdated, and so is our adoption of the tools and technology that could make our policing more effective and more efficient. Criminals are operating in increasingly sophisticated ways, but in policing, in all honesty, our response is mixed. While some forces surge ahead, with the results to show for it, others are fighting crime in a digital age with analogue methods. We will ensure that every force is adopting the latest technology, led out of the new national police service. This will include the largest-ever rollout of live facial recognition technologies, across England and Wales. We know that this approach works. In London, in just two years, the Metropolitan Police has made 1,700 arrests, taking robbers, domestic abusers and rapists off our streets.

When the future arrives, there are always doubters. A hundred years ago, fingerprinting was decried as curtailing our civil liberties, but today we could not imagine policing without it. I have no doubt that the same will prove true of facial recognition technology in the years to come. At the same time, we will launch police.AI, investing a record £115 million in AI and automation to make policing more effective and efficient, stripping admin away to ensure that officer time can be devoted to the human factor that only a police officer can provide.

Common standards apply both to the technology we use and to the quality and performance of our officers. We must, and we will, set and maintain the highest standards. We have already introduced new vetting requirements enabling forces to dismiss those who fail vetting checks, alongside a range of measures to lift policing standards. We will introduce a licence to practice for police officers, recognising the professionalism, dedication and duty that comes with the uniform. We must be willing to set clear standards and the performance that we expect within forces, and to hold policing leaders to account for their delivery. Under the last Conservative Government, there was a retreat from the historical role held by Home Secretaries and the Home Office since the days of Peel. That was an error, and this Government will reverse it.

As the old Peelian maxim has it, the police are the public and the public are the police. I consider it essential that the people, through Parliament, can determine what they expect from their forces, so this Government will restore targets for police forces and set minimum standards that forces must abide by. Force performance will be transparent and public, and where performance falls, we will take action. We will create new turnaround teams to go into a force where performance has fallen, and in the most extreme examples of a failure of leadership, I will restore the Home Secretary’s power to fire a chief constable. This vital power was relinquished by the last Conservative Government, who handed it to police and crime commissioners—a position that I consider a failed experiment, despite the best efforts of many excellent PCCs across the country. We will now draw that experiment to an end. Local accountability and governance will remain essential, however, and will continue to be provided by mayoralties or local crime and policing boards.

Taken together, these are, without question, major reforms: a transformation in the structures of our forces, the standards within them, and the means by which they are held to account by the public. These are the most significant changes to how policing works in this country in around 200 years. The world has changed immeasurably since then, but policing has not. We have excellent and brave police officers across the country, and effective and inspiring leaders across many of our forces, but they are operating within an outdated structure, making the job of policing our streets and protecting our country harder than it should be.

I began by quoting Peel’s declaration that

‘the country has outgrown her police institutions’.

He went on to argue that the

‘safest course will be found to be the introduction of a new mode of protection’.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/1828; col. 795.]

Now, as then, it is time we had the bravery to pursue a new mode of protection and a new model of policing, with the right policing in the right place. That means local forces protecting their communities and national policing that protects us all. That is what this Government will deliver, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, when, on 20 January, I asked the Minister when this White Paper would be published, he said that I would not have to wait too long to see the Government’s police reform proposal. I am very pleased to say that he was correct; on this occasion “shortly” did indeed mean shortly.

I think it fair to say that one of the major concerns surrounding policing at the moment is accountability. The public rightly want to know that the police are held to the highest standards. That, of course, has been thrown into the spotlight by the Maccabi Tel Aviv affair.

In her response to this in the other place, the Home Secretary talked of

“the failed experiment of police and crime commissioners”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/26; col. 612.]”.

I must say that I am not entirely convinced that the Government’s alternative will solve the problem they say they have identified. We know from the White Paper that control of the police is to be moved to the newly created strategic mayors, but what is the difference between this model and the PCC model? Both are elected, both are partisan, both are accountable to local people. What is more, where mayors do not yet exist, the Government have proposed putting forces under the governance of policing boards made up of local councillors. Is the Minister certain that these structures will deliver on accountability effectively?

On the structural reforms, it is vital to ensure that this process of reorganisation does not inadvertently make things worse. At the moment, there are essentially two tiers of policing structures: the national tier consisting of the British Transport Police and the National Crime Agency, and a local tier made up of the 43 territorial forces.

