Immigration System

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s White Paper on restoring control over the immigration system.

Five months ago, the figures were published that showed net migration had reached a record high of more than 900,000 under the last Conservative Government —a figure that had quadrupled in the space of just four years. That was the consequence of specific Government choices made from 2020 onwards, including introducing what was effectively a free market experiment on immigration: encouraging employers to recruit from abroad and loosening controls in different areas, but without any requirement to tackle skills and labour shortages here at home. Those choices undermined the immigration system and the economy too.

This Government are making very different choices. We made it clear at that time, just as we set out in our manifesto, that this Government would restore order and control to the immigration system, not only bringing net migration substantially down, but boosting skills and training here at home. The White Paper we are publishing today does exactly that. It is built on five core principles: first, that net migration must come down, so the system is properly managed and controlled; secondly, that the immigration system must be linked to skills and training here in the UK, so that no industry is allowed to rely solely on immigration to fill its skills shortages; thirdly, that the system must be fair and effective, with clearer rules in areas such as respect for family life, to prevent perverse outcomes that undermine public confidence; fourthly, that the rules must be respected and enforced, including tackling illegal and irregular migration and deporting foreign criminals; and finally, that the system must support integration and community cohesion, including new rules on the ability to speak English and the contribution that people can bring to the UK.

Our United Kingdom is an interconnected and outward-looking nation. Our history and our geography mean that for generations, British people have travelled overseas to live and work, and people have come to the UK to study, work, invest or seek refuge. British citizens draw on heritage from all over the world, and that has made us the country we are today. Through many years, our country has been strengthened by those who have come here to contribute, from the doctors in our NHS to the entrepreneurs founding some of our biggest businesses and those who came through generations to work in jobs from coal mining to caring for our loved ones or serving in our armed forces—people often coming to do some of the most difficult jobs of all.

Our trading nation, global leading universities and strong historical international connections mean that migration will always be part of our country’s future as well as our past. But that is exactly why immigration needs to be properly controlled and managed—and it has not been.

Overseas recruitment shot up while training in the UK was cut. Lower skilled migration soared while the proportion of UK residents in work plummeted. In 2019, 10% of skilled work visas went to non-graduate jobs. By 2024, that had risen to 60%. Employers were even given a 20% wage discount if they recruited for shortage jobs from abroad, actively discouraging them from paying the going rate or training here at home. Educational institutions were allowed to substantially expand the number of overseas students without proper compliance checks. Social care providers were encouraged to recruit from abroad with no proper regulation, so we saw a serious increase in exploitation, deeply damaging for those who came to work here in good faith, and for other workers and responsible companies who were being undercut.

The rules and laws that are supposed to underpin the immigration system were too often ignored. By 2024, returns of people with no right to be in the UK were down by more than a third compared with 2010, and of course criminal gangs were allowed to build an entire smuggling industry along our borders, undermining security and creating a crisis in the asylum system. Later this year, we will set out further reforms to asylum and border security, and to tackling illegal and irregular migration, building on the new counter-terrorism powers in the Border Security, Immigration and Asylum Bill that is before the House this evening, because no one should be making these dangerous crossings on small boats.

This White Paper sets out how we restore control to the legal migration system so that it is sustainable and fair, and works for the UK. First, we are overhauling the approach to labour market policy, so that for the first time, we properly link the immigration system to skills and training here in the UK. Where there are skills or labour shortages in the UK, immigration should not always be the answer to which employers turn. The long-term failure to tackle skills shortages, bring in proper workforce planning, get UK residents back into work, or improve pay, terms and conditions here at home is bad for our economy as well as for the immigration system, because it undermines productivity and growth. We will lift the threshold for skilled worker visas back to graduate level and above, removing up to 180 different jobs from the list and increasing salary thresholds. For lower-skilled jobs, access to the points-based system will be limited to jobs that are on a new temporary shortage list, including jobs that are critical to the industrial strategy, but that access will be time-limited; there must be a domestic workforce strategy in place, and employers must act to increase domestic recruitment.

We will also expect workforce strategies to be drawn up more widely in higher-skilled areas where there is overreliance on recruitment from abroad. To support that work, we will establish a new labour market evidence group. It will bring together skills bodies from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Department for Work and Pensions; the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council; and the Migration Advisory Committee to gather and share evidence on shortage occupations in different parts of the country, and to highlight the role that skills, training, pay and conditions and other policies can play in improving domestic recruitment, so that increased migration is never again the only answer to the shortages that the economy faces.

This new approach means that we also need to act on social care. The introduction of the social care visa led not only to a huge increase in migration, but to a shameful and deeply damaging increase in abuse and exploitation. When proper checks were finally brought in, 470 care providers had their licence to sponsor international staff suspended, and 39,000 care workers were displaced. Overseas recruitment to care jobs has since dropped, but it must not surge like that again. It is time we addressed the domestic issues, including with a proper fair pay agreement, to show respect to people who do some of the most important jobs in the country. We are therefore ending overseas recruitment of care workers. It will continue to be possible to extend existing visas, and to recruit displaced care workers and people on other visas, with working rights, who are already in the UK.

Alongside the new visa controls and workforce strategies, we will increase by 32% the immigration skills charge paid by employers who recruit from abroad. That money will be invested through the spending review in supporting skills and training here in the UK. We will ensure that Britain continues to attract the brightest and best global talent by enhancing visa routes for very high-skilled individuals, top scientific and design talent, and people with the right experience to support growth in key strategic industries.

International students bring huge benefits to the UK, supporting our world-leading universities and bringing in top talent and investment, but we will strengthen compliance requirements and checks to prevent visa misuse. Too many people on the graduate visa are not doing graduate jobs, so we will reduce the unrestricted period from two years to 18 months. Those who want to stay will need to get a graduate job and a skilled worker visa, so that we ensure that they are contributing to the economy.

Our rules on work visas are based on the contribution we expect people to make when they come to our country, and we will consult later this year on new earned settlement and citizenship rules that apply the same approach. We will extend the principles of the points-based system, doubling the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years, but there will be provisions to qualify more swiftly that take account of the contribution people have made. As the ability to speak English is integral to everyone’s ability to contribute and integrate, we will introduce new, higher language requirements across a range of visa routes, for both main applicants and their dependants, so that family, too, can work, integrate and contribute.

The system for family migration has become overly complex. Policies have increasingly developed around case law, following court decisions, rather than being part of a co-ordinated framework set out by Parliament. We will set out a new, clearer framework to be endorsed by Parliament, which will include clarification of how article 8 rules should be interpreted and applied, to prevent confusion or perverse conclusions.

We will review current community sponsorship schemes that support recognised refugees, and we will continue to take action against trafficking and modern slavery. We will shortly appoint a new Windrush commissioner to ensure that the lessons from Windrush continue to be learned, and so that the Home Office ensures that its standards are upheld.

The rules must be respected and enforced across the board. We will bring in stronger controls where there is evidence of visa misuse. We are rolling out e-visas and digital ID. There will be better use of technology to monitor when people are overstaying on their visa, and to support an increase in illegal working raids. Already since the election we have increased returns, and we will go further.

Those who come to our country must abide by our laws, so we will develop new procedures to ensure that the Home Office is informed of all foreign nationals who have been convicted of offences—not just those who go to prison—so that we can revoke visas and remove perpetrators of a wide range of crimes who are abusing our system.

We are already reducing the number of visas granted this year; updated figures will be published before the end of the month. We are increasing returns. Over 24,000 people were returned in our first nine months in government; that is the highest number of returns in a nine-month period for eight years. The impact of the changes regarding skilled worker visas, care worker visas, settlement, students and English language requirements is expected to be a reduction in visas of around 100,000 a year. On top of that, the new workforce strategies, immigration skills charge and family and asylum reforms will bring numbers down, too. As the Prime Minister has said, where we need to go further to restore a sustainable system, we will.

Throughout our history, Britain has been strengthened by people coming here to start new businesses, study at universities, contribute to our cultural and sporting excellence and do some of the toughest jobs in our country. However, to be successful, effective and fair, our immigration must be properly controlled and managed. The White Paper sets out how we will restore control, fairness and order to the system, how we will continue to bring net migration down, and how we will turn the page on the chaos and failure of the past. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I will try anyway. If the Home Secretary is really serious about controlling immigration, will she vote later today for the immigration cap, and will she vote to repeal the Human Rights Act for all immigration matters?

[Yvette Cooper]

I must have missed a bit of the shadow Home Secretary’s response—the bit, maybe at the beginning, when he apologised to the House and the country for his party’s policies, which quadrupled net migration in just four years. He tells us his concerns about the level of migration; his party is responsible for that huge increase in net migration.

I must have also missed the bit when the shadow Home Secretary confessed that from the point at which he became an immigration Minister in 2020—when all these policies were introduced—to the point at which the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), finished being immigration Minister in 2023, net migration rose from 170,000 a year to 870,000 a year. I must have missed that confession, and that apology, which the shadow Home Secretary should have made. Until he admits his failure and apologises for the damage and chaos that he and his party caused, no one will take seriously a single word that he says.

The shadow Home Secretary referred to visa changes that were made before the election. We supported changes made by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), but he had to reverse some of the changes that the shadow Home Secretary made when he was an immigration Minister.

As for a cap, the White Paper provides for caps on low-skilled migration on the temporary shortage list. The right hon. Gentleman’s targets and caps are as meaningless as all the other ones that his party introduced when they were in government. Indeed, let me quote from the time of the Conservative Government’s reforms that caused a lot of these problems:

“I especially thank the Home Secretary for removing the annual limits on work visas and on international students: I lobbied for both”.—[Official Report, 19 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 815.]

That was the current Leader of the Opposition, so the idea that that lot have anything to offer is like people who burgle your house and then turn up the next day and offer to sell you a dog. If the Conservatives are serious about making the changes and serious about tackling small boats, they should vote for our counter-terrorism powers to tackle the smuggler gangs that the right hon. Gentleman and the other right-wing parties have repeatedly voted against. That is not serious. This Government are.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am proud to represent the diverse and vibrant constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green—a place where so many people from around the world have chosen to make their home and a place where so many people contribute to our community, day in, day out. Since this announcement, I have been contacted by several constituents who are currently on a work visa and looking at their path for a way towards indefinite leave to remain. They are understandably worried about where this uncertainty leaves them. They are worried about their future plans. One even told me that they were so worried that they were considering leaving the UK, because their settled status here is in jeopardy, so can the Home Secretary please outline whether this policy applies to people who are already living and working in the UK, or will it apply just to new visa applicants?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that there are people working in all kinds of jobs across the country and contributing to our economy and to our communities who have travelled here from all over the world, and that is hugely important. We will set out further details of the earned settlement and citizenship reforms later this year, and we will consult on them. There will be plenty of opportunity for people to comment on and consider the detail, but it is important that we extend the sense of contributions and the points-based system to those reforms as well. We have also said that we will maintain the current five-year route for those who have come on a dependant visa or a family visa, as part of maintaining families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Immigration is personal to all of us, whether we are immigrants ourselves, the descendants of immigrants, or benefit from the skills, talents and cultural richness that immigrants bring. I am immensely proud that our country took in my nan, aged 18, when she was fleeing the Nazis in 1939. I am also hugely grateful that the senior surgeon who did my dad’s kidney transplant operation brought his skills and talents to our country, having been born elsewhere.

Yes, the Conservative Government made a total mess of our immigration system. Their chaotic and dishonest approach of making and breaking headline-grabbing targets shattered public trust and left the system in tatters. The line I agree with most in the Government White Paper published this morning is that the immigration system must be “fair and effective”. What the Conservatives left behind was nowhere close to either. Change is needed, and that means rebuilding an immigration system that works for our country and our economy, while treating everyone with dignity and respect.

Of course, that must be coupled with a clear plan to make it easier to recruit British workers to fill those vacancies instead, and I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary on how her Government will achieve this to ensure that these changes do not have unintended consequences for our economy and, in particular, for our health and social care systems. Will this include finally implementing the Lib Dem proposals for a higher minimum wage for carers to reflect the skill levels really involved in caring professions?

We also need to move away from the chaotic chopping and changing of immigration rules that we saw under the Conservatives, so will the Home Secretary provide further clarity on when these changes will be brought forward, including a clear timetable for any changes to visa rules, so that employers—and the workers and their families, who we are talking about today—can plan for their future?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right that we need to boost training and skills here in the UK alongside these stronger controls. On social care, we will introduce a fair pay agreement. It is important that the vital jobs of those who look after our loved ones in social care are properly respected. On the timetable, some of these measures will require primary legislation and further consultation, while others will be brought in more swiftly—including, for example, some of the changes to the skilled worker thresholds. To give her an example of the approach we want to take, construction workers will be on the temporary shortage list because they are clearly crucial to growth in our economy. However, that has to happen alongside respect for the workforce strategy, which is why the Education Secretary has set out proposals to train 60,000 more construction workers here in the UK.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

This Labour Government inherited disorder at the border: a broken system where criminal gangs, dodgy employers and fake colleges too often decided who came into this country. Will the Home Secretary give the courts the powers to deport and the universities and colleges the resources to train our young people, and will she have a system that encourages the brightest and the best to come to this country and rebuild Britain?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to make the procedures easier for the deportation of foreign criminals and for increasing returns of those who have no right to be in the UK. That is why we will change the procedures that we inherited. He is also right that we need to ensure that the best international talent can come swiftly to the UK. That is why we will be setting out further reforms for the highest talent routes as well.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The Home Secretary, in her statement, said that the visa changes she is putting in place will reduce net migration by 100,000 people a year. The House of Commons Library has figures that say the visa changes that I brought in would reduce net migration by 300,000 people per year—so would she concede that her proposals are only a third as effective as mine?

