Reform will be ‘toughest' party on crime ever, Farage to say
Among his promises will be a pledge to recruit 30,000 new police officers; end early release for prisoners convicted of serious violent, sexual or knife offences; and deport 10,400 foreign offenders currently in British jails.
He will also propose a major prison-building programme aiming to provide an extra 30,000 places to alleviate the prison overcrowding that prompted the Government to expand early release schemes.
Mr Farage will say: 'We will cut crime in half. We will take back control of our streets, we will take back control of our courts and prisons.'
But he will face questions over how he will achieve this, given his already significant spending promises and the need to negotiate returns agreements for foreign offenders.
His speech comes amid rising concern about crime in Britain, with The Sun On Sunday reporting that a recent Survation poll found 49% of people thought the UK was 'becoming a lawless country'.
Overall, crime has generally fallen over the past decade, but rose last year driven mainly by sharp increases in fraud and theft.
Dame Diana Johnson, the policing minister, said: 'If Nigel Farage was serious about making our streets safer, he should have backed the tough new laws we introduced earlier this year.
'It's shameful that Reform constantly seeks to undermine confidence in our police and criminal justice system and voted to try to block measures to crack down on knife crime, anti-social behaviour, shop theft, child sexual abuse, and long overdue action to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls.
'They should focus more on practical solutions to support our police, combat crime, deliver justice for victims of crime, rather than chasing headlines, spouting slogans and trying to divide communities.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
30 minutes ago
- The National
‘No breach' by UK Government of human rights on Russia probe
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found there was no breach of measures aimed at ensuring free and fair elections after a long-running legal action backed by three former MPs. The Strasbourg court acknowledged there was evidence of a 'significant and ongoing threat' to the UK's democratic processes from Vladimir Putin's country, but said Westminster had taken action to respond to the danger. The case was lodged at the ECtHR in 2022 by three then-MPs, Labour's Ben Bradshaw, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas and the SNP's Alyn Smith (below), after applications for a judicial review of Boris Johnson's decision not to order an investigation into Russian activities were declined by domestic courts. In a judgment published yesterday, the court ruled that the UK Government's response did not violate the right to free elections. The judgment said: 'While the Court does not underestimate the threat posed by the spreading of disinformation and the running of 'influence campaigns', their nature is nevertheless such that it is difficult to assess accurately the impact that they may have on individual voters and, by extension, on the outcome of a given election.' There was also a risk to freedom of expression if there were 'knee-jerk reactions' to debate during an election contest. 'There is a very fine line between addressing the dangers of disinformation and outright censorship,' the judgment said. READ MORE: 'Wake up, America!': Alan Cumming hits out at Donald Trump over trans attacks Any actions taken by states 'to counter the risk of foreign election interference through the dissemination of disinformation and the running of influence campaigns' would have to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 'Therefore, while states should not remain passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat they must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in the choice of means to be adopted in order to counter such threats,' the judgment said. 'In the court's view, the United Kingdom's response to the threat of Russian election interference did not fall outside the wide margin of appreciation afforded to it in this area.' The case followed reports from the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) which looked at alleged Russian disinformation campaigns, including during the 2016 Brexit referendum. The court noted that 'there were undoubtedly shortcomings in the Government's initial response' to the Russian threat but there were 'thorough and independent investigations' by the ISC and the DCMS committee. The judgment also noted that following the publication of the ISC report in 2020 there had been new laws passed to help address the risk: the Elections Act 2022, the National Security Act 2023 ('the NSA 2023') and the Online Safety Act 2023. Following the judgment, Lucas said: 'It's hugely significant that the court has found in favour of our case that foreign interference is a threat to our right to free and fair elections and that they recognise there will be cases when states do have a duty to investigate. And while it's clearly disappointing that they found that the Government had done enough, I've no doubt that this will continue to be contested. 'The bottom line is that we still cannot be assured that our democratic system is robust against foreign interference – and for as long as that is the case, we will continue to explore all possible avenues for remedy.' READ MORE: Broadcast watchdog called in over Labour's 'misleading' Scottish water claim Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day, the law firm which represented the three former MPs, said: 'In an important judgment, which will have far-reaching implications, the court has accepted, contrary to the UK's submissions, that in order to safeguard citizens' right to free and fair elections, states will in certain circumstances have to take positive action against foreign interference in electoral processes including by investigating credible allegations. 'Our clients continue to think the UK has fallen short of protecting our democracy and are considering next steps in relation to the court's conclusion that there has been no violation of their right to free and fair elections.' A UK Government spokesman said: 'We note today's judgment, which found no violation. 'We are committed to safeguarding our electoral processes, which is why we recently announced tougher new rules on political donations to protect our elections from the growing danger of foreign interference. 'These changes will boost transparency and accountability in politics by closing loopholes that would allow foreign donors to influence elections. 'More broadly, national security is our first responsibility, and we have taken action to harden and sharpen our approach to threats – whether standing with Ukraine against Russia's illegal invasion, placing Russia on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and working with allies to monitor and counter Russian submarines and ships in UK waters.'
