Parliament votes on biggest shake-up to reproductive rights in England and Wales in 60 years

Casey says in the past government has talked relentlessly about the need for better data sharing between departments.

But she says there is a need to consider making this mandatory.

I was there when the tragedy of Soham happened. We knew at that point that if we had had better data sharing there’s a possibility that we might have saved those girls’ lives. There’s certaintly an absolute clarity that intelligence would have been much faster in either avoiding it or or actually finding that dreadful human being earlier.

And we’ve known that forever onwards. And so I think there is also an issue that the Home Office can’t drag their feet on, looking at police intelligence systems, given we’ve living in the 21st century. Probably everbody in this room can connect within seconds. Yet we had Befordshire police finding a young boy that was being, in my mind trafficked to London. But the data intelligence system did not make it easy for them to find that he was in Deptford and being circled and dealt with by predators.

I feel very strongly on issues that are as searing as people’s race, when we know the prejudice and racism that people of colour experience in this country, to not get how you treat that data right is a different level of public irresponsibility.

Sorry, to put it so bluntly, I didn’t put it that bluntly yesterday, but I think it’s particularly important if you are collecting those sorts of issues to get them 100% right.

When we asked the good people of Greater Manchester Police to help us look at the data we also collected – I think it’s in the report – what was happening with child abuse more generally, and of course … if you look at the data on child sexual exploitation, suspects and offenders, it’s disproportionately Asian heritage. If you look at the data for child abuse, it is not disproportionate, and it is white men.

So again, just note to everybody, really outside here rather than in here. Let’s just keep calm here about how you interrogate data and what you draw from it.

Yvette Cooper tells parliament that Louise Casey audit found ‘organisations avoided topic for fear of appearing racist or raising community tensions’

• Starmer launches new grooming gangs investigation

In his interview on the Sky News this morning Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said that Keir Starmer should apologise for saying in January that those calling for a national inquiry into grooming gangs were jumping on a far-right bandwagon. Kemi Badenoch, his party leader, is also quoted today in an Daily Express splash story saying Starmer should apologise, but she is saying he should apologise for not agreeing to hold a national inquiry earlier.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing this morning the No 10 spokesperson was asked if Starmer still thought that people who backed a national inquiry in January were joining a far-right bandwagon. In response, the spokesperson defended the phrase, and insisted that it only applied to Tories who were now demanding an inquiry they never set up when they were in government.

The prime minister’s comments about bandwagons were specifically about ministers from the previous government who sat in office for years and did nothing to tackle this scandal. As the prime minister has said, we will not make the same mistake.

The point the PM has made is that those spreading lies and misinformation were not doing so in the interest of victims. And those cheerleading for Tommy Robinson, who was almost who was jailed for almost collapsing a grooming case, are not interested in justice.

When politicians, and I mean politicians who sat in government for many years, are casual about honesty, decency, truth and the rule of law, calling for inquiries because they want to jump on a bandwagon of the far right, that affects politics because a robust debate can only be based on the true facts.

While some people had positive experiences to share, a worrying number [of veterans] felt that the covenant had been ineffective—or worse yet, had been disregarded—when they had cited it. As a result, many continued to face disadvantages as a result of their service in areas like healthcare, education, employment and welfare ….

We welcome the government’s intention to extend the covenant legal duty, which currently requires some public service providers to give due regard to the covenant’s principles when providing certain housing, healthcare and education services. We conclude that this duty should be extended to all central government departments and the devolved administrations, and should cover the breadth of areas in which the Armed Forces community regularly experiences disadvantage.

The covenant is a solemn commitment that the servicemen and women who place their lives on the line for us should face no disadvantage due to their service – we need to make sure every part of government lives up to that commitment.