[Yvette Cooper]

Nice try! The right hon. Member was in the Cabinet that massively increased net migration and pushed the numbers up. He then belatedly had to attempt to restrict and reverse some—but just some—of the changes that he and his colleagues had previously endorsed and put before the country. The fact is he still never tackled the Conservatives’ fundamental approach: the free market experiment of encouraging people to recruit from abroad but never supporting training and conditions here in the UK. Fundamentally, that meant that he was desperately trying to close the door and deal with the problems without any proper strategy and without understanding why we needed those links with skills and training in the first place. We have to recognise the important way in which migration has always supported our economy, and that it will continue to do so, but it has to be properly controlled and managed—he did not do that.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

The Tories promised net migration in the tens of thousands and left it at about 1 million. Reform’s predecessor, the UK Independence party, promised that Brexit would fix immigration—that didn’t work out, did it? The Home Secretary is therefore absolutely right to take a reasoned, evidence-based approach to fixing the immigration system. I welcome her emphasis on the contribution that immigrants make—national health service workers in Newcastle from different backgrounds and those starting up great businesses in this country must still feel welcome—but she is also right to critique our country’s dependence on immigration for growth and the impact that has on productivity. Will she say a little more about how she will break that link?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If the response to any labour or skills shortages is too often simply to turn to migration without addressing their causes—which might relate to pay and conditions, lack of training, lack of workforce planning and a whole series of different things—all that happens is that UK productivity falls. Alongside ensuring that we get the skills we need and that we benefit from international talent, we must invest to tackle domestic training and skills failures. That is what the increase in the immigration skills charge will help us to do.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Surely the most immediate challenge is illegal migration across the channel, which is enraging our constituents, but the Home Secretary’s Government have kicked away the tough deterrent measures that they inherited from the previous Government. There are three critical measures that she should take: the first is to work incredibly closely with all our European partners; the second is to look hard at international conventions, particularly the 1951 Geneva convention; and the third—and in many ways the most important—is to work on the upstream problems at source. Increasingly, people are migrating in large numbers from the Sahel in north Africa, fleeing violence, starvation and extreme poverty. Does she accept that she and her European counterparts must lift their ambition and move towards a modern-day equivalent of a Marshall plan if we are to solve this long-term and increasingly serious issue?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the right hon. Member that we must do more upstream to tackle some of the causes of dangerous journeys. We clearly need to act on the criminal smuggler gangs who are exploiting people and undermining our border security—that is why the legislation on counter-terrorism powers that we will debate tonight is so important—but we also need to do much more work with European partners. We have been working with France, for example, to get it to agree to change its rules so that, for the first time, it will start to intervene in French waters to prevent dangerous boat crossings. I agree with him about the importance of the Sahel and working upstream. We have established a new joint unit between the Home Office and the Foreign Office in order to do some of the work to which he refers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

If I am to get in as many Members as possible, we will need pithy questions and short answers, please. For a masterclass in that, I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I represent a constituency that is enriched and sustained every day by people who have come from overseas to make their home here, especially those who came as members of the Windrush generation. It is important that they hear from this place that they are not only valued and appreciated but part of us. Last week, the Office for Students published another report on the precarious situation facing our universities. This announcement includes a levy on universities in relation to their international students. What engagement has the Home Secretary had with her counterpart at the Department for Education on the impact of her measures on the financial sustainability of universities?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. British citizens have heritage from all over the world, and people came here as part of the Windrush generation. We will shortly appoint the Windrush commissioner to ensure that Home Office standards are upheld and that that contribution, through generations, is properly recognised and respected in our country. The White Paper sets out that we will explore the international student levy. That work, which is being led by the Education Secretary, will consider how we can ensure that investment goes into supporting skills in the UK.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The Home Secretary spoke about attracting the best and the brightest to this country. One area in which our universities do that is the medical profession. During the covid crisis and the rebuilding after it, a lot of the people on the frontline were immigrants. When she looks at the resettlement and reassurance of existing migrants, will she consider indefinite leave to remain for those who worked through that crisis?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes an important point about the contribution made by those who saved lives and cared for our loved ones during the pandemic—one of our most difficult periods. We need to respect and recognise those contributions. There will be plenty of opportunity for everyone to contribute to the consultation on changes to the earned settlement and citizenship rules.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

A report on the economic impact of the University of Edinburgh found that its education exports alone amounted to £1.8 billion in the 2021-22 academic year. What engagement will my right hon. Friend have with the university to ensure that the proposals brought forward today do not have any adverse impact on our world-class universities and their local economic impacts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that international students make a huge contribution to our country and our economy and that universities are often very important to the local economy as well, but it is really important that proper standards are met. There have been cases of some institutions not meeting the right high standards of compliance, and evidence that recruitment was not meeting high standards and people were misusing the visas, coming for other reasons and not completing courses. We need those standards to be met, because that is how we will underpin and maintain confidence in international students and in our world-class universities, which is hugely important to our economy.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

There was very little of substance in the details of the Government White Paper that came out over the weekend, and the Home Secretary has rather confirmed that impression today, but there are two big-ticket items on which my local authority and my local training providers would like some answers. First, from where will the uplift in training be financed and when will that money arrive? I am sure Trowbridge college in my constituency will be very interested to hear about that. Secondly, does the Home Secretary anticipate that authorities providing statutory services will pay for the fair pay agreement, which presumably means council tax payers, or will she be providing the money out of the block grant?

[Yvette Cooper]

On training, this Government are already going considerably further than the previous Government, who allowed training to be cut, including in adult education and adult skills, at the same time as net migration figures were substantially increasing. Already we are funding training for 60,000 more construction workers as part of our growth plans and workforce strategies, and the White Paper—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will love the chance to read it and see all the substance in it—sets out proposals for a 32% increase in the immigration skills charge that will go into skills and training in the UK.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

When serious legislation that could be contentious is being introduced, it is critically important that Ministers use language carefully. The Prime Minister referred to “an island of strangers”, reflecting the language of Enoch Powell. Does the Home Secretary realise how shockingly divisive that could be?

[Yvette Cooper]

The point that the Prime Minister has repeatedly made is that people need to be able to integrate, to become part of our communities and to share with our neighbours, and that means being able to speak English. That is very important, and it is why we are increasing the English language standards, not just for main visa applicants but for partners, spouses and adult dependants, because too often people unable to speak English have been isolated in communities, and that can also lead to greater exploitation.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

Today’s announcement, with all that appalling, dehumanising language from the Prime Minister, could not be more contrary to Scotland’s national interest. We have a population and demography crisis just now. We cannot get an adequate working-age population to look after our older cohort. Why is the Home Secretary introducing an immigration system that is contrary to everything that we need in Scotland? Why does she not give us the powers to grow our economy and public services, and why does she not give a jot about Scotland?

[Yvette Cooper]

I gently say to the hon. Member that a series of labour market issues needs to be addressed. As he will know, Scotland’s labour market faced challenges when net migration was at 900,000—that level of net migration did not solve the issues across Scotland’s labour market. There is a serious issue about what should happen about skills, training and different workforce strategies across Scotland. We have been clear that the skills’ bodies and the devolved Governments from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland need to be part of the labour market evidence group, so that we can have a broad strategy that will properly deal with the labour market challenges that we face.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s emphasis on the contribution of migrants; historically, the city of Liverpool has been made up of migrants. I welcome the White Paper and her statement today, in particular linking migration to labour market strategy, because migration is a key economic lever of the state. Does she agree with me that it is not a left or right issue, but part of the loss of trust in democratic politics, and that we need an asylum and immigration system that has, most importantly, democratic consent?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of trust and confidence, because when people feel that the system is not working or is not under control, or that there is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality, trust is undermined. For generations, people have valued the work of those who have come to the UK in order to work, contribute, study and be part of communities, but it has to be controlled and managed. It has not been controlled and managed, and that has undermined confidence too.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I know a gimmick when I see one, and we have seen one here today. The Home Secretary says that net migration must come down, but she does not say to what level or by when. What does she think the cap should be?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am not sure the right hon. Lady’s Front-Bench team can answer that question. We have made clear that net migration needs to reduce substantially. We had years of targets from the previous Government which all failed and were all over the place, which undermines confidence. We should address the issue of confidence by taking a different approach: step by step, we will make progress and deliver, rather than just adding to the talk and the rhetoric.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

Lancaster University, like all of the leading universities in the UK, relies on operating in a global market, not just for international students, but for academic staff. Many of those staff have been in touch with me already today and they are feeling upset by some of the language that has been used, particularly around the use of the phrase “island of strangers”. Will the Home Secretary say something to my constituents who very much contribute to the economy of Lancaster and to our cultural enrichment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the words in my statement: in recent years and through many generations, people have come to the UK, contributed to and built our communities, and they are part of the country that we are today. That is who we are and it is important. It is important that we ensure that when people come to the UK, they can speak English so that they can talk to each other and be part of a community, because in areas where people have not been able to speak English, we have often seen some of the worst exploitation. This is about recognising the importance of migration, but ensuring that the system is fair.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that five years ago I warned that if we did not leave the European convention on human rights and immediately deport those who arrived in Dover via small boats, there would be an invasion. Sure enough, I was right. Already today, a further 600 young men have been processed through Dover, perhaps the odd Iranian terrorist among them—who knows? [Interruption.] Does the Home Secretary accept that the Government’s policy of “smash the gangs” is a complete and total failure? If that is the case, why should we believe anything else that they say?

[Yvette Cooper]

No one should be making these dangerous boat crossings: they undermine our border security and put lives at risk. Criminal gangs are making a fortune, profiting from organising these dangerous boat crossings. That is why we need counter terrorism-style powers to be able to go after the gangs. There is the opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and his party to vote for those counter-terrorism powers tonight, so that we can strengthen our border security. Previously, he and his party voted against those counter-terrorism powers. I think we need counter terrorism-style powers to strengthen our border security in order to be able to go after those criminal gangs. Does he?

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

The Opposition like to talk about and obsess over caps. Does the Home Secretary agree that it might have been sensible for the previous Government to place a cap on the number of Home Secretaries they had to churn through to deliver their failed open-border project?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. I think the previous Government had eight Home Secretaries in the space of eight years, and two of them were the same person.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Without a third country such as Rwanda, can the Home Secretary tell the House where illegal immigrants whose country of origin cannot be established, because they have destroyed their documentation, will be deported to? Is it the case that they cannot be deported, and anyone who exploits that loophole can stay here with impunity?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government have increased returns since the election; there have been 24,000 returns since the election. That includes an increase of more than 20% in failed asylum cases. It also includes action we are taking to deal with people who claim to have lost their papers and to ensure that we can deliver those returns. We will continue to support other policies, including working with the EU on issues around returns hubs. The Conservatives had two years to run their Rwanda scheme. They spent £700 million and sent four volunteers. That was a waste of money, a failure for the taxpayer and a failed delivery.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome this statement, particularly the measures outlined to streamline deportation processes and ensure that they are fast, fair and effective. Can the Secretary of State remind the House what happened to levels of removals, including of foreign national offenders, on the Conservatives’ watch?

[Yvette Cooper]

Returns dropped by around a third under the previous Conservative Government. I think that is very damaging; I think the rules should be respected and enforced. We have inherited a system in which it seems the only people they tried to remove or to get information on were those who had been convicted and had prison sentences. We believe that we need information much more widely and a faster process to ensure that the rules and the laws are upheld.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Given that lengthy A&E, cancer treatment and ambulance waiting times in Cumbria are a direct result of the lack of social care workers, meaning that our hospitals are full to bursting, what assessment has the Home Secretary made of the damage that this policy could do to patients and NHS workers in my communities, where the most regular experience we have of migrants is that they care for us and our loved ones?

[Yvette Cooper]

We need to support social care and recognise the importance of that job. That means tackling the long-term recruitment issues here in the UK, not simply always thinking that we can ignore those problems and turn to migration instead. The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been huge problems, including abuse and exploitation, as a result of that route. Some 39,000 people who came here on a care worker visa, often in good faith, ended up being displaced when checks were finally introduced. That is why regional hubs have been introduced to ensure that employers can still recruit from those displaced workers, rather than continuing to recruit from abroad.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Migrants are being scapegoated for problems they did not cause. To be truthful, these arbitrary measures will not fix those problems, but they will harm migrants, people who need social care, our economy and anyone who fears racial abuse, which the rhetoric surrounding this issue emboldens. Why are we trying to ape Reform, when that will do nothing to improve our constituents’ lives and will just stoke more division?

[Yvette Cooper]

In the space of just four years, we saw a huge increase in overseas recruitment at exactly the same time that training in the UK fell. It is a real problem in the UK labour market to have such steep increases in overseas recruitment at the same time as we have such deep problems with training. That is why it is so important to ensure that for the first time, we link the immigration system with training and skills. That has not happened before; we have had the wrong approach to the labour market, and it is right that we bring in these reforms. Of course, my hon. Friend is right that we should also recognise the huge contribution that people make as part of our country. Respecting people for the contribution they make should be embedded in our system, but we have to change this broken approach to the labour market.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

The Prime Minister’s “island of strangers” speech sounded like something straight out of the Reform-Trump playbook. Rather than alienating and devaluing migrants, and recognising the need to increase the number of Brits who want to work in our health and care sectors, would the Home Secretary not prefer to support Unison’s campaign for a certificate of common sponsorship? Such a certificate would protect the working rights of migrant workers who are working in unacceptable situations of exploitation that border on slavery and who are at threat of deportation. As a Labour Member, would she not prefer to support that campaign?

[Yvette Cooper]

In the White Paper, we highlight the importance of tackling exploitation, which is deeply damaging for those who have come to the UK in good faith, as well as for other employers. We want to explore how we can make it easier for people to not be held to a single employer when there are problems with the sponsorship arrangements. We want to make that system more effective so that it can tackle exploitation.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome today’s White Paper, which brings substantive reforms to our immigration system after over a decade of expensive rhetoric. Can the Home Secretary set out what further reforms to our asylum and appeals system the Government are considering to deal with the ludicrous hotels situation that the last Government left us with?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right; we need to end asylum hotels, which means that we have to clear the shocking backlog that the previous Government left us with—they just stopped taking asylum decisions in the last few months in the run-up to the election. Another measure we are introducing is new statutory timetables for appeals, because the appeals system is causing a lot of the hold-ups in the backlog. We need that measure; it is part of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that Members will be able to vote on tonight. That is why I hope all parties in the House will support that Bill.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. It is in the national interest that the Government get this right; I hope that that will happen, but to be honest I am not convinced yet, and we have not seen much of the detail. I also support the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his concerns about national security, which is something that should be taken more seriously.

This year, 10,500 people—illegal migrants—have crossed the English channel. That is a record number for this period of time compared with any previous year, and I saw nothing in the Prime Minister’s earlier leaked statement or, indeed, in the Home Secretary’s statement about a deterrent. Without a deterrent, we can have all the counter-terrorism commands, all the new laws and all the great statements in the world, but nothing is going to change.

[Yvette Cooper]

This evening, Members will be able to vote for a border security Bill that includes counter-terrorism powers to tackle criminal smuggler gangs. When we hosted the Interpol conference before Christmas, the Prime Minister said that border security is a national security issue, and needs to be taken seriously as such. That is why we need those counter-terrorism powers—it is why we need our police, the National Crime Agency, Border Force and border authorities to be able to intervene much earlier to take action against this dangerous trade in people that undermines our national security as well as our border security. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will vote for the Bill tonight.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

The public have been waiting for 15 years to hear a Government set out a serious strategy to get a grip on the legal migration system so that it works for public confidence, for the economy and for migrants themselves. I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has announced in relation to the health and social care visa, because this has not only been very disruptive for the labour market but has led to instances of extreme exploitation and modern slavery. Will she commit herself to ensuring that these new measures are fully modern-slavery-proofed in the White Paper?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. There have been shameful examples of exploitation, which all of us have probably come across in our constituencies, involving the social care visa and the way in which it was introduced. People have come here to work incredibly hard in our care homes, which is why it is so important for us to tackle that exploitation and ensure that standards are met. We must ensure that we have a fair pay agreement, and, certainly, that we maintain the standards relating to tackling trafficking and modern slavery.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

The Home Secretary will be aware of the funding crisis that affects many of the UK’s universities. Last year, when the Migration Advisory Committee reviewed the graduate visa route, it concluded that it should be retained, stating:

“Under the current higher education funding model, closure or additional restrictions could put many universities at financial risk.”

What is the Home Secretary’s assessment of the impact that these changes will have on the financial sustainability of our universities?