I am happy for the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the White Paper creates a three-tier policing structure. At the national level we will have the national police service, then the regional police forces, and underneath those the local policing areas. Does that not mean a possible proliferation of forces, and is there a risk that this could increase bureaucracy and fragmentation, rather than reduce it as intended?

My Lords, our system of policing is outdated—that is beyond doubt. The White Paper is right to promise radical reform, but, for victims and communities, the real tests are simple: will more crimes be prevented and will more offenders be brought to justice? Reform cannot be a top-down, money-saving exercise imposed from the centre; it must rebuild capacity, confidence and local trust. Get it wrong and communities will feel even more abandoned, widening the gap between police and public.

The plan for a new national police service and fewer, larger regional forces has merit, but real questions remain. Of course we need strong national capability for terrorism, serious organised crime, fraud and online harms that cross borders, but restructuring is a means, not an end. Experience in Scotland shows that mergers alone do not deliver better results. If design and implementation are mishandled, local connection suffers. The first priority must be to define clearly what we expect the police to do, recognising how their role has expanded, and then to provide realistic, long-term funding before redrawing force boundaries. Leadership and scrutiny, not structure, drive performance.

At present, the police are the agency of last resort for everything from children’s social care to adult mental health crises, as overstretched services retreat and leave the police to pick up the pieces. We welcome the commitment to ring-fenced neighbourhood policing, but we must ask whether the proposed model of mega-forces plus local policing areas will really empower local communities or simply add another layer of bureaucracy. Without proper funding and wider criminal justice reform, restructuring alone will not make our streets safer. Since we all agree that community policing is vital, can the Minister assure us that extra officers will be protected for visible neighbourhood work, backed by stable multi-year funding, not redeployed elsewhere when budgets tighten?

We support in principle a national licence to practice, tougher misconduct rules and stronger leadership after the shocking failures of recent years. We need officers and specialist staff with the right skills, character and integrity. Rising standards can rebuild trust but must not load more bureaucracy on to an already exhausted workforce.

My Lords, to go to the heart of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, this is being done for a purpose. Crime is changing: fraud and online crime are widespread, and sexual abuse, terrorism and a range of national crimes impact policing and the communities the police serve. There is a strong need to reconnect local police with local crime, such as shop theft, and with neighbourhood policing issues, such as antisocial behaviour. To deal with that, we currently have a patchwork of 43 local forces, some led by a mayor and some by a police and crime commissioner. Some mayoral areas, such as Liverpool, do not have a police and crime commissioner; others, such as Manchester, have a police and crime commissioner. In West Yorkshire, there is a police and crime commissioner and a deputy mayor appointed to report to the mayor. In the West Midlands, the police and crime commissioner runs in parallel with the mayor. New mayoralties are coming on stream in the next couple of years, and that patchwork quilt will continue to develop.

At a national level, we have no procurement organisation. We have police chief leads who deal with their local force but who are also leads for particular areas. We have a National Crime Agency, a national helicopter service and forensics. With this proposal we are trying to ensure that we give greater support to the neighbourhood policing model at a local level, and have a consistent model of leadership through the elected mayor or an elected board of councillors. That will be examined. In conjunction with the Senedd, we will look at the model for Wales. At the same time, we will look at force numbers. The proposals include a review in the next five or six months, with a chair to be appointed shortly. Its terms of reference will be to look at how we can slim down the number of forces to save money and give a regional structure.

In answer to the points from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on accountability, there will be an official—a mayor or councillor—who is responsible for that. The Home Secretary will have the power to remove chief constables. There will be a review of the number of forces. I do not know yet what that review will show, but it will help save money and give some focus. We intend to start very shortly to establish the national service. This will initially look at IT, forensics, the helicopter contract and procurement. Is it right that 43 forces procure 43 sets of uniforms? Is it right that there are different phone systems at a local level? Those are things that we need to look at. Later, the National Crime Agency, counterterrorism and regional crime units will be brought into focus, looking at how we deal with national issues.

My Lords, the bedrock of British policing is the office of constable. That is an office under the Crown. The Government are now going to introduce the licence to practice, given by the Government. At the same time, it appears that the Government are going to reintroduce targets for policing. The experience under the Blair Government was that policing targets distorted police behaviour and meant that, all too often, local policing priorities were ignored. The Government are also going to introduce a huge national bureaucracy in the national police service, and we read of a “hands-on Home Office” and greater powers for the Home Secretary.