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
I care more about getting a family on the housing ladder than snails
Rachel Reeves has said that she cares 'more about getting a young family on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails' as she defended the Government's planning bill. Speaking to the House of Lords economic affairs committee on Tuesday, the Chancellor urged parliamentarians to get the flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill into law quickly as ministers look to reach their targets on housebuilding and major projects. The Chancellor was facing questions on Government amendments to the legislation designed to strengthen environmental protections, which one peer suggested would 'make it easier' than in the original plans 'to block and delay things'. The Government has pledged to reach decisions on 150 infrastructure projects and building 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament. The Chancellor said that ministers are of the view that their amendments do not 'water down' or 'weaken' the bill, and asked for people to be 'sympathetic' towards the legislation as it heads towards the statute book. Ms Reeves, who represents the Leeds West and Pudsey seat went on: 'The reason that HS2 is not coming to my city of Leeds anymore anytime soon, is because I'm afraid, as a country, we've cared more about the bats than we have about the commuter times for people in Leeds and West Yorkshire, and we've got to change that, 'Because I care more about a young family getting on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails, and I care more about my energy bills and my constituents than I do about the views of people from their windows.' A £100 million tunnel to protect bats along the route of the high-speed rail project has been singled out by ministers for criticism.
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Orgreave miners prioritised over grooming gang victims, Tories claim
The Government has been accused of prioritising the Orgreave miners over 'the minors who suffered horrific exploitation at the hands of grooming gangs'. Shadow policing minister Matt Vickers told the Commons that 'this Labour Government's union paymasters should not determine the pecking order of justice in this country'. His comments, which policing minister Dame Diana Johnson branded 'extremely distasteful', came after a public inquiry was announced this week into the violent confrontation at Orgreave during the miners' strike in 1984. The inquiry, expected to launch in the autumn, will investigate the events surrounding clashes at the Orgreave Coking Plant in South Yorkshire on June 18 1984, which caused 120 injuries. In total, 95 picketers were arrested and initially charged with riot and violent disorder, but all charges were later dropped after evidence was discredited. Meanwhile, last month the Government announced that there will be a full statutory inquiry into grooming gangs, after initially dismissing calls for one. Responding to the Orgreave inquiry announcement, Tory frontbencher Mr Vickers said: 'I note from the Government's publication that the inquiry will be statutory, with powers to compel individuals to provide information where necessary. 'This sounds remarkably similar to a request we've made to the Government, one which was repeatedly rejected. 'The victims and survivors of rape gangs deserve detailed updates on the progress of that inquiry, yet the lack of information about how this new inquiry will be set up and how it will compel evidence leads me to conclude that the Government has prioritised the miners over the minors who suffered horrific exploitation at the hands of rape gangs. 'This Labour Government's union paymasters should not determine the pecking order of justice in this country. 'There are still perpetrators of child sexual exploitation and those who have covered it up who have gone unpunished. 'And yet this Government has chosen to prioritise this inquiry.' Mr Vickers also claimed there are 'serious questions' about whether the chairman of the inquiry – the Rt Rev Dr Pete Wilcock, the Bishop of Sheffield – will be able to 'act in a politically neutral and independent manner'. He asked: 'Can the minister assure the House that the inquiry will not be political in nature and that it will listen to the views of all parties present on the day, so that this is not merely an example of the Government putting the interests of the unions ahead of the police?' Responding, Dame Diana said she was 'surprised' by these remarks because 'I know the shadow minister is a good man'. But she added: 'I must say to him that I found his comments extremely distasteful and also not accurate or correct.' Dame Diana told MPs: 'Our manifesto commitment was to ensure that there was a thorough investigation or inquiry, that the truth about the events at Orgreave came to light, and that is what we are doing today.' She added: 'He will know that there has been a great deal of work to make sure that the hideous, appalling situations that have been uncovered around the grooming gangs are now going to be dealt with. 'The safeguarding minister has given statements to the House. The Home Secretary has given statements to the House. 'There has been a clear list of the action that is being taken, and it seems to me that that work is absolutely right. 'And of course, under the previous government, when the independent child abuse inquiry was set up, there was support across the House for that work of Professor Alexis Jay. 'It's just a great pity that the previous government did not actually enact any of the recommendations that Professor Alexis Jay came forward. 'And I think that is a hugely shameful state of affairs that this Government then inherited. 'But I'm absolutely clear that this Government is dealing with grooming gangs and that that is absolutely the right thing to do but, equally, it's absolutely the right thing to do to set the Orgreave inquiry up today.' Addressing the issue of the chairman of the inquiry, the minister said: 'I was really disappointed again with the remarks about the bishop. 'I think Bishop Pete has previously supported calls for an inquiry and I think it's important to note that that was in the context of his pastoral role in supporting members of the Diocese of Sheffield, who were impacted by the events at Orgreave. 'And he certainly didn't show any favour for either the police or the picketers when calling for that inquiry. 'And I don't think that that call detracts from the necessary credibility, the impartiality and independence that I believe that he will bring to this role as the chair of the inquiry, and I know that he has the backing and the support of the key stakeholders for taking forward that role.' Dame Diana said she wanted the inquiry to be done 'as quickly as possible, but as thoroughly as possible', adding that a time frame of two years was indicated in early discussions. This came in response to Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North), who asked for an 'idea of roughly how long she expects the inquiry to report'. The minister added that Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has written to all police forces, the National Police Chiefs' Council, the College of Policing and all Government departments to ask that all material they hold relating to the events of Orgreave be retained. DUP MP Jim Shannon raised concerns about the 'retraumatisation' that elderly retired police officers will 'undoubtedly suffer' when asked to recall details of that day in 1984. Dame Diana said the Bishop of Sheffield will look into what support needs to be in place to help witnesses, whether they be from the police, picketers or their families.