[Yvette Cooper]

Where universities are already meeting high standards of compliance, as most of them are, that is very welcome, but those that do not currently meet them will need to raise their compliance standards to ensure that we have a proper, robust system. The graduate visa will enable people to stay on for the unrestricted 18 months, but if they want to stay longer they will need to be contributing in graduate jobs. Too often people have stayed without doing that, although they have degrees and should therefore be obtaining graduate jobs, which they can also do through the skilled worker visa.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way in which to address the soaring level of migration for work purposes is to properly train and up-skill our domestic workers in constituencies such as mine? How will these measures contribute to the achievement of that aim?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. In Mansfield and throughout the country, we need training and skills. The immigration skills charge proposals mean that employers who recruit from abroad will have to contribute more towards training and skills in the UK. As well as being part of the temporary shortage list, sectors in which there are persistent shortages—and there will be such sectors, which are still crucial to the economy—will, for the first time, need to have proper workforce strategies in place setting out what action they are taking to improve and increase domestic recruitment and training so that it benefits UK residents who need to be part of our labour force.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

A care provider in my constituency has already been in touch, saying that a third of his workers are from overseas and are delivering about 60% of the work. He will be unable to care for 80 of his 120 clients. He has been hit by horrendous national insurance contributions, and has invested thousands of pounds in the model. In the absence of any adult social care plan, the Government are now effectively capping the number of workers. How can we plug the gap very quickly, and will care providers be properly supported with funding to allow these changes to happen?

[Yvette Cooper]

The care provider in the hon. Member’s constituency will be able to extend the care visas and will also be able to recruit displaced care workers, of whom there were 39,000 when the proper new checks and standards were introduced. He will also be able to recruit from the local community, with a proper fair pay agreement in place. We must have a strategy that values social care and deals with some of the historical causes of recruitment, rather than the social care visa leading to recruitment from abroad at a scale that led to significant exploitation.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that far from being strangers, migrants are our neighbours, friends and family and an integral part of our community, and that moves to cast them as strangers are divisive and hostile and risk legitimising the same far-right violence that we saw in last year’s summer riots? Have we learnt nothing?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I said in my statement, people have come here from abroad through many generations, contributing to our economy, being part of our community and making our country what it is. That is who we are as a country because of that history, and it will continue to be important to our future. We want people to be able to integrate and share with neighbours, and that is why some of the provisions to ensure that we support integration and the use of the English language are also important.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

How does the immigration White Paper address the significant number of pull factors currently advertised online? The Government’s own website www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get is there for any aspirational English-speaking asylum seeker to see just why it is worth running the risk of crossing the channel. It states:

“You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast… You’ll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries… Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card…each week.”

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

What are the Government doing to address the online advertising of this incredibly generous package?

[Yvette Cooper]

We inherited an asylum system that was in complete chaos. That is why we are reducing the backlog, and why we have taken action to tackle instances of visa misuse. In a number of countries there has been an increase in asylum applications, although people have come here lawfully on visas as well. We will continue to tackle that, and we will introduce new reforms alongside the White Paper on legal migration.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

Last year, the now Home Secretary visited the Betty Berkins café in my constituency to discuss the very matter of the massive increase in overseas recruitment while the investment in our domestic workforce was falling drastically, contributing to the quadrupling of the net migration figures between 2019 and 2023. Does she agree that the best way in which to address soaring migration specifically for work purposes is to train and upskill our domestic workforce properly through measures that already exist in our groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill? How will the measures proposed today contribute to that work, and to the achievement of the overall aim?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: we need proper training and skills. A system in which the number of engineering visas could rise while the number of engineering apprenticeships fell does not make any sense to anyone, which is why we must ensure that we not only have the training and skills but link them with the shortages and with the immigration system as well.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The House is right to be sceptical about a policy on a toxic issue that has been announced after the Government have suffered a significant electoral defeat in which the main issue was immigration. Can the Home Secretary tell us how deliverable many elements of this policy are? What will happen to the hundreds of thousands who are currently in graduate-level employment? How will the gap between recruiting and training people and getting them into jobs be filled? Given that the courts will not even allow the deportation of people who have served long prison sentences, how does the Home Secretary expect them to comply with her wish to deport people who have served no prison sentence?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are implementing the policies and commitments made in our manifesto to restore control and order to the immigration system so that we can bring net migration down and ensure that the system is fair. As part of the changes that we are introducing as a result of the White Paper, we have identified up to 180 lower-skilled occupations that should not be recruiting from abroad and should not be part of the temporary shortage list either, so that we can reduce the lower-skilled migration that has increased so substantially over the last four years, support skills and training, and tackle those labour market challenges.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

With net migration at 1.7 million over the last two years of the previous Government, people in Bassetlaw tell me that they are fed up with the pressures that uncontrolled immigration has put on our local infrastructure. The Prime Minister has recognised this today, with a clear commitment to reduce net migration and take back control of our borders. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this landmark cross-Government White Paper, which will fix the mess left by the Conservative party. Does she agree that we need to stop the reliance on imported workers from abroad and focus on properly training British people instead?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that this is a cross-Government approach. It links to the work that the Work and Pensions Secretary is doing on helping people back into work, the work that the Education Secretary is doing on boosting training, and the work that the Business Secretary is doing on building up our industrial strategy so that we can plan for the workforce of the future. This is a cross-Government approach, which is how we will make sure that we have control of our migration system and boost the productivity of the economy.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

What was it about the local election results that first attracted the Home Secretary to the idea of rushing out an immigration White Paper?

[Yvette Cooper]

Even I could not draw up a White Paper in the space of two weeks. This White Paper was announced by the Prime Minister before Christmas when we saw the scale of the huge increase in net migration that the hon. Gentleman’s party had presided over. It is implementing the policies that we set out in our manifesto to properly link the immigration system with training and skills in the UK.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am proud to represent this country’s only human rights city, where everybody is welcome and every life is of equal worth. Our economy depends very much on our universities, and our universities depend on international students—in fact, employers come to our country because of the diversity of our students. Will the Home Secretary properly consult the higher education sector—the second biggest export from my constituency is higher education—to ensure that we do not harm our local economy and the opportunities for both international and home students?

[Yvette Cooper]

I strongly value international students’ contribution to our economy. My hon. Friend is completely right to say how important international students are, but we also need to make sure that universities uphold standards by ensuring that systems are not misused, so that we can continue to support international students. It will benefit our economy if students who stay on afterwards are also doing graduate jobs.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

One of the things I have appreciated about this Government’s approach is the moderate tone of language that they have taken on really divisive cultural issues, but I am afraid I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister use the phrase “island of strangers” today. We all remember the deleterious effect on public debate after the “citizen of nowhere” speech, and I am concerned that we are going in the same direction. Can the Home Secretary offer me any reassurance?

[Yvette Cooper]

The approach that we set out in our manifesto, and that we have set out in this White Paper, is about how we properly control and manage the migration system so that it benefits the UK and supports community cohesion by supporting integration, ensuring that people can speak English and, as a result, challenging exploitation. The approach that we are taking is about embedding fairness and community cohesion at the heart of our immigration system. Too often, integration and community cohesion have not been part of the immigration system, and this White Paper makes sure that they are.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I recently visited a care company that expressed serious concerns about bogus organisations registering as care providers in order to sponsor individuals through the health and care visa. This not only undercuts legitimate care providers that pay and treat their staff properly, but raises significant concerns about the potential exploitation of workers entering the UK. What steps is the Home Secretary planning to take to clamp down on fraudulent practices and support reputable British care companies?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the kind of exploitation that we have seen has been deeply damaging for people who have come to this country in good faith. Like him, I have spoken to people who travelled from far overseas, only to discover that there was no job for them when they arrived. They had sometimes been charged money and were at a huge risk of exploitation. As well as taking action with the Fair Work Agency and others to tackle exploitation more widely, we think it is right to end the overseas recruitment of care workers, and to support the care sector through the fair pay agreement and through improving support here in the UK.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My constituency of Broxbourne has a hotel that is used to house illegal asylum seekers. This has placed huge pressure on local GP surgeries and schools, which are already overstretched, and my constituents and I have had enough. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this issue, and can she tell me when the hotel housing illegal asylum seekers in my constituency of Broxbourne will close?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that the previous Government introduced asylum hotels because they had lost control of the asylum system. This Government are clear that we need to end asylum hotels. To do that, we need to clear the backlog and make reforms to the appeals system. Again, we inherited a broken system for dealing with asylum appeals, and we are taking through reforms tonight as part of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I hope he will vote for those reforms so that we can end asylum hotels.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

My constituency of Hampstead and Highgate has a proud history of welcoming refugees, whether it is migrants from Ireland back in the day or people fleeing political persecution in Nazi Germany. More recently, they opened their doors to refugees from Afghanistan and Ukraine. I welcome the Government’s measures to enable refugees to access skilled worker visas. However, what are the Home Secretary’s plans for refugees whose work visas will expire, but who cannot return to their countries of origin? Will they be eligible for settled status, and how will the Government guarantee their safety in the UK?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have supported people from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan who have fled persecution or conflict—or, in the case of Afghans, those who supported and worked with our armed forces. That will continue to be important. We want refugees to be able to apply for the skilled worker visa in the way that other people are able to do. As she rightly says, there are people who will be in this country when the circumstances in their home country change. In those circumstances, there needs to be provision either through the asylum system or through their being able to reapply for their visas.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that our higher education sector is world leading because it brings in the brightest and the best from around the world, including researchers, scientists and medical staff. She will also be aware that universities are struggling because of Home Office rules—not least Dundee University, which has suffered millions of pounds-worth of losses. Will she please take my invitation to come to Dundee so that she can see the direct consequences that her Department’s policies are having on that university?

[Yvette Cooper]

International students have brought huge benefits. They contribute by bringing investment, as well as skills and talent, and universities are important parts of local economies right across the country. However, it is important that all universities meet the proper standards of visa compliance. The vast majority do, but some have not met the compliance standards, and we urge them to do so. We will work with them, including by setting out action plans. We also want students who stay in this country after they finish their course to get graduate jobs, so that they can properly contribute to our economy.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Peterborough is a generous and warm place, and our city and public services have been made richer by the peoples who have come and made their homes in communities alongside me and others. However, too many people and too many working-class families often feel that the system is rigged against them when it comes to skills and wages. Will my right hon. Friend tell us a bit more about the work she will do on the White Paper with Skills England, the Department for Education and others to ensure we boost apprenticeships? Will she also keep high on her mind and reiterate to this House the desire to tackle illegal immigration, and to ensure that hotels such as the Dragonfly in my constituency are stood down as soon as possible?

[Yvette Cooper]

We do need to increase apprenticeships and training, which is why we are supporting 60,000 more construction workers to go through training to support our economy, alongside, as my hon. Friend rightly says, plans to make sure we end asylum hotels.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In answer to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Home Secretary refused to say whether her proposals to reform indefinite leave to remain, briefed to the media as a tough new crackdown, will apply to immigrants who are already here. If it does not apply to people already here, it makes a mockery of the very idea of reform, so will the Home Secretary answer very clearly: will the new rules apply to existing immigrants or just those coming in in future?

[Yvette Cooper]

We want the settlement rules to be amended as swiftly as possible and to apply widely, but we will consult on the detail, and it is right that we do so. I say to the hon. Member that this is just one of the many things we need to do to clear up the chaos that his party left.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

After 14 years of broken promises, I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement on bringing down net migration. With one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, will she set out to the families and young people in my constituency what this White Paper will do for them?

[Yvette Cooper]

One of the most important aspects of the White Paper will be the increase in the immigration skills charge, meaning that where employers are recruiting from abroad and there are shortage occupations, they will be contributing more to support skills and training here in the UK, including support for our young people to get the apprenticeships and jobs they need.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The announcements today will deepen social care workforce shortages and risk harm to those who receive care. Have the Government considered the impacts on the sick, the frail and the elderly who rely on care workers to provide vital support? Will the Government publish an impact assessment setting out the effect of their reforms, and what will they do for the quality and availability of care and about the work of the Casey commission?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I pointed out in my statement, the number of care workers recruited from abroad has fallen since the initial big increase, and it is important to prevent such an increase taking place again, because we have seen significant exploitation. As a result of introducing higher standards, 39,000 care workers were displaced: they came here to do jobs that either did not exist or did not meet the right standards. We urge care providers to recruit from the pool of people who are already here.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for the steps she is taking to bring order to the chaotic immigration system we inherited. I want to ask a question in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Universities in Edinburgh are on their knees because of changes the Tory Government made to immigration and because of SNP cuts to the sector. The staff are keen to contribute to economic growth in the UK, but they are concerned that what is in the White Paper may make that harder. Can she commit to working across Government to ensure that our universities come out of this stronger so that they can contribute to economic growth?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend may be aware that the biggest increases in the number of student visas were often for lower-ranking universities in the league tables, and people often did not do graduate jobs afterwards. We hugely support international students, and he is right to refer to Edinburgh University and other universities across the country. We want to work with universities to ensure that high standards of compliance are met, and that when international students stay in the UK they are doing graduate jobs.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Could the Home Secretary explain why, in the introduction of this White Paper, the language of Enoch Powell was used by the Prime Minister? There has been no speaking up about the enormous value of migration to this country, which has kept our NHS running, our education service running and so much more, and that there are already 130,000 vacancies in the care sector. Does anything in her White Paper do anything to improve community relations or deal with the labour shortage now in the NHS and the care service, or is it all about trying to please these people—Reform Members—who unfortunately sit in front of me?

[Yvette Cooper]

At the very beginning of my statement to this House, I talked about the importance of those who have come to work in our NHS, to serve in our armed forces, to work in constituencies like mine in coalmining jobs, and to do some of the most difficult jobs of all. However, it is because migration is important that it needs to be controlled and managed, and we need to tackle the underlying problems in the labour market. Net migration quadrupled in four years at a time when domestic training was cut, and when we did not have support for skills and training in the UK. I think that shows a system that just is not working. We have to tackle training and skills shortages, alongside bringing down net migration.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

My constituents are sick and tired of broken promises on immigration. Five Conservative Prime Ministers promised to cut arrivals while deliberately letting numbers reach record highs. Can the Secretary of State confirm to the people of North Warwickshire and Bedworth that the broken promises are over, and that when this Government say that we will cut immigration levels and invest in skills and training, and in good jobs for my constituents, that is exactly what we will do?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We are setting out practical plans on the skilled worker visa, construction training jobs, and an immigration skills charge, so that we can invest in training. It is through those practical, common-sense plans that, step by step, we will restore order to the immigration system and bring down net migration.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The White Paper talks in vague terms about potential changes that build on and learn from the displaced talent programme. Will the Home Secretary be really clear with the House about where she sees those changes going? More importantly, what safeguards will she put in place to ensure that any such changes do not act as a massive magnet for those who wish to illegally enter our country?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think the opposite of what the hon. Member said is true. We have talked about capped and limited schemes. At the moment, it is possible for people from other parts of the world to apply for a skilled worker visa if they have the talent—for example, if they are an engineer or a scientist—but recognised refugees are often not able to apply for skilled worker visas as scientists, doctors and so on, even though they have that skill and talent. We should ensure that we do our bit to help refugees, who should be able to come in on a skilled worker visa when they have the skills to do so.