Given this combination, how will the Government ensure that we will not see national diktats completely overriding local policing requirements and, particularly, that we are not going to see the police subjected to undue influence from the Home Office and the Home Secretary? I remember November 2008, when the parliamentary office of the then Member of Parliament for Ashford was searched by the police without a warrant, reportedly because of influence from Government Ministers. How are the Government going to ensure, in this centralised police service and centralised model, that there is not going to be undue political influence that relates not to the policing interests of the citizens but to the political interests of the Government?

The noble Baroness has great experience in this area. We have discussed this for many years, in shadow and government form. The Government are cognisant of the fact that the police service must be independent of government, have its own responsibilities, and make its own decisions around issues of arrest, suggestions about charges by the CPS and how to manage resources at a local level. Those are absolutely central, but this does not take away from the importance of the Government establishing the real areas of concern.

We are now saying that we need to have neighbourhood policing. As part of the grant, there will be an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers on the ground to look at the issues we think are important, such as anti-social behaviour, shop theft and a range of issues around policing in town centres. This is important for public confidence. It does not mean that we are interfering in policing. It means we are setting a number of potential targets which we think are important national and strategic issues.

On the national picture, the Police Minister is not going to be telling the head of the new policing body, “These are things I want you to do”, or “I want you to go round to X office, invade them and interfere in them”, but it is right for us to look at the strategic targets on counterterrorism, on serious organised crime and cross-border crime, and on crime that is coming into this country from the European Community, where we need to participate and co-operate. These are really important issues. It is right that the Home Secretary and the Government set these targets and some direction of travel in conjunction with the police, but still with that clear barrier between operational responsibility and overall policy setting.

The noble Baroness spoke about a police officer being an officer of the Crown. Through the licence to operate, we are trying to set a number of standards against which we check the performance of police officers so that, through the Crime and Policing Bill, we improve vetting, standards and management, and have a quicker way to remove police officers who do not meet our performance targets. These things will be done in conjunction with the police.

My Lords, I welcome the publication of the much-anticipated White Paper on the future of policing across England and Wales. I particularly welcome the focus on neighbourhood policing to better address everyday crime. However, the White Paper has not addressed the unfairness of policing powers being withheld from Wales compared with the other devolved nations.

Three independent commissions—the Silk commission, the Thomas commission and the McAllister commission —have recommended the devolution of policing to Wales. It might be helpful for the House to be aware that, in First Minister’s Questions in the Senedd today, the First Minister stated:

“I want to make it clear that the Welsh Government has been clear that we want policing to be devolved to Wales”.

She went further to explain that the motivation behind this is to have

“better provision for the people in Wales”.

Will the Minister join the First Minister of Wales and Welsh Labour colleagues in the Senedd who are making the case here in Westminster for the devolution of policing to Wales?

I know where the noble Baroness is coming from. We have been very clear in the White Paper that the proposals for Wales are about organisation of the delivery and not about the devolution of policing. We have taken the view that policing is intricate within the whole legal system in Wales, which includes the court service, youth justice and a whole range of other matters. In the Labour manifesto, we said we would look at the devolution of youth justice. My colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are looking at this now, but we do not think that the devolution of policing is right for Wales at this time.

We will have to explain this judgment to all Members of the Senedd and I have to explain it to the noble Baroness in this House. We think that Wales is better served by a UK-based England and Wales service which looks at the main issues of national interest, such as counterterrorism, along with the other devolved Administrations. In the Welsh context, the discussions we will have with whoever forms the Government in the Senedd after the election will be about how we make a better structure in the period after the abolition of the police and crime commissioners.

My Lords, I note that when the original Statement was made in the other place, it began and ended with a reference to Sir Robert Peel. In my capacity as the co-chair of the National Police Ethics Committee for England and Wales, I probably talk more about the Peelian principles than I ever thought I was going to do in earlier life. One of those essential principles is that policing is a civilian force: it is people, the citizenry, policing themselves.

I welcome much that is in this report. It represents a way forward and I am sure that my committee will go along with it. But there are two challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady May, has already referred to one, and she gave an example of it. I will give another brief one from when we were looking at Covid in a precursor to the present committee. During Covid, the Operation Talla policing ethics committee was largely set up under my chairmanship because police chief constables were under such pressure from Government Ministers, who were announcing things, often on social media at nine o’clock at night, saying “This is now the law” when it was not. The police wanted somebody independent who could support them in the face of that kind of ministerial overreach. So I worry, as the noble Baroness, Lady May, does, about the risks of ministerial overreach and the powers being given centrally.

