National Security Act 2023: Charges
Debate between Emma Foody and Yvette Cooper(5 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
Our border security is national security. That is the approach the Government are taking. We will continue to strengthen border security, including by introducing counter-terrorism powers. When in opposition I repeatedly called on the previous Government to strengthen the legislation in order to be able to take much stronger action on state-backed organisations like the IRGC. The Jonathan Hall report that is out today identifies the legal difficulties and problems with applying legislation that was designed for terrorism to state-backed threats. It is important that any legislation we apply is actually effective and does not unravel.
That is why some years ago, in 2023, the Labour party put forward proposals to strengthen the legislation and bring in the new stronger powers that we are talking about for use against organisations that are state-backed, such as the IRGC. It is because we believe that national security is so important that we are prepared to give the Government, police and security agencies the powers they need to take action and make sure that something happens in practice.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I put on record my thanks to those who work day in, day out to keep our streets and communities safe, and who undertake work and activities that many of us may never hear about. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that with this Government the police and security services will always have the powers and resources that they need to keep us safe?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the vital work that the police and the security and intelligence services do. It is because we support them so strongly that we are putting forward proposals to strengthen the law so that they have the powers they need at all stages to keep us safe.
Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
Debate between Emma Foody and Yvette Cooper(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
The whole point of us setting up a victims and survivors panel is to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors continue to be heard as part of the implementation, as part of the action and as part of the further investigations that need to take place. This cannot be a case of simply having a one-off inquiry and then everybody turns their back, moves on and talks about something different; we have to ensure that there is serious change. There was obviously a two-year inquiry that looked at organised grooming gangs and child exploitation, but we have also had the issues around Telford —Telford was not included in detail as part of that inquiry —and there will be other areas where detailed questions are still unresolved. That is why we want Tom Crowther to be able to work with the Government and with other areas on how best to ensure that victims and survivors feel that their voices will be heard, in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. He is right that too often they do not feel that, and that is often because, frankly, we still need further police investigations into those terrible crimes and the perpetrators who have still not been brought to justice.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Anyone who has worked with survivors, as I have, knows how extraordinarily painful but important it was to have the IICSA inquiry and for survivors to be heard, to be believed and, crucially, to finally see action taken. I pay tribute to the thousands of survivors who participated in the inquiry. Survivors should not have to repeatedly relive their trauma in order to see action finally being taken, and they have told us that now is the time for action. I refer to the recent quotes from Alexis Jay, who described the inaction of the previous Government as “weak” and “apparently disingenuous” with regard to what they did. Does the Home Secretary agree that the way to protect vulnerable children is to take action and implement the recommendations as quickly as possible?
Yvette Cooper
We need to take forward the work on the inquiry, with victims and survivors, on a continuing basis. I would also highlight that there are some areas that will need to go well beyond the independent inquiry, such as the way in which online abuse and online grooming are accelerating. Gangs and organised networks are operating online and then drawing young people offline for physical abuse, as well as for sharing terrible images. That is a massive and growing crime, and I am really worried about it. We are going to need much stronger action. Whether it is through social media companies taking more responsibility or having stronger measures online, we will need more action.
Migration and Border Security
Debate between Emma Foody and Yvette Cooper(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
We are determined to clear the backlog so that we can end asylum hotels. In 2019, there were no asylum hotels, so it was the previous Government who increased and opened about 400 of them. There are still around 220 asylum hotels in place.
We have had to deal with the shocking crashing of the asylum system. Just before the election, the previous Government effectively stopped a whole load of caseworkers from making decisions on asylum cases and pushed the backlog up—we also had to clear that over the summer. That means that we can make progress on bringing the backlog down, so that we can start to clear hotels and ensure that we save money for the taxpayer. We have already saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds this year.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Was the Home Secretary as surprised as me to hear that, as part of the £700 million spent by the previous Government on the failed Rwanda scheme, the package of support that the four volunteers who went to Kigali received included five years of free housing, free food, free private healthcare, free university education and free vocational training, all at a cost of £150,000 per person? Does she agree that Rwanda was in no way a deterrent but a colossal waste of money?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. It was a total, shocking waste of money to send just four volunteers—and the Government had 1,000 people working on the Rwanda scheme. That was 1,000 people who could have been working on enforcement, returns or clearing the backlog, or taking action to pursue the criminal gangs. Instead, they were working on a scheme that ran for two years and sent just four volunteers.