Police Accountability and Vetting

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

In my statement to the House on 23 October 2024, I announced a number of reforms in relation to police accountability and misconduct, and set out the further work that the Government would be undertaking to restore the confidence of both the police and the public in the current system for holding officers to account.

Since October, the Home Office has worked in partnership with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Metropolitan Police Service, the College of Policing, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the Crown Prosecution Service to implement the practical steps I announced last autumn, and develop the further changes that would be required, and I am grateful for their support.

Today, as one of the measures arising from that work, I am laying new regulations requiring all serving police officers to hold appropriate vetting status. Where they do not, it will be grounds for dismissal, thereby ending the unacceptable situation where many officers who are clearly unfit to serve cannot currently be removed.

This action is long overdue. Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Sir Mark Rowley rightly expressed his frustration in February at the lack of progress made on this issue over many decades, and called for new regulations to be put in place

“so that we can deal expeditiously and properly with people who aren’t fit to wear a uniform.”

One of his predecessors, Sir Ian Blair, recently wrote of his experiences in the 2000s seeking to root out corruption from the Metropolitan Police Service. He said:

“We needed the ability to remove officers who had failed vetting and subsequent appeal procedures. That nothing has changed 25 years later is bewildering. Ministers should do what their predecessors failed to do and make clear that vetting failure is a sackable offence.”

That is the action we are taking today.

I intend to lay additional regulations next month to increase the robustness of the police conduct and performance regimes and further strengthen the ability of forces to remove individuals who do not meet the high standards required of police officers. These will ensure that conviction of certain criminal offences will automatically result in a finding of gross misconduct, and that dismissal is the default for any officer found guilty of gross misconduct. Extra measures on mandatory vetting standards and suspension of officers under investigation for allegations of violence against women and girls will be introduced later this year. I will also shortly announce the chair and terms of reference for a review of systemic barriers to timeliness in the misconduct system, including learning lessons.



In addition, we are continuing to make rapid progress on a number of the other reforms set out in my statement in October. As I set out then, the British policing model relies on mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police. For our policing model to work, it is essential that the police have the confidence of the communities they serve, and also that officers have the confidence that they need to do their vital and often extremely difficult job of keeping us all safe. As well as the new action set out above to rebuild public confidence in policing by ensuring the highest standards are upheld and maintained, we have also progressed work to boost the confidence of police officers in the systems holding them to account by tackling unacceptable delays and confusion in the process, protecting officers’ identities during court proceedings following the discharge of a firearm, and ensuring that the complexity of specialist operations is considered at an early stage.

At the end of 2024, the Director of Public Prosecutions completed his review of CPS guidance and processes in relation to charging police officers for offences committed in the course of their duties. The review considered three pieces of guidance: deaths in custody, fatal road traffic offences and allegations against the police. Working with the police and stakeholders, it sought to provide greater clarity when explaining the approach to decision-making and to set out all relevant considerations which are to be addressed when deciding to charge. This includes taking account of the dynamic and fast-moving circumstances that police officers face, particularly firearms officers. Revised guidance was published on 31 January.

Sir Adrian Fulford and Tim Godwin will shortly be completing their rapid review examining the legal test for use of force in police misconduct cases and the threshold for determining short-form conclusions of unlawful killing in inquests. Once received, the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), and I will consider their recommendations before announcing the Government’s response.

Later this week, we will table an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to provide for a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers who are subject to a criminal trial following a shooting. This is intended to address specific concerns raised during the accountability review about the risks firearms officers face from criminals seeking revenge and will protect them, and their families, against any such threat.

In February, three other measures were set out in the Crime and Policing Bill arising from the accountability review: (i) to align the threshold for police and Independent Office for Police Conduct referrals of officers to the Crown Prosecution Service to that used by the police when referring cases involving members of the public; (ii) to allow the IOPC to send cases to the CPS where there is sufficient evidence prior to their final investigation report; and (iii) to put the IOPC’s victims’ right to review policy on a statutory footing. Those measures are due for debate during Committee next month.

In addition, the IOPC and National Police Chiefs’ Council have developed a new protocol regarding the investigation of deaths or serious injuries on the roads involving police officers. Where the input of a subject matter expert is required, that input will be requested at the earliest opportunity to expedite investigations. Further work relating to use of force investigations will begin in due course and I will provide further updates to the House once that work concludes.

Finally, the College of Policing is taking forward the plans I announced in October to establish a national database of the lessons learned when deaths or serious injury happen after police contact or pursuits, so that when these tragic incidents occur, the lessons are incorporated into the development of police training and guidance to help prevent their repetition. Further details will be set out in due course.

In these and other areas, the Government remain determined to take the necessary action to strengthen public confidence in the police, and to strengthen the confidence of the police when they are out on the street doing the difficult job of keeping us safe. Those are the twin goals that we will continue to work towards, building on the strong progress we have already made since my statement in October.

[HCWS596]

Southport Inquiry

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

On 29 July 2024, a brutal attack took place at a children’s dance club in Southport. Tragically, the perpetrator murdered three young girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar and Bebe King, and injured 10 other people. My thoughts remain with their families as they come to terms with this devastating loss, as well as with those injured, and with all those who were present that day who survived the attack but live with the serious emotional consequences. Nothing will ever take away their trauma and loss, and we will ensure they receive the support and care they need in the years to come.

It is of vital importance that there is a clear understanding of how this terrible attack was able to happen, and the lessons learnt, so that we can take all necessary steps to minimise the risk of a future tragedy. That is why I announced in my statement to the House on 21 January that the Government would establish an independent public inquiry to do this.

Today I am formally announcing the establishment of an inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will need to be able to swiftly receive evidence from the full range of relevant organisations. After careful consideration, including the representations made by some of the families and victims of the attack, I have decided to set the inquiry up on a statutory basis from the beginning. The formal date of establishment of the inquiry is today and the inquiry will begin its work immediately.

The inquiry will be chaired by the right hon. Sir Adrian Fulford. Sir Adrian will bring an impartial and extensive legal background to the inquiry, particularly on issues related to policing, the criminal justice system and multi-agency working. In accordance with the provision of section 3(1)(a) of the Inquiries Act 2005, Sir Adrian will sit alone as chair.

The inquiry will take place in two phases. The first phase will thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding the attack, as well as the events leading up to it—including the perpetrator’s interactions with different public bodies. I am today publishing the terms of reference for this first phase, and I will place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. A later, second phase will examine the wider issue of young people being drawn into extreme violence and will be informed by the first phase.

The direction of the inquiry’s investigation will be a matter for the chair. The Government will provide support and ensure that the inquiry has the resources needed to fulfil its terms of reference.

I had the privilege of meeting some of the victims and families last month. I would like to put on record my thanks to them for taking the time to meet with me and the safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and sharing their deeply personal experiences. Their courage and strength in recounting these painful memories is greatly appreciated. I know Sir Adrian is planning to travel to meet with them soon, as his first priority.

I also had the opportunity to discuss the public inquiry and how it could be approached to support victims and their families, to ensure they get answers they need and to minimise further distress from this terrible attack. I am grateful for their willingness to engage so constructively in this important conversation. Their input will be crucial in shaping the inquiry’s approach and ensuring the voices of all victims are heard during the process.

[HCWS580]

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

2. What steps her Department is taking with police forces to tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

I join the Immigration Minister in wishing Mr Speaker well for his important trip to Ukraine.

The Government have set an unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. We have set out new measures, including the first domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms, starting the roll-out of domestic abuse protection orders, and a new national policing centre for violence against women and girls and public protection.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The Chichester-based charity My Sisters’ House gave vital wraparound trauma-informed support to 28 women in 2015. Last year, it supported more than 1,700 women. The charity has raised the ongoing issue of cross-allegations, whereby abusers are falsely accusing their victims as a means of keeping the control and the emotional abuse going. What steps is the Home Secretary taking with the Justice Secretary to ensure that the system properly recognises this form of continued abuse and protects victims from being retraumatised?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member raises an important issue about how coercive control can manifest and how abusers can continue their abuse in different ways, including using the civil courts. Part of the reason for introducing the national centre for public protection is to have the best possible national standards and training, properly for the first time across policing and then working across the criminal justice system, in order to keep victims safe.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

At last week’s annual police awards held by the Rochdale district of Greater Manchester police, the unsung hero award went to Jayne Ward, who is a sexual assault adviser, for her role in supporting a rape victim throughout every single day in court. That victim was rewarded with justice, and the rapist was sent down for 12 years. Jayne currently supports 150 sexual assault victims. Does the Home Secretary agree that we owe a great debt of thanks to Jayne and to the police officers who help to secure such convictions?

[Yvette Cooper]

I pay tribute to Jayne Ward for the remarkable work that she is doing to support victims of the most appalling and vile crimes, helping them to get justice and helping them as they go through the criminal justice system. I also pay tribute to the police officers working night and day across the country to tackle sexual assault and abuse.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

The ambition to halve the prevalence of violence against women and girls is a laudable one, but could the Home Secretary give the House some more information? What number is she taking as a starting point to be halved? When will she be able to provide more information to the House and to my Select Committee?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for her questions. We are currently drawing up a strategy on violence against women and girls, which will be published before the summer recess and will set out the approach that we need to take and the need to reduce domestic abuse, sexual assaults and stalking—the crimes that are most prevalent and of which women are most likely to be the victims, but which we also need to reduce more broadly. We will set out details on the measures that we will be looking for as part of that strategy.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The accurate collection of sex-aggregated data by police forces is essential to addressing male violence against women and girls. What plans does my right hon. Friend have in place for her Department to implement the recently published Sullivan review?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we take the Sullivan review extremely seriously. It is important to recognise the difference between biological sex and gender and to make sure that policing and the criminal justice system always have the accurate data that they need.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Women and girls will never truly be safe while terrifying online influencers such as Andrew Tate are allowed platforms that radicalise men and boys into extreme misogyny. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with Cabinet colleagues to support police in tackling violence against women and girls?

[Yvette Cooper]

Measures in the Online Safety Act 2023 are being implemented over the course of this year. That includes the introduction this summer of measures expected to ensure that stronger action is taken to prevent young boys and children more widely from seeing inappropriate material, which can be very damaging and very extreme. We also need to work in schools to prevent abuse in relationships.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Rape victims were failed under the previous Government, and too few actually got to see the inside of a courtroom. Among those victims were the victims of Andrew Tate here in the UK, who suffered rape and other violence against them. While I know that the Home Secretary cannot comment on the current extradition notice with Romania, what message can she send to those victims, whom I have met and who will be meeting a Minister as well, about their day in court and getting justice?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will know that there is a court case under way in Romania and that issues around prosecution and extradition decisions are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. I know that she has worked with victims, including in her constituency, and it is hugely important that victims of appalling crimes have a route to justice, wherever they are in the world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

In at least 50 of our towns, gangs of men have groomed and then sexually tortured little girls, with astonishing depravity. Still, not one person has been convicted for covering up these institutionalised rapes. Local inquiries cannot summon witnesses, are being refused by local authorities, and cannot address national policies like deportation. Fundamentally, the Government’s plan will not cover even one in 10 of these towns. Will the Home Secretary explain how she will choose which towns get a local inquiry and what she will say to the victims whose towns will not be included?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Minister will know that we have asked the police to reopen cases and historical investigations, because it is crucial that where there is abuse, including historical exploitation and grooming gangs, prosecutions take place and perpetrators face justice for their vile crimes. We are supporting local inquiries and the review by Louise Casey into the scale and nature of exploitation across the country.

The shadow Minister refers to cover-ups. We are introducing a mandatory duty to report child abuse, and we are criminalising the covering up of abuse and exploitation. That is something I called for more than 10 years ago, and I am really sorry that the previous Government never introduced it.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

3. What recent progress the defending democracy taskforce has made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to tackle the antisocial use of off-road bikes.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

Many of us will know from our constituencies the havoc that can be caused in communities by the dangerous and deafening antisocial use of off-road bikes. That is why this Government are giving the police stronger powers to swiftly seize those bikes and other vehicles where they are being driven antisocially through local estates and town centres, as part of our mission to crack down on antisocial behaviour and make our streets safe.

[Dave Robertson]

People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the surrounding villages in my constituency—and, I am sure, across the country—are sick and tired of off-road bikes being used inappropriately, antisocially and dangerously on our streets. The worst example I have seen was somebody doing a wheelie on a quad bike at 40 mph on Eastern Avenue in Lichfield. I reported that to the police and they are following it up as best they can, but they tell me that they need the new powers in the Bill. Can the Secretary of State reassure me, my constituents and the rest of the country that this Government will continue to crack down on this problem and will not rest until our streets are safe for all road users?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I am sorry to hear about the appalling incident he describes. This is a challenge for us in many of our constituencies. My constituents in Airedale and Chequerfield see the total nightmare of off-road bikes being driven deliberately to harass people. If we have to wait for the police to give multiple warnings, they cannot take the swift action needed, which is why we need the change in the Bill.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

My constituent Peter from Corfe Mullen has had numerous run-ins with e-scooters and off-road bikes. What consideration is the Home Secretary giving to the redefinition of electric bike so that it is genuinely an electric bike?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right that there are many different forms and changes to the kinds of vehicles, bikes and scooters being used. The legislation applies not just to off-road bikes, but more widely to vehicles being used antisocially. That is important because the police need to be able to act swiftly and not end up having to try to chase and catch the same people again and again to take action.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Antisocial behaviour is a significant concern to my constituents, especially the nuisance caused by off-road bikes and e-scooters. Last Friday, local officers specifically told me that they do not feel they have the power to pursue the riders of these bikes when they are in their patrol cars, with riders often taunting and even laughing at them because they know they cannot easily be caught. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that my local officers in Mansfield have the specific powers they need to stop those bikes and bring those terrorising our community to justice?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, and people in Mansfield should not be terrorised by deliberate harassment by people on off-road bikes. That is why we are strengthening the law through the Crime and Policing Bill, but it is also why we support the work that some police forces are doing—for example, the work I have seen in Staffordshire where they were using drones to follow those on off-road bikes and make swift seizures or arrests.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

At the weekend, I was speaking to residents of Braunstone Town, and many, particularly the elderly, were frightened by the use of off-road bikes and similar vehicles given the noises they make and the risk to pedestrians. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Government are taking the matter seriously and that they will empower local police forces to bring those driving the bikes to justice?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes an important point. Often, particularly for older people, the way in which the bikes are used is just dangerous. The deliberate ramping up of the noise to intimidate and scare people is disgraceful antisocial behaviour. That is why we are increasing policing powers and why we want to work with policing on things like the drone use and other measures to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to tackle mobile phone theft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

Today we are hosting in London the first ever international summit on organised immigration crime and border security, bringing together source, transit and destination countries which all see the havoc and harm that criminal smuggler and trafficking gangs cause, undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. As part of that, the UK is strengthening the law against illegal working in the gig economy, so employer checks will have to be done, alongside increasing illegal working raids and returns.

As a result of our work with France, the French Cabinet has for the first time agreed to change its maritime rules, so that the French authorities can intervene in French waters to prevent boat crossings. We are bringing together Ministers and law enforcement from close neighbours such as France, Belgium and Germany, and from countries further afield such as Vietnam, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, China and the US. They are all discussing today how we strengthen that collaboration to choke off supply chains, pursue illicit finance, take down advertising, disrupt and prosecute the criminals and tackle this vile trade in human beings.

[Natasha Irons]

A constituent has contacted me about the difficulty he is facing in trying to get what he is entitled to via the Windrush compensation scheme. Given that victims of the Windrush scandal are not entitled to legal aid, a large proportion are assessed as eligible for compensation but cannot meet the high threshold of evidence necessary to prove that they are entitled to it. Will the Home Secretary look again at what legal support can be provided to the victims of this scandal, so that they can finally get the justice that they deserve?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issues around the Windrush generation, who were so badly let down and treated by the Home Office over many years. We have increased support and advocacy for compensation scheme claimants, and the Minister for migration and citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), would be happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Has the Home Secretary seen the police’s anti-racism commitment that was published last week, which says that the police do not have to treat everyone the same regardless of race and calls for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups? Does she agree that this two-tier approach to policing is totally unacceptable?

[Yvette Cooper]

The police operate without fear or favour, and they respond to the crimes they face across the country and to the perpetrators of those crimes, whosoever they should be and wheresoever they are. That is the right approach for the police to take, whether they are dealing with the most serious violence—which we have prioritised—or with neighbourhood crimes in communities. As the shadow Home Secretary will know from the approach we are taking to the Sentencing Council and the importance of us bringing forward rapid emergency legislation in that area, we are very clear that there can be no preferential treatment for anyone in the criminal justice system. It is really important that the principle of fair treatment for all is always maintained.

[Chris Philp]

I completely agree with the Home Secretary that people should stand equally before the law and be treated exactly the same, regardless of their race or identity. I agree with the Home Secretary about all of that, but unfortunately the anti-racism commitment published last week does not say that—in fact, it says the opposite. It expressly says that

“It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”.

Given that the Home Secretary and I agree that the law should be blind to race and that everyone should be treated the same, will she join me in tabling an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to override those provisions in the anti-racism commitment?

[Yvette Cooper]

The police already have to swear an oath on their impartiality and policing without fear or favour. That is the responsibility of every single police officer right across the country. The shadow Home Secretary will know that there are dedicated police officers who do exactly that and will continue to do exactly that, to ensure that they treat everyone appropriately and make sure that everyone faces justice before the law.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

T2.   Residents of Exeter, particularly female residents, have raised with me their alarm at Tory-led Devon county council’s decision to dim or completely turn off 80% of Exeter’s street lights during the night, including on streets and paths to railway stations and bus stops. Many shift workers come home late at night or start early in the morning, and having well-lit routes offers them a sense of security. Does the Minister agree that Devon county council should think again, and should consult with resident groups and other groups on a way forward that puts the safety of residents at the centre of its decision making?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

T10. Following the gripping storyline of “Adolescence” and the rise of incel culture contributing to youth crime, what specific measures is the Home Office implementing to address the root causes and create a safer and more supportive environment for our young people?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the television programme “Adolescence”, which many people will have seen, and the issue of rising violence among teenagers. We see this in a number of areas; the issues range from knife crime to extremism and violence fixation. Importantly, we have the stronger measures in the Online Safety Act 2023 to protect young people from seeing extreme violence and inappropriate material online, but it is also important for us to work with schools to prevent violence among young people, including violence in relationships.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T6.  Yesterday, Mail Online reported on the leaking of a report from the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the Leicester riots of 2022. The report blamed Hindu extremism; however, during the riots, 105 Hindu homes were attacked, but no Muslim homes, and two Hindu temples were attacked, but no mosques. Will the Minister ensure that the report is published, so that we can scrutinise it and ensure that the blame is put where it should be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

When the Home Secretary visited Nuneaton to speak to local business owners, she heard from them directly about the problem of retail crime. There was a glimmer of hope, because our town centre officer was having a big impact, but that role is now vacant. Shops and other businesses say that retail crime is at an all-time high, with a 58% increase since January. Now that Labour is putting more money into people’s pockets, what more can be done to ensure that it is safe for it to be spent in town centres?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of town centre crime. We are investing additional funds of more than £1 billion in policing next year, and are providing an additional £200 million for neighbourhood policing, which was cut so heavily under the Conservative Government, so that we can bring it back to our town centres. We are strengthening the power of police officers and PCSOs to tackle street and shop theft—crimes that have soared in recent years because the Conservative Government turned their back on it.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

During the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, we Conservatives proposed a new clause that would provide a mechanism for a binding annual cap on the number of non-visitor visas issued by the UK. That would have introduced accountability and transparency, but it was voted down decisively by Labour Members. The Government talk tough, but does the Home Secretary not believe that the British public deserve a transparent and honest answer to the question of what the level of migration will be under this Government, rather than the Government’s just blaming us, or saying “lower numbers” on every occasion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary consider raising an obvious lacuna in the law in the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe? Under the refugee convention, we can automatically deport foreign criminals who enter this country illegally, but under the convention on human rights, we cannot. Surely we can address that in partnership with other members of the Council of Europe.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member will know that we have increased the return and removal of foreign national offenders significantly since the election. Deportations, returns and removals had plummeted under the previous Government. We are increasing them, and I believe it is right to do so. By working internationally, we have secured a new agreement with Germany, which will now go after the trafficking and smuggler gangs and the illegal warehouses in that country, but we need to ensure that we take action against dangerous foreign criminals.

Crime and Policing Bill

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Crime and Policing Bill will make our streets safer, put neighbourhood policing back at the heart of communities after years of neglect, give law enforcement the powers it needs to protect the public and tackle the most serious violence, help communities to take back their town centres from thieves and thugs, and support the Government’s safer streets mission—a mission for the whole country—to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade and to rebuild confidence in policing and the criminal justice system by tackling the local crimes that most undermine our communities.

Across our countries, we have strong communities, a British tradition of respect for the rule of law and for each other, and a British policing tradition that goes back to Peel of policing by consent, with the police embedded in communities and residents pulling together to prevent and tackle crime. Yet, in recent years those traditions have become badly frayed. Too many town centres, neighbourhoods and public spaces are plagued by antisocial behaviour, and shoplifting and street theft have soared, while neighbourhood police have been heavily cut back. Too many families are forced to endure the agony of an empty chair at the dinner table night after night, having lost a loved one to knife crime, but it is easier than ever for children to get hold of lethal weapons online. There are barely any penalties for gangs who recruit children into crime—they get away with it.

Too many women and girls still face stalking, spiking, violence and abuse, and feel unsafe on the streets and in their homes, even now, nearly 50 years on from the first Reclaim the Night marches in Leeds. Too many children still experience sexual abuse and exploitation—including by grooming networks on the streets and online—and online abuse is getting worse and worse, yet the child protection reforms that we and others called for 10 years ago are still not in place. Trust in the police is undermined by vetting failures and abuses of power, but the action promised several years ago to raise standards is still not in place.

Across the country, too many of us just hear the same thing: people do not see the police on the streets any more, they worry that respect for law and order has disappeared, and they fear that if something goes wrong, no one will come and nothing will be done. That is why it is time for change and for the measures that we are setting out in the Bill. Safety and security are the bedrock of opportunity and the underpinning of every strong community. The safer streets mission is at the heart of our plan for change, because everyone has the right to live in freedom from fear.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady makes an important point about neighbourhood policing. Does she agree that local police stations should be integral to this plan?

[Yvette Cooper]

Local police stations are a matter for local forces, but they can be a central part of neighbourhood policing, which, sadly, has been heavily cut back in recent years. In fact, in many areas of the country, neighbourhood policing has been cut by a third or nearly half. At the heart of the Government’s plan is rebuilding neighbourhood policing.

We plan to put 13,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on the beat over the course of this Parliament, kick-started with £200 million of funding in the next financial year. We will reverse the damage done by the Conservative Government through years of cuts to community police. There are half as many PCSOs as there were 14 years ago, and many thousands fewer neighbourhood police officers. Some 54% of people say that they never see an officer on the beat—that figure has doubled since 2010, as too many neighbourhood police have just disappeared.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty).

[Chris Vince]

A report by Harlow council in 2023 stated that fewer than half of residents in Harlow felt safe going outside after dark. Does my right hon. Friend see the neighbourhood policing guarantee as part of the way of solving that problem?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: neighbourhood policing is crucial, but neighbourhood policing teams have been decimated, and even those that remained were often abstracted or merged with other teams. That has been deeply damaging. It is crucial to get those neighbourhood police back on the streets, back into our town centres, and back into our communities. I give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who I hope will apologise for the scale of cuts that his party’s Government brought in.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The right hon. Lady mentioned 13,000 neighbourhood police, but 3,000 of those will be new warranted officers; I believe that 3,000 will be operational police officers brought back from other places. When will police forces find out what their share of those police officers will be? How will the 3,000 officers currently in other roles be reassigned, given that operational matters are the responsibility of chief constables, not the Home Secretary?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have started with £200 million of funding for the next financial year to kick-start the drive to put 13,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on the beat. Already, police forces have been working with the Home Office on plans for recruiting new police officers and new PCSOs, and for redeploying existing police officers and backfilling by recruiting other officers to take their posts. We will set out in due course plans for the next financial year and that £200 million.

The cuts to neighbourhood policing over the past decade were even worse than we had thought. The previous Conservative Government were so indifferent to neighbourhood policing that they did not even keep a proper count of who was doing that work. Too often, they treated neighbourhood police officers just the same as 999 response officers or local detective teams, and Home Office guidance allowed forces to report some of their response officers as neighbourhood police. The last Government did not have proper checks in place, and as a result, hundreds, even thousands, of officers and PCSOs were miscounted. Later this month, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council will have to publish revised force-by-force figures, so that communities can see properly what is happening in their area. This Government take seriously neighbourhood policing, which must be community-led policing in our towns and on our streets.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way; it is courteous of her. On miscounting numbers, can I drill down on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)? Of the 13,000 new neighbourhood officers that the Home Secretary claims she is recruiting, 3,000 will be diverted from the existing workforce, so they are not new, are they? Will she also confirm that her police funding settlement will lead to 1,873 officers being withdrawn?

[Yvette Cooper]

Sadly, I did not hear an apology for the previous Conservative Government’s massive cuts to neighbourhood policing, which meant that many towns and cities right across the country saw neighbourhood police numbers slashed in half. Communities were badly let down. I am sure that the next Conservative Member to intervene will begin their question with a huge apology for the damage that their party and Government did.

[Paul Holmes]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I am really pleased that the hon. Member is ready to give an apology for the deeply damaging legacy of his party in government.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, but I think she should apologise for not answering the question. There were record levels of policing under the last Government; 20,000 extra police officers were recruited. I ask her again: she said that she is recruiting 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, but will she confirm that 3,000 of those will be diverted officers? They are not new, are they?

[Yvette Cooper]

Still no apology for the deep damage the Conservatives have done. Let us be clear: they halved the number of PCSOs, and they cut the number of neighbourhood police officers, probably by more than 10,000, but we cannot be precise about that, because their measuring of neighbourhood police officers was so ropey and all over the place that we cannot be certain what the cuts were precisely.

This Government are committed to increasing neighbourhood policing and PCSOs by 13,000. In the first year, the neighbourhood policing increase will be funded by £200 million. That funding is already delivering plans from police forces across the country, which we will set out in due course, to increase the recruitment of new police officers and PCSOs, and redeploy some police officers, whose posts will then be backfilled through the recruitment of other new police officers and staff—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should hugely welcome these measures, because they mean that we will get police back on the streets, and into our communities and neighbourhoods, for the first time in years.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Antisocial behaviour is breaking communities in places like Windhill, Baildon, Cottingley and Denholme. It is a direct result of the cuts made to neighbourhood policing by the Conservative party. When I speak to local residents, they express concerns about the misuse of fireworks, drug dealing, fly-tipping and the dangerous use of e-bikes and scooters. Will the Secretary of State reassure me and my residents that as part of the safer streets mission, the new neighbourhood police will tackle antisocial behaviour in communities like mine, as a matter of urgency?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right that we need the police back on the streets. Let us be honest: everyone can see this in their community. People know. Conservative Members may think that everything was hunky-dory at the end of their 14 years in government, but communities across the country can see the reality. As part of our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we need to get more boots on the beat, and we need more town centre patrols by officers who know the community and are trusted by them to go after local perpetrators and prevent persistent crime. These are not outlandish demands—they are just the basics. We need a return to the Peel principles that lie at the heart of British policing, including the principle that the police are the public and the public are the police. We need trusted officers in the community, working to keep people safe.

The Bill gives neighbourhood police more powers to tackle the local crimes that undermine and damage communities: antisocial behaviour, street theft, shoplifting, harassment in our town centres. In too many areas, those powers were too often weakened. Travelling around the country, I and many others will have heard the same story too many times—shop owners who say that thieves have become increasingly brazen; crime driven by organised gangs; elderly shoppers who say that they do not go into town any more because they do not feel safe; people who have had their phones stolen in the street, with all the details of their life ripped away from them; and residents driven mad by the soaring number of roaring off-road bikes and scooters driven in an antisocial and intimidating way.

In the two years before the election, shop theft went up by more than 60%. Snatch theft, mainly the theft of mobile phones, went up by more than 50% in two years. Thousands of such crimes were reported every single day, yet the police have been left with too few powers to act. Too often, because of changes made by the Conservative Government 10 years ago, they have been left with weakened powers to tackle those antisocial behaviours and crimes.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome the introduction of a new offence of assaulting a shop worker. I have been in shops in Worksop where I have seen shop workers who are absolutely fearful of what will happen next, and I have seen food stolen before my eyes. Does the Secretary of State agree that local shops must become no-go areas for lawbreakers?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. The Bill introduces stronger action on retail crime. I thank the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Co-op, the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and more for their determined campaigning over many years to protect shop workers. They are the staff who kept their shops open and kept our local communities going through the pandemic, but in recent years they have had to face a truly disgraceful escalation in threats, abuse and violence. Our party has campaigned on this measure for very many years. Through the Bill, we will introduce a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, sending the message loud and clear that these disgraceful crimes must not be tolerated, because everyone has a right to feel safe at work.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has talked about neighbourhoods and communities, but I have not heard her talk about the rural communities that I represent, and the rural crime force. What will the Bill deliver for them? I am very lucky to be in Leicestershire, where we have a rural crime team, which saw crime drop by 24% in its last report, but machinery being taken has a massive impact. Can she talk me through any measures that are being brought forward that will benefit my community?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is exactly right to draw attention to that. Our rural communities see different kinds and patterns of crime, but it is very often driven by organised gangs who think that rural communities will be a soft touch. We have sometimes seen that with GPS machinery for factories; we believe that stronger action is needed there. The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention is working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a new rural crime strategy. I know that she would be happy to follow up on any specific issues that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise.

Too often, crimes are dismissed as low level, even though they leave residents in a living nightmare and corrode community life, so here are the things that this Labour Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will change. We are introducing new respect orders that the police and courts can use to ban repeat offenders from town centres, or to put new requirements on repeat perpetrators in order to prevent them causing havoc in the community—for example, requirements to take up drug or alcohol treatment.

Currently, the police cannot immediately seize bikes or vehicles that are being used in a dangerous, intimidating or antisocial way. They give a warning and have to hope that they catch the same person again, but that means that there can be two, three, four or endless strikes against the person, and the bike will still be on the road. Frankly, one strike should be enough. Under the Bill, if the police find somebody using a bike or a vehicle in a dangerous or antisocial way, they can seize it straightaway and get that dangerous, damaging bike off the road.

We will give the police stronger powers to tackle the rising amount of snatch theft. We will all know constituents, friends or family members who have had their phone stolen, and who could track it, maybe through Find My iPhone or a similar service, but when they told the police where their phone was, nothing was done. We will give the police new powers, so that where they have electronic evidence from tracking technology on the location of stolen goods, they can enter and search premises without waiting for warrants to be put in place. Ministers are also working with tech companies and the police to pursue stronger action on designing out and disincentivising phone theft, so that we can go after the criminal gangs making people’s lives a misery by stealing phones on the street.

We will take stronger action on shoplifting. Some 10 years ago, the Conservative Government introduced a new £200 rule, categorising shop theft below that amount as low value. That sent the signal, which has shaped the police response ever since, that such crime should not be taken seriously. It became a Tory shoplifters’ charter—a signal to thieves and gangs across the country that they could operate with impunity, wandering from shop to shop and stealing away because nothing would be done. That kind of crime spreads. It creates a sense of lawlessness, and huge anger and frustration among the law-abiding majority, who see criminals getting away with it and respect for the law hollowed out. This Government will finally end the damaging £200 rule.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that this is not just about the shoplifting, but about the fear it creates in our communities, including among our shopworkers? Our local corner shops and accessible shops are there for elderly people who cannot always get out to the big supermarkets or other people who have difficulty doing so, and shoplifting has put them in fear as well.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. This is about the fact of the crime—the disrespect—but also the sense of fear that it can create and the huge frustration among shopworkers about the crimes that they see.

I am glad to see some signs of a change in heart on the Conservative Benches, with Conservative Members recognising how damaging their approach to town centre crime has been. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), has written on Facebook that the police

“must have ZERO TOLERANCE to shoplifting and phone theft in Croydon…otherwise it will escalate. Stealing, even less than £200, is illegal…The police must focus ruthlessly on catching criminals and always pursue every line of inquiry.”

Who would have thought it? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman now believes, why on earth did he not take the opportunity during the two years that he was the policing Minister to scrap the £200 threshold, which sent all the wrong signals to the police?

We do know one part of the shadow Home Secretary’s remedy for the disappearance of neighbourhood police and the soaring levels of town centre crime. He has said that

“The wider public do have the power of citizen’s arrest and, where it’s safe to do so, I would encourage that to be used…including potentially a physical challenge”,

otherwise it “will just escalate.” Putting aside the intriguing suggestion that the shadow Home Secretary wanders around with handcuffs in his pocket, I wonder whether he has misunderstood the Peel principle that the police are the public and the public are the police. What that principle means is neighbourhood police in the community, not leaving the community to pick up arms because the neighbourhood police have gone. As for Reform Members, it looks as if they are too busy dealing with their own internal antisocial behaviour to even show up. This Government will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, something that has not happened for far too long.

Alongside the action on community crimes, the Bill introduces much stronger measures on some of the most serious crimes of all, including the knife crime that is destroying young lives—teenagers and young people who do not get to achieve their ambitions or fulfil their dreams, with parents and families left bereft.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), and then I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda).

[Warinder Juss]

Last year, only four in 10 knife possessions resulted in any formal criminal justice outcome. Does the Home Secretary agree that by increasing police powers to seize, retain and destroy knives that may be legally owned but may be used in committing a crime, we will reduce the number of people carrying knives?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We need to prevent people—especially young people—getting access to those dangerous weapons in the first place, but also to make sure that there are proper interventions, including referrals to youth offending teams. We must not have a system that simply shrugs its shoulders when young people are caught carrying knives.

Knife-enabled offences recorded by the police rose by 9% in the two years up to last summer. Many people in this House will know the story of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was stabbed to death with a ninja sword just yards from his home. He was killed by two other teenagers who had bought, not just that sword, but more than 20 other lethal weapons online with no questions asked and no proper checks. It is because of the tireless campaigning of Ronan’s mum Pooja that we have already launched plans to ban ninja swords, following this summer’s implementation of the zombie knife ban, and commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman to do an end-to-end review of knife sales. That review was published a few weeks ago, and it is driving some of the new measures we are introducing as part of this Bill.

[Matt Rodda]

rose—

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, but let me just make a couple of other points first. The Bill increases the maximum penalties for offences relating to the sale and possession of offensive weapons from six months to two years’ imprisonment. Following the Clayman review, we will also bring forward amendments to the Bill in this House to introduce stricter age verification checks, with a stringent two-step age verification system for online knife sales, so that customers have to submit photo ID at the point of purchase and again on delivery. It will be a legal requirement to hand a package containing a knife to the buyer alone.

[Matt Rodda]

I thank the Home Secretary wholeheartedly for her work on this important matter. In my constituency, 13-year-old Olly Stephens was attacked and brutally murdered by two other boys. They had seen hundreds of images of knives online on 11 different social media platforms. I warmly welcome in particular the consultation that she has announced to look into the potential penalties for tech executives who fail to act responsibly in this important area.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he has raised the terrible case of the killing of Olly Stephens with me before. I know how incredibly devastating that has been for the whole community. He is right that the online system has made it far too easy for young people to get hold of lethal weapons. There is also the content that too many of our young people are seeing online. That is why the measures as part of the Online Safety Act 2023 to strengthen the requirements on tech companies around material visible to children will be important, too. Those are expected in the summer.

My hon. Friend is also right that we will bring forward amendments during the Bill’s passage to give effect to our manifesto commitment to introduce personal liability measures for senior managers of online platforms that fail to take action on illegal content concerning knives and offensive weapons. We will introduce a requirement for sellers to notify bulk or suspicious sales of knives to the police. We have seen cases where young people were able effectively to become arms traders, buying huge numbers of illegal weapons that should not have been sold to them and then distributing them in the community.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Knife crime is a grave issue, and I welcome any measures that can help to reduce it. I have a debate next Thursday on knife crime, and I hope to see good representation from all parts of the House in debating how we can reduce the number of children and young people involved in knife crime, whether as victim or perpetrator. The question I would like to ask is about knife sales online. Some 52% of fatal stabbings involve a kitchen knife, and only 3.6% involve a zombie knife. I appreciate that measures are in place to reduce the ability of people to obtain kitchen knives online, but everybody has a drawer full of knives at home. How can we take measures to reduce that?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes an important point. We know there is an issue with young people being able to get some of these lethal weapons. It becomes part of what they want to do, and part of the search for status is to carry particular kinds of weapons, but he is right that people can get access to dangerous knives in different ways. We need stronger prevention across the board. That is why the Young Futures programme we are working on is particularly important.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Government’s commitment to introducing a Young Futures programme to prevent young people from being drawn into crime is welcome, especially as youth services and hubs were hollowed out under the Conservatives. Does the Home Secretary agree that prevention must be at the centre of the mission to tackle knife crime in our communities and our country?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. To tackle this devastating crime, we must address prevention, whether online or in the community, and access to weapons. There is also the response when young people are found carrying knives, and the wider punishment and response as part of the youth justice system. There are the interventions to turn things around, too. We must also tackle the criminal gangs drawing young people into crime and violence in the first place. That includes drawing them into county lines, drug running and the kind of criminal activity that leads to violence, to the carrying of knives and to dangerous crimes at a later stage. For the first time, under the Bill, there will be a specific offence of child criminal exploitation, because gangs should never be able to get away with exploiting young people in that way.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) mentioned kitchen knives, which are the main weapons that are used. Will the Home Secretary look into the issue of pointed kitchen knives, which cause so many deaths? Existing knives can be blunted or rounded at the ends if there are incentives for that to be done, and manufacturers can be persuaded to sell knives with rounded ends, as some already do.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is an interesting point. It has been raised with us by the coalition against knife crime that we have formed, bringing together campaigning families and campaigning networks and organisations, and as a result it is being examined further.

A range of measures in the Bill, along with amendments that will be tabled, make up Ronan’s law. Pooja, Ronan’s mother, has said:

“I wish this was done years ago, and my son would be with me today.”

We are taking action in memory of Ronan, but also as a tribute to Pooja and all Ronan’s family who have campaigned so hard to keep other children safe.

The Bill also introduces stronger measures to tackle violence against women and girls, and the abuse and exploitation of children. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, one in four women have experienced domestic abuse, one in four have suffered sexual assault, and one in five have been stalked. Those are the most traumatic and appalling crimes, and it is high time we treated this as the national emergency that it so clearly is. Decade after decade, we have uttered warm words in the House, but too little has changed. It is imperative that we take action, not just through the Bill but across the board. This is part of our ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, an integral part of the safer streets mission, because no one should live in fear.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Those of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are very pleased to know about the 51 clauses that will affect Northern Ireland through a legislative consent motion. It is important to recognise the benefits that that will have not just here, but in Northern Ireland. However, there are one or two others that we might like to see in the future. Has the Home Secretary had an opportunity to speak to the policing and justice Minister in Northern Ireland about that?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have had discussions with Northern Ireland Ministers, and I am happy for them to continue.

I am very conscious of the time, and I know that many Members wish to speak, so I want to make some progress now. Through the Bill we will protect people better by making stalking protection orders more widely available and introducing a new criminal offence of administering a harmful substance, for instance by spiking. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has long campaigned for our measures to strengthen the management of offenders in the community and introduce enhanced notification requirements for registered sex offenders, as well as a bar on their changing their names when there is a risk of sexual harm.

We are also taking stronger measures to protect our children, which is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of all. The Bill will create a new duty to report child sexual abuse, backed up by criminal sanctions for those who seek to cover up abuse by preventing or deterring someone from carrying out the duty. That was recommended by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and the Prime Minister and I both called for it more than a decade ago. The Bill will make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offenders, because these are the most vile and damaging of crimes, and will introduce new criminal offences to combat the use of artificial intelligence technology in the making or sharing of child sexual abuse material, and stronger action against those who organise grooming online, where the scale of abuse and crime is increasing steeply.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State greatly for giving way. I recognise what clauses 45 to 54 say about the mandatory duty in England to report child sexual abuse, and I wonder if I might draw her attention to the fact that there are exceptions dating back to 1603, under canon law, for confessions relating to treason. There is also precedent in section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000, relating to terrorism, which covers faith leaders. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we might help the various churches, faith leaders and volunteers in England to make sure that they mandatorily report when they come across this stuff in confession?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Policing Minister is happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the detail. It is imperative that all institutions and organisations across communities take responsibility for tackling these appalling and damaging crimes.

We are also introducing measures around national security, including a new youth diversion order to help manage the increasing number of young people being investigated or arrested for terrorism-related activity. Counter-terror police have said that their case load of young people has trebled in just three years, and more action is needed.

There are further measures, which I am sure we will discuss later in this debate and in Committee, to strengthen standards in policing and ensure that chief officers and local policing boards have the right to appeal the result of misconduct boards to police appeals tribunals, to make sure that those who are not fit to serve can be removed from policing and that the standards of police officers, who do an incredible job across the country, can be maintained.

On accountability, we will bring forward amendments to establish a presumption that firearms officers who are charged with offences relating to, and committed during, their duties will have their anonymity preserved during the court process so that we can maintain their confidence, as well as the confidence of communities, in the work that they do.

Safety from harm is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right that should be afforded to everyone, no matter their circumstances. No one should be left to live in fear because of crime and antisocial behaviour in their community. Under this Government, safer streets is a mission for us all, to draw our communities together. We are putting police back on the beat, introducing respect orders and taking action on off-road bikes, shoplifting, street theft, stalking, spiking, grooming and child abuse, knife sales, terrorism and serious crime. We are taking stronger action against criminals, delivering stronger support for victims, restoring respect for the rule of law and restoring police to our streets. Ultimately, we are building a better, fairer Britain that is founded on safety and security for all. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I inform the House that because many people wish to contribute, Back Benchers will have a time limit of five minutes to begin with.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What recent progress her Department has made on tackling antisocial behaviour.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

May I support you, Mr Speaker, in your words about the people of Ukraine on the third anniversary of the invasion, including those who are here in the UK through the Homes for Ukraine scheme?

Too many communities are blighted by antisocial behaviour, which has increased over the past 10 years while neighbourhood policing was heavily cut. That is why this Government’s plan for change means putting neighbourhood police back on the beat in our town centres and communities, and stronger powers in our crime and policing Bill—to be introduced tomorrow—to tackle off-road bikes, repeat offenders and shop theft.

[David Williams]

Mark Porter is a community leader who runs Kidsgrove Ladsanddads. Around 400 young people play football at Birchenwood fields every weekend, yet the football pitches are constantly damaged by off-road bikes. The same happens at Burslem golf club and across estates such as Mill Hill in Tunstall. What steps will be taken to tackle the impact of off-road parks on communities in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some off-road bikes are a total nightmare and can drive communities up the wall with harassment and intimidation. That is why we are strengthening powers. At the moment, the police must provide repeat warnings before they can take action to seize such bikes; we think that they should be able to seize those antisocial bikes straightaway.

[Alice Macdonald]

Antisocial behaviour comes in a variety of forms. Norfolk police have recently made it a priority to address safety concerns about e-bikes and e-scooters. In just one day, they reportedly seized 12 illegally modified bikes in Norwich. I welcome that crackdown, but speeding e-bikes and e-scooters are a real menace in our city centre. Will the Home Secretary expand on the measures that we will take to tackle speeding and illegally modified e-bikes and e-scooters?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which causes havoc and can be really threatening for people in the local community. That is why we will strengthen the law by supporting the police to take stronger action on off-road bikes, and by introducing respect orders so that we can ban repeat offenders from town centres and tackle the antisocial behaviour that has blighted communities for far too long.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Antisocial behaviour is a problem not just in our town centres, but in our parks. That is why my constituents are extremely concerned about plans to axe the specialist royal parks policing unit and subsume it into community support teams, given the £450 million shortfall facing the Met police. This means that Bushy Park in my constituency will undoubtedly get less police coverage. What assurances can the Home Secretary give my constituents that they will not see fewer police officers in our communities and our parks?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government are clear: we need to get more police back on the beat. The number of police community support officers has halved over the past 10 to 15 years, and there has been a big drop in the number of neighbourhood police officers on the beat. That is why next year we are increasing neighbourhood policing, with an additional £200 million of investment. That is part of up to £1.1 billion of additional funding next year for our police forces across the country.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that councils up and down the country have real problems with nuisance tenants creating mayhem, committing crimes and making residents’ lives a misery, so does she agree that there should be a “one strike and out” policy for these tenants, and that if they keep creating problems, they should be out and the local authority should have no duty to rehouse them?

[Yvette Cooper]

We need stronger action against antisocial behaviour, whether that involves havoc in town centres, off-road bikes or nuisance neighbours making the community’s lives a misery. That is why the Government are increasing neighbourhood policing and giving the police and local communities much stronger powers to crack down on antisocial behaviour so that we can take back our communities from the vandals, the thieves and those who make others’ lives a misery.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), I find that constituents consistently mention the antisocial use of e-scooters and e-bikes, and I certainly welcome on my constituents’ behalf the measures in the crime and policing Bill about seizing such vehicles. Will Ministers talk to the Department for Transport about updating legislation, particularly in relation to e-scooters? Their usage has exploded but legislation has not kept pace.

[Yvette Cooper]

We are working with the Department for Transport. We need to keep communities safe, ensure that proper safety standards are met and tackle antisocial behaviour. I have also seen the work of Staffordshire police, who are using drones to follow riders of dangerous off-road bikes and take action.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be easier for the police to tackle antisocial behaviour if they had more support for special constables? The number of special constables has fallen in recent years, particularly since the pandemic. Will she agree to consider amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring special constables within section 50?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree that special constables can play an important role. Their numbers have dropped by around two thirds over the past 14 years. I think that is damaging, and we want to increase their numbers. We are working with police forces on how best to achieve that so that they can play their part, both on the streets in neighbourhood teams and in supporting other specialist aspects of the police’s work.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Greater Manchester has one of the highest crime rates in the country, with many suffering as a result of antisocial behaviour, but this weekend we saw police officers knocking on the door of a grandmother because she dared to criticise a Labour councillor for his role in the pensioner-hating WhatsApp scandal. Does the Home Secretary agree that is a waste of police time?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Government have been clear that the focus of policing must be on the neighbourhood crimes that blight our communities. That is why we are increasing neighbourhood policing, because the Conservative party slashed the number of neighbourhood police on the beat and we lost thousands of neighbourhood police in our communities. That is why we are also focusing the police on serious violence. The legislation to be introduced tomorrow will focus on tackling serious violence and dealing with the most serious crimes in our communities—something that the Conservative party, which presided over a 61% increase in shoplifting alone during its last two years in power, failed time and again to do.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle domestic abuse in Gloucester.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking with international partners to counter the threat of terrorism.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

This weekend’s horrific attack in Mulhouse in France has again reminded us of the threat from terrorists and from Islamist extremism, which can strike at any time. I have spoken to the French Interior Minister this morning to offer our support and any assistance needed. We will continue to work with our European colleagues and the Five Eyes partnership to tackle these threats, both internationally and here in the UK.

[Peter Prinsley]

Sadly, the misappropriation of religious belief to justify acts of terror and intimidation has become familiar across the world. We have seen the minds of too many of our young people corrupted by online pedlars of hate, so what action are this Government taking to tackle radicalisation at a time when xenophobia and intolerance are being promoted for political purposes?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that terrorists do not speak for any faith. Interfaith relationships are an important part of developing stronger communities, but we are clear that in the Government and across society we have to do more to prevent radicalisation and particularly the growing numbers of young people from being drawn into terrorism—both Islamist extremism and extreme right-wing threats. That is why tomorrow we will introduce new youth diversion orders through our crime and policing Bill to give the police new powers to divert young people away from terrorism.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Although I welcome what the Home Secretary is saying about the need to divert and prevent home-grown terrorism, does she accept that a pattern of terrorism is emerging in continental Europe of undocumented migrants going into countries and committing terrorist acts? Does she agree that it is very difficult for the authorities to prevent anything of that sort if undocumented illegal migrants are released into society when they arrive on these shores?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are clear that we need to tackle extremist and terror threats wheresoever they are found, which includes making sure that we have strengthened border security. That is why we have put forward new counter-terror style powers around people smuggling and trafficking to strengthen our border security, and it is also why we need to tackle particularly the radicalisation we see online. That is where we also see young people being drawn into extremist and terror threats. Wheresoever that is found, we need strong action in place to keep our country safe.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

In fighting terrorism, the Security Minister has rightly said that Islamism is the foremost threat we face. Its danger lies not just in physical violence, but in the intolerance it embodies and the intimidation it relies on. Will the Home Secretary give a clear answer to this question? Should it be a criminal offence to desecrate a Koran or any holy text: yes or no?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are clear that the primary domestic terrorist threat comes from Islamist terrorism, which comprises three quarters of the MI5 caseload and 64% of those in custody for terrorism-connected offences. That is followed by extreme right-wing terrorism, which comprises around a quarter of the MI5 caseload. We already have a framework of legislation in place to ensure that we can deal with the dangerous threats to our cohesion and our communities that we face.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to help reduce shop thefts.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

“My son didn’t stand a chance.”

Those were the heartbreaking words of Pooja Kanda, whose teenage son Ronan was fatally stabbed in 2022. His teenage killers were able to buy multiple dangerous weapons online, without any proper checks. Following Pooja’s campaigning, we are introducing Ronan’s law, which includes tightening the rules for online retailers, increasing the maximum penalty for selling weapons to under-18s, and introducing much more stringent ID checks at the point of purchase and delivery. I thank Commander Stephen Clayman for his crucial review in this area, which underpins the reforms, and pay tribute to the Kanda family. We need to do everything in our power to prevent other families from suffering from terrible knife crime.

[Greg Smith]

Thames Valley police are £1.9 million down this year because of the flawed formula for distributing funds to police forces after a pay award is given. When will this historical anomaly be fixed?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will just point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party had 14 years to address all the things he is so concerned about now. This Government have increased funding for policing by up to £1.1 billion next year, including £200 million to start redressing the huge cuts in neighbourhood policing that we have seen on our streets in Thames Valley and right across the country, because we need to get police back on the streets.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

T2. I thank the Minister for her previous answers, and for her commitment to reducing the number of asylum claimants in the UK. As she will know, the UK is spending 27% of its official development assistance on housing asylum claimants—almost double the OECD average. Our overseas spend was cut by the previous Government. Does she agree that in order to reduce the number of claimants coming to the UK, the Government should increase the spend on building peace and security abroad?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Border security is fundamental, but between the July election and yesterday, 25,135 people illegally and dangerously crossed the English channel—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months earlier. Does the Home Secretary now regret ignoring the National Crime Agency’s advice that law enforcement alone is not enough and that a removals deterrent is needed?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will just point out to the shadow Home Secretary that when the Conservatives were in government, we saw that many people arrive in the space of just over 100 days, because they completely lost control of our borders and let criminal gangs take hold along the channel. Some 84,000 people arrived in small boats while the Rwanda policy that he somehow wants to reintroduce managed to send just four volunteers. We have increased returns by over 20% to 19,000, which is important. I hope he will explain why he voted against counter-terrorism powers to go after smuggler gangs.

[Chris Philp]

The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. Of course, it never even started, as she well knows. The first flight was due to take off after the election, but she cancelled it.

She mentions that returns have gone up. What she fails to mention is that the vast majority of those people did not enter the country by small boat. The number of small boat returns went down after this Government came into office, and it represents only 4% of people crossing the English channel. Does she really think that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is going to deter anybody?

[Yvette Cooper]

I just say to the shadow Home Secretary that the Rwanda scheme ran for two years. It was running for two years—

[Chris Philp]

It never started.

[Yvette Cooper]

Exactly! All they managed to do—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, let us show a little bit more restraint, and when you ask a question, at least wait for the answer.

[Yvette Cooper]

The scheme ran for two years, and the Conservatives spent £700 million of taxpayers’ money to return just four people. In the period during which the shadow Home Secretary was in the Government, 128,000 people arrived on small boats, and only a tiny percentage of them were ever returned, even though that number included 12,000 Albanians. This Government are having to sort out this chaos, but his party is again failing to support counter-terrorism powers against smuggler and trafficking gangs—siding with the criminal smuggler gangs instead of the people of Britain.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

T5. It is illegal to post a prostitution advert in a phone box, yet the very same advert can be freely posted online by a pimping website. Such websites are making it as easy to order a woman to exploit as it is to order a takeaway. Does the Minister agree that we must urgently update our anti-pimping laws to make it a criminal offence to enable or to profit from the prostitution of another person online or offline?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

On a recent visit to Marple sixth-form college, I was reminded that the last Conservative Government abandoned young people and our economy by trashing our relationship with Europe, so I was delighted to see recent reports in The Times that the Prime Minister will offer a youth mobility scheme in negotiations with the EU. This is a common-sense approach that will give our young people opportunities and help grow our economy. Will the Secretary of State support delivering the best possible deal for young people here in the UK by extending a youth mobility scheme to the EU?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats knows, that is not our plan, and we are clear that net migration needs to come down. It quadrupled under the previous Conservative Government in the space of just four years, and that number needs to come down. We believe we should support young people across this country, including through youth prevention partnerships.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

T6. Exactly two weeks ago today, Dariusz Serafin tragically died from a knife wound on the streets of West Ealing—on a road long blighted by antisocial behaviour, about which I had written to the police just the week before. How will the Government’s new respect orders and the crackdown on knives help bring reassurance to my constituents in West Ealing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Many of my constituents have raised concerns about e-bikes and e-scooters being a safety hazard when modified or misused. What is the Minister doing to tackle riders travelling at high speeds on pavements and other pedestrian areas, and help my constituents to feel safe on their streets again?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can reassure the hon. Member that dangerous and antisocial behaviour involving e-bikes will be covered by the legislation we are introducing tomorrow to tackle vehicles and off-road bikes used in antisocial behaviour, so that we can keep streets and communities safe.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

T8.  Antisocial behaviour is too common on the Wirral and it ruins lives. This morning I spoke to my constituent Henry, who told me that having groups of youths hanging outside, intimidating and damaging property, made him feel like a prisoner in his own home. What more can be done to tackle such abuse and to support victims?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Too often antisocial behaviour is dismissed as a low-level crime, yet it can make people’s lives a complete misery. That is why we need more neighbourhood police back on our streets, working in communities to prevent and tackle the kinds of problems that communities face.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister recently said he was:

“hardwiring growth into all the decisions of the Cabinet”.

How did he react when the Home Secretary told him that her policy on electronic travel authorisations would cost the economy nearly £735 million over five years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The Home Secretary knows that raising the minimum income threshold has reduced net migration, which is why I introduced it while I was Home Secretary. If the Home Secretary wants to continue bringing net migration down, will she now confirm that she will introduce the further increases to the threshold, as I proposed?

[Yvette Cooper]

Net migration quadrupled during the period when the former Home Secretary was in government, in the space of just four years—the most shocking loss of control of our borders. We saw visas and overseas recruitment shoot up at exactly the same time as training here in the UK fell. That is why this Government will publish a White Paper that sets out measures to reduce net migration, including by ensuring that employers recruit and train here in the UK.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

T10. On Friday night, I joined Bedfordshire police officers on a ride-a-long to see first hand the great work they do to help vulnerable people. However, the Policing Minister knows that Bedfordshire police rely heavily on specific grants to tackle serious, violent and organised crime. Will she confirm that those grants will continue, and when we might we hear about that?

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Refugees here from Ukraine under the Homes for Ukraine scheme are not eligible to indefinite leave. They have a three-year visa, which in many cases, obviously, is about to expire. They have a very short window to apply for what is only an 18-month extension. Does the Home Secretary agree that that is not long enough for Ukrainian families here to be able to plan their future, and will she reconsider?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that we continue to support the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which remains extremely important—I have a family from Ukraine still living with me in Yorkshire. We will continue to support those families and will ensure that people are not disadvantaged by the deadlines that have been set.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Home Secretary quite conspicuously failed to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) asked earlier, so I am going to have another go. Should it ever be a criminal offence for anybody to desecrate a religious text—yes or no?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not have a blasphemy law in this country, nor will we have one.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Three weeks ago, I met a nine-year-old boy in Blackpool’s asylum hotel. He cannot walk, has frequent seizures and is non-verbal. Since May last year, his family have been requesting a wheelchair, as they have to carry him everywhere they go. No child, especially one with these needs, should have to go without the equipment that gives them the dignity to live. Does the Minister agree that such hotels are unsuitable for vulnerable children, and will she personally intervene to help me to get this young lad a wheelchair?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Last week, I held a summit with local businesses in the Top of Town in Basingstoke to discuss how we can breathe new life into our town centre. One of the key messages was that persistent antisocial behaviour is making residents feel unsafe and creating a barrier to businesses thriving. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give businesses and constituents in Basingstoke that this Government are making progress in restoring town centre patrols?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter, for both Basingstoke and towns right across the country. Town centres were blighted by a 60% increase in shop theft in the two years before the election, as well antisocial behaviour. That is why tackling town centre crime will be at the heart of the crime and policing Bill, introduced tomorrow.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be a better use of Greater Manchester police officers’ time if they actually policed the streets and prevented crime, rather than visiting grandmothers’ homes to discuss a Facebook post?

[Yvette Cooper]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed the discussion on this earlier. We have been clear that the central priority for policing set by this Government is neighbourhood policing, to tackle town centre crime, challenges across the country and serious violence, including violence against women and girls and the knife crime devastating young lives. We have made those priorities clear to police forces right across the country as part of our policing reform and our new legislation.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, Jonathan Brash.

Security Service: Correction of Evidence

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

The purpose of this statement is to notify the House that MI5 has corrected previously incorrect evidence that it provided to the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in relation to the case of agent X and alleged acts of domestic abuse. The High Court has today varied the injunction covering this case which allows further information to be reported. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal case is continuing and is expected to conclude later this year.

It is clearly a very serious matter to provide incorrect information to the court and MI5 has apologised directly for this.

I have commissioned an independent external review to report to me and to the director general of MI5 to understand what led to incorrect information being provided by MI5 to the High Court. Sir Jonathan Jones KC, former HM Procurator General, Treasury Solicitor and head of the Government Legal Service, will lead the review and ensure that an independent authoritative view can be taken on what went wrong, and any actions MI5 needs to take to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. Sir Jonathan will report his findings directly to me and Sir Ken McCallum, and I will ensure these are shared with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Intelligence and Security Committee.

MI5 does an incredibly difficult and important job every single day to keep our country safe from a wide range of threats, working to the highest of standards, and it is of course essential that those high standards must always be maintained.

Protecting national security is the first duty of the state, and the work of our intelligence agencies is critical to keeping the UK and its citizens safe. Covert human intelligence sources—or agents—play a crucial role in that work, and maintaining the secrecy of their identities is essential to protect them, their families, the vital intelligence they provide, and the recruitment of future sources.

The Government maintain and support the principle of neither confirming nor denying allegations about whether individuals may or may not be operating on behalf of the UK intelligence agencies.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal case to which this incorrect evidence was provided is still ongoing, and therefore I cannot provide further information or comment to the House on this case at this time.

The Government are also clear that all organisations must have robust safeguarding policies under continuous review and must take any allegation of domestic abuse extremely seriously. The public and Parliament must have the highest confidence in the processes in place to protect the most vulnerable and protect those most at risk in society.

[HCWS445]

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen UK border security, which has been weakened and undermined in recent years; to restore order to the immigration and asylum systems, which were left in chaos; and to bring in new counter-terror-style powers for our law enforcement to go after the dangerous criminal gangs that undermine our border security, that profit from putting lives at risk and that have been getting away with it for far too long.

It is a Bill to strengthen leadership and accountability around our borders, putting the Border Security Command on the statute book, and to bring in tougher powers to tackle organised immigration crime, including pursuing those involved in supply chains, preparatory acts and seizing mobile phones. It is a Bill that allows us to take stronger action on those who put the lives of others at risk at sea, that will improve intelligence gathering and sharing, and that will restore order and control to the asylum system so that we can clear the backlog.

It is a Bill to deliver on our Labour manifesto commitment to bring in counter-terrorism-style powers to increase enforcement and returns. It is part of the programme to deliver what we set out before Christmas in the Government’s plan for change—rebuilding secure borders; restoring order, control and confidence to the immigration and asylum systems; and bringing legal and illegal migration down.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Home Secretary may recall that, when she was on the Opposition Benches, I cautioned the then Conservative Government that the actions they were going to take to have a uniform immigration policy throughout the United Kingdom were unsustainable. More particularly, I warned during proceedings on the Illegal Migration Bill that it would conflict with the Windsor framework. They said I was wrong, but the High Court in Belfast has said that we were correct. She is taking steps today to repeal sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, so will she confirm, as Home Secretary of this United Kingdom, that our immigration policy will run throughout the entirety of this United Kingdom?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I can assure him that our approach is for both immigration and asylum to apply right across the UK, recognising the importance of border security as part of that UK-wide approach.

Most people across the UK want strong border security and a properly controlled and managed asylum and immigration system, so that the UK does its bit, alongside other countries, to help those fleeing persecution, but also so that those with no right to be here are swiftly returned and the rules are respected and enforced. None of that has been happening in recent years. When this Government took office, basic rules had stopped being enforced, the asylum system had been crashed, and smuggling gangs saw the UK as an easy target. The last Conservative Government completely lost control of our borders.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Member, but I inform Members that although I will take many interventions, I must make progress first.

[Pete Wishart]

That is fair enough, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. She talks about how much the whole of the UK wants this Bill, but my little part of the UK has experienced population stagnation, with decline coming in the 2030s. What we want and need are the tools to address that. A Scottish visa, supported by every sector and business organisation, would help our nation. When will we get that to help with our issues?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me repeat the answer that I have just given: our immigration and asylum system applies right across the UK. I say to the hon. Member that when net migration soared under the previous Government, it did not address the labour market issues in Scotland. That is why we need a proper strategy that addresses the labour market issues, rather than always seeing migration as the answer.

The last Conservative Government completely lost control of our borders. Net migration quadrupled in the space of three years to a record high of nearly 1 million people, as overseas recruitment soared while training was cut in the UK. Immigration is important for the UK, but that is why it needs to be controlled and managed. The party that told people that it was taking back control of our borders instead just ripped up all the controls.

Six years ago, barely a handful of boats crossed the channel: 300 people arrived by small boat in 2018. Within four years that number had risen to more than 30,000—a 100-fold increase—which not only undermines our border security but puts huge numbers of lives at risks. The Conservative Government failed to act fast with France and other countries to increase enforcement and prevent the gangs from taking hold. Instead, criminals were let off and an entire criminal industry was established along our borders in just a few short years, with tragic consequences.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Nobody in this House supports criminal gangs or people smugglers. We recognise that they are grotesque people who exploit those in very vulnerable situations. However, the people who get on those boats are desperate. Many of them are victims of war and the most grotesque human rights abuses, and they deserve to be treated with respect. Does she agree that, by way of balance, we should work out more sustainable safe routes for asylum seekers to gain a place of safety, in recognition of the massive contribution that many of them will make to our community, our country and our society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK must always do its bit to help those who have fled persecution. That is what we have done with Ukraine and Afghanistan, and it will continue to be important, but no one should be making this dangerous journey on a boat across the channel and being exploited by the criminal gangs that are profiting from it. They are making huge amounts of money—hundreds of millions of pounds—from putting lives at risk and undermining our border security. It should be Governments, not gangs, who decide who enters our country.

Under the last Government, asylum decision making collapsed, with a 70% drop in monthly decision making in the run-up to the election and an 80% drop in asylum interviews. The entire asylum system was crashed by their chaotic legislation, driving the backlog up at huge cost to the taxpayer, and enforcement was undermined, with a 34% drop in returns compared with the last Labour Government. Just four employers were charged with illegally employing migrant workers in the space of two and a half years, and of course, £700 million was spent on sending four volunteers to Rwanda—that programme ran for more than two years and sent just four volunteers. At the time, we said that it would have been cheaper to send those same people on a round trip to Australia on the former Prime Minister’s private helicopter. It turns out that it would have been cheaper to buy each of them a fleet of private helicopters themselves, never mind spending that money on paying for thousands more doctors, nurses or police officers, or paying to boost our border security instead.

We said in our manifesto that we would stop the chaos and return order to the system. That is what this Bill does, and it is exactly what we are doing. Since the election, we have started by ensuring that rules are respected and enforced, because immigration is important, but the system should not be misused or abused. We have transferred staff and resources from the failed Rwanda scheme and boosted returns and enforcement. The result is a 24% increase in enforced returns in our first seven months for those who have no right to be in the UK. Some 19,000 people were returned by the end of last month, including the four largest return charter flights in our country’s history, and there has been a 38% increase in illegal working raids and arrests compared with the same time period under the previous Government. New biometric kits have been rolled out, so that immigration enforcement can check fingerprints and biometric residence permits on the spot, and we are already strengthening our approach to prosecuting employers for exploitation and employment of illegal workers.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Can the Home Secretary tell the House how many of those who have been deported since she came into office had crossed into the UK on a small boat?

[Yvette Cooper]

I should perhaps point the hon. Lady to her own Government’s record, which left us with a shocking and disgraceful backlog in the asylum system. We are now clearing that backlog so that small boat cases can now be returned, something that was not possible under her Government’s approach. They never decided any asylum cases, and as a result could not return anyone who arrived on a small boat because their system was so broken. Not only are this Government introducing stronger powers to prevent small boats arriving in the first place—something that, shockingly, Conservative Members seem to want to vote against this evening—we are clearing the backlog so that we can substantially increase returns, compared with the total failure under the previous Government.

We have established our new Border Security Command to draw together the work of the Border Force, the National Crime Agency, the police, Immigration Enforcement, the Foreign Office and the intelligence and security agencies in order to strengthen our borders. That is backed by £150 million of funding for new technology and hundreds of specialist investigators, and it has already led to major joint operations with Belgium, France, Germany, Bulgaria and Iraq, taking out smuggler gang leaders and supply chains—the criminals operate across borders, and so must we.

Since the election, we have signed new agreements with Germany, Iraq, Italy, the Calais group and the G7, and we are drawing up new, closer arrangements with France. In parallel with our new UK Border Security Command, the French Interior Minister has announced increased enforcement along the coast and a new criminal intelligence and investigations unit to drive new action against organised immigration crime.

But we need to go much further. It is worth understanding how extensive and vile this criminal industry really is. It operates from the money markets of Kabul to the hills of Kurdistan and right across Europe—through the western Balkans and across the Mediterranean. It uses false advertising on social media and hawala networks to channel the cash. There are huge supply chains of flimsy boats, weak engines and fake lifejackets that would not keep anyone afloat. There are shipping routes through Bulgaria, Italy and Spain; warehouses of boats in Germany; and organised logistics networks through Belgium and northern France.

Gangs have become increasingly violent in their determination to make as much money as possible. They are crowding more and more people into flimsy boats with women and children in the middle, so that if the boats fold or sink, they are the first to drown or be crushed. They provide the fuel in flimsy containers that leak, so that when it mixes with saltwater, it inflicts the most horrific burns.

The gangs’ latest tactic is to make people wait in freezing cold water—even in January—until a boat arrives from further along the shore to pick them up. The International Organisation for Migration estimates that at least 78 people died when attempting to cross the channel in 2024. Families have been left devastated by the loss of loved ones, the victims of a diabolical trade —the most disgraceful and immoral trade in people.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will accept that this is a difficult time to speak up for a fair and ethical immigration policy, with the tide of far-right politics sweeping Europe, and maybe even lapping the shores of this country. Does she accept, however, that she is in danger of sounding like she is trying to stigmatise desperate migrants, rather than build a fair system?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Mother of the House has long had an interest in these issues and has often spoken on them. I would say that it is important for the UK to have a fair and effective asylum and immigration system. Immigration has always been an important part of the UK, but for it to be so, the rules need to be respected and enforced. We cannot allow the criminal gangs to put life at risk in that way or to undermine our border security. It is as a result of the operations of those criminal gangs that 78 people died while attempting to cross the channel in 2024 and that we have seen those quite horrific tactics.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The Home Secretary is clearly describing the grotesque way in which evil people traffickers encourage people to cross the channel, but my constituents find it difficult to understand why people want to come across the channel from France, which is a lovely country where many people enjoy holidaying and it is so safe. What is her understanding of why people make that journey and how will the Bill specifically help to reduce the number who do?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Lady will know, this challenge has been escalating for six years. We have seen a huge increase in the number of boat crossings, and underpinning that increase is the development of a criminal industry. In 2018 there were barely a handful of boat crossings, and now an entire criminal industry has developed based on false advertising and marketing, and on being able to promise people that they will be able to work illegally. That is why the previous Government’s complete failure to take enforcement action on illegal working or to make sure that there was a proper system in place for returns has been deeply damaging.

The Bill provides statutory underpinning for the new Border Security Command. For too long, different agencies with responsibility for border security have been operating in silos, without clear strategy or direction. Criminals can exploit that fragmentation, and the new Border Security Command that we established last summer is drawing together the work of different agencies including Border Force, the National Crime Agency, local police forces, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, immigration enforcement, the intelligence and security agencies and, because strengthening our borders means working internationally, the work of the Foreign Office on border security. Led by former police chief Martin Hewitt, Border Security Command is already having an impact, driving law enforcement co-operation across Europe and beyond. By placing it on a statutory footing and securing its authority and direction, for the first time border security is being treated as the national security issue that it needs to be, engaging with the multiple challenges and threats that we face around our borders.

The Bill strengthens the powers that law enforcement can use against ruthless and devious criminals. For too long, the ringleaders and facilitators of this wretched trade have been able to evade justice by ensuring that they are not present when the money changes hands or the boats set off. That has to change. Learning from early intervention counter-terrorism powers, the Bill will make possible much stronger early action against smuggler and trafficking gangs. New powers will better target supply chains, making it an offence to organise the buying, selling and transporting of small boat parts, motors and engines to be used for illegal entry—not waiting until we can prove that the boats in question were used to arrive at Western Jet Foil.

We are making it an offence to organise the logistics or gather information for the purposes of organised immigration crime, making clear that that is targeting criminal gangs who are profiting from trading in people, not those who help rescue others from serious danger or harm. We are giving law enforcement powers to seize and search the mobile phones of those arriving on small boats, to trace the gangs who organised their journey. As Rob Jones from the National Crime Agency said,

“if you get effective legislation, and you get concerted effort across the system internationally, you can make a real difference.”

That is why a Bill such as this is so important.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I have asked the Home Secretary this before and she has not given an answer yet: which metric should we use, and by which date, if we are to ascertain whether she has succeeded in smashing the gangs?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been clear as part of the plan for change that the purpose is to reduce illegal migration and the number of boats crossing the channel, because no one should be making those dangerous journeys. We must take these powers to be able to go after the gangs —powers that, astonishingly, the hon. Gentleman and his party seem to want to vote against tonight. They will be voting against the action that we need, and voting in favour of the criminal gangs, letting them off the hook once again.

I am also deeply concerned about the growing violence and risk to life. In the past 12 months we have seen a disturbing number of cases where the French authorities have tried to rescue people, including children, from dangerously overcrowded boats on which they were being crushed to death. One such case was last April when a seven-year-old girl died. Even though people had died and many were complicit in the crushing and putting lives at risk, some refused rescue and remained on the boat to travel to the UK. We must be able to take stronger action here in the UK. We must be able to extradite people to France to face trial, but we need powers in the UK too. A new offence of endangering life at sea is being introduced to send a clear message that we will take action against those who are complicit in loss of life or risk to life at sea. Those involved in behaviour that puts others at risk of serious injury or death, such as physical aggression, intimidation or rejecting rescue attempts, will face prosecution.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I support the intent of this Bill to reform the asylum system and prevent further deaths in the channel. The Prime Minister has promised to defend migrants and to develop a system based on “compassion and dignity”, and that can be resolved by looking at safe routes. People would not put their lives on the line and put themselves in danger if there were safe routes. Can the Home Secretary tell us what will be in this Bill to support safe routes?

[Yvette Cooper]

The purpose of this Bill is to pursue the criminal gangs who are undermining border security and putting lives at risk. That is the way the criminal gangs work, and that is why the Bill is so important. Unless we do that, any other measure we take in any direction will be undermined and will fail. The UK must always do its bit—it has always done its bit—alongside other countries to help those fleeing persecution. That is what we have done and continue to do for Afghanistan, for example. We also have to ensure that Governments, not gangs, choose who enters our country and that we prevent this criminal trade in people that is putting lives at risk.

The Bill will upgrade serious crime prevention orders, which are a potentially vital tool, but are currently underused. Under new interim serious crime prevention orders, the process will be streamlined, so that strict curbs can be placed on individuals suspected of involvement in organised immigration crime before they are prosecuted and convicted. That could mean, for example, restrictions placed on travel, social media access or the subject’s finances, so that early intervention can prevent dangerous action.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Home Secretary has outlined many of the measures she is taking to try to deal with the gangs, but the fact is that people come here because there are advantages in coming here. What is she doing to ensure that those advantages are removed, so that there is no incentive for people to come to the United Kingdom? Secondly, what role will Border Force have between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, since the Irish Republic is also a route for illegal immigrants to come to the United Kingdom?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member will be aware that the common travel area has long been in place, and that means that arrangements have to be addressed differently. Part of the problem with the whole asylum and immigration system has been that issues around enforcement have just not been taken seriously enough for far too long. We have been clear that the rules need to be respected and enforced. That is why we have substantially increased the resources and staffing available for enforcement and returns. It is why we have had 19,000 people returned. It is why we have increased returns. For example, we have increased enforced returns by 24%. It is why we have also increased the illegal working raids by 38% just since the election. That is a substantial increase in the illegal working raids and arrests, because not enough action was being taken on illegal working and employers exploiting people. If we do not have that system of proper enforcement, people think it is just too easy to ignore the rules, to break the rules and to ignore the system, and that is what we have to turn around. There has to be some credibility underpinning the asylum and immigration system and some enforcement of the rules; frankly, there just has not been that for far too long.

We will introduce two new offences to criminalise the making, adapting, importing, supplying and offering to supply and the possession of a specified list of articles for use in serious crime. That includes templates for 3D-printed firearms, pill presses and vehicle concealment. We will introduce stronger powers to go after dangerous criminals—criminals who are planning to provide small boats, supplying small boats, putting lives at risk, undermining border security and organising serious crime.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I know that the Home Secretary is doing her best to cover the waterfront—almost literally—but is not part of the problem that so many of the criminal gang organisers are outside our jurisdiction? How will these new laws apply to people we cannot reach?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member makes an important point, because we have to do this work in co-ordination with other countries. Alongside the UK’s setting up the Border Security Command, France