On the other side, on neighbourhood policing, again we are hearing all the right reassurances here, but that is so essential. During Covid, the Metropolitan Police at one point had, I think, an absence rate of about 10 times that of Kent Police, the neighbouring force. Kent Police was policing its local communities while the Met was busing people in crew buses all the way over the capital, where they were all giving each other the disease. It was not neighbourhood policing in any way, shape or form. So how can we ensure with the new policing structures that it really will be people policing locally who are that local citizenry, not somebody drawn from three counties away across a much larger area? But with that said, I appreciate what we are doing.

There is a lot in there. The main thing I can say to the right reverend Prelate is that the purpose of our policing is to have the police working with the community at a local level. That is why we have to focus on neighbourhood policing, why we have put in an additional 13,000 officers over this Parliament, and why we are on 2,500 to 3,000 currently in terms of increasing neighbourhood policing, taking people away from warranted officers doing back-room jobs into warranted officers doing front-line policing and community reassurance. That is why the basic issues, as I have said before, of shop theft, anti-social behaviour—things that happen in the high street or on the estate—should be the focus of the local police force.

How do we better deliver that? Do we look at that in a regional context? Whoever takes over this examination of regional force levels might look at a region and say, “We need to have this as a force size for this region because there’s a synergy between this city and that city and this regional area”, but underneath there is still that local neighbourhood police model. We are trying to ensure that we have local governance that is better than the patchwork we have and, at the same time, we will look at the national challenges and ensure that the Police Minister and/or the Home Secretary sets some realistic targets but does that in conjunction with the police. Ultimately, we get asked all the time in this House what we are doing about shop theft and anti-social behaviour. Some level of co-operation and ambition has to be set between the Home Office centrally and the local police forces, but they still have to operate independently and manage their resources in a way that gives them local community confidence.

My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister is leaving the British Transport Police alone. In my experience, it works very well and is led by an outstanding chief constable. I may have missed it, but I am not sure he said where royal protection is going to sit in this tier of policing. It is a significant cost, particularly for a county such as Gloucestershire, where we are blessed with a number of members of the Royal Family, including one of the homes that belongs to His Majesty the King. It is a significant cost to the force.

My real concern is that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady May, about accountability. We already have an issue with police being abstracted from rural areas to do public order policing in big urban centres. If we have larger police forces, I can see that getting worse. How are we going to make sure that rural communities get the level of policing that they deserve and, importantly, that they pay for through their council tax precept, without a democratically elected leader at a very local level?

Starting with the question of royal protection, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not comment on that, because we do not normally comment on those issues in a public way. At some point, we will obviously make some further statements on it, but I do not wish to open that discussion now. On his comments on rural funding, we are as part of this proposal looking at reviewing the formula that currently exists within police funding. The police settlement that we announced a couple of weeks ago put significant additional resources into policing, but we recognise the need to modernise the funding formula, so part of the review that we are undertaking now will be on how we do that very task.

At a local level, there will still be somebody accountable politically for policing, but what I am trying to do, and what we are trying to do in the Home Office, is address the fact that at the moment we have police and crime commissioners, which is a patchwork model because of the advent of mayors. We have another pile of mayors coming on stream very shortly. We have some areas where there will not be a mayor, but nor will there be a police and crime commissioner in future, so we are still going to review those organisational models. At the end of this process, there will still be somebody who is accountable for policing, but not in the directly elected way, solely on police and crime issues, as the police and crime commissioner currently is.

Serious organised waste crime is a national disgrace that is costing the UK economy over £1 billion a year. The Environment Agency, as a regulatory body, appears to be ill-equipped and fundamentally unable to control it. These police reforms offer a co-ordinated approach to serious organised crime, yet I can find no mention at all of waste crime in the plans, so can the Minister confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to give the new national police service responsibility for tackling organised waste crime?

The Environment Agency currently has a role in managing waste crime, but I think it is important that we put some focus on the fact that it has become increasingly clear, and this is a relatively new phenomenon, that serious organised crime is behind many of the large illegal waste dumps around the country at the moment. Our effort to improve performance will involve regional and national police forces, regional organised crime units, serious crime, nationally, and the National Crime Agency, over time, to look at how better we can tackle serious organised crime on a UK-wide basis, with support from the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Serious organised crime now manifests itself in illegal waste tips and could manifest itself in drug importation, weapons importation or a range of other things. The key thing is that we have some national co-ordination of regional crime units and national units to look at serious organised crime.

The reforms to public order policing in the White Paper are welcome, in particular the commitment to greater data sharing between forces to enable this. Can the Minister confirm that that will include a greater level of intelligence sharing, which was one of the gaps that I found in my review of this wider area that was presented in 2024?

I can give the noble Lord that assurance. One of the things we are trying to do is to improve the IT systems and bring them under central control. That means improving data sharing and it also means using new technology, such as AI, to improve analysis of data and to give a central lead to performance measures, to get better outcomes for the community at large.

My Lords, the Government should be commended for coming forward with bold proposals. It is clear that the existing structures are rooted in a situation from way before we had the levels of mobility, technology and new crimes that are coming forward and taking up so much of the police’s time. Having 43 police forces, therefore, is no longer fit for purpose, so it is good that the Government are showing leadership and taking bold steps. I was very struck by the cautious notes that my noble friend Lady May came forward with and, indeed, some of the dangers that lie here.

There is a lot of emphasis in the White Paper on accountability and performance, and that really is where an awful lot of the opportunities lie here. We are at an inflection point. There is the opportunity for considerable dividends from this, but there are also significant potential risks. I just ask the Minister to give a little more detail to the House about the process of determining what the eventual patchwork will look like—the size of forces, the allocation of resources and so forth. Could he also tell us how the mergers and essential integrations will be carried out without, essentially, dropping the ball? There are significant risks here but, overall, I think the Government are heading in the right direction.

I am grateful for the noble Viscount’s support on this matter. In response to his question about force sizes, we will be announcing a review very shortly, which we hope will be done by the summer. That will set the template for the Government to determine ultimately how many forces there will be and how we begin the process of changing that system accordingly. When parliamentary time allows—in that time-honoured phrase—we will bring forward measures to end the role of police and crime commissioners. This will be done by the time of the next election due for electing police and crime commissioners. In the initial phase we will also look at bringing together IT, forensics and procurement into a national service, but over time. Again, this will require parliamentary legislation to bring together the National Crime Agency and other bodies, including counterterrorism, into that body as a whole.

We also have a separate paper coming forward shortly that will look at fraud, which is currently the responsibility of the City of London Police as the lead force. We will be looking at how we can improve performance on that issue as well. These will not be quick fixes but if I look three to four years ahead, police and crime commissioners will have gone, the new structures will be in place for the new forces, and there will be accountability through the mayors or councils. We will be quite well down the road of the establishment of the wider national police service, bringing in training, national services and the roles of the National Crime Agency and counterterrorism police.

My Lords, Robert Peel talked about policing by consent, emphasising public approval, but his key recommendation was crime prevention, and a primary goal was dealing with disorder. He saw that merely punishing crime after the fact was a failure. All the statistics we get are for the number of arrests that have been made or the number of crimes prosecuted. We never get the number of crimes that have been prevented. In this new White Paper, which I welcome strongly, how are we going to get to the position that we have got to in health? A good health service actually prevents people becoming unhealthy. How are we going to get that balance?

I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord’s commitment to the proposals in the White Paper. If we look at government policy as a whole, in parallel to that a great deal of work is being done by my noble friend Lady Smith on education, on prevention and on strengthening citizenship in schools. There is a need, through the Ministry of Justice, to look at improving sentencing outcomes and better performance in prisons to stop people reoffending. Through the Sentencing Bill, we are looking at a wide range of community sentences that people could be put into rather than prison. That all has the objective of reducing crime and recidivism and preventing people getting involved in crime in the first place. In this White Paper, we are again trying to have that strong focus on what needs to be done about serious organised crime at the national level. At the same time, we need to focus on building community resilience, improving neighbourhood policing, and meeting the Peelian principles that the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned: the police are the public and the public are the police, and that happens at a local level as well.

On all those fronts, we are trying to prevent and reduce both crime and repeat crime, give the public confidence, improve standards in the police force and deal with significant, severe future challenges in organised crime and international issues such as internet and AI crime. I hope that reassures the noble and right reverend Lord. That is the Government’s plan, and we will no doubt be held to account on it by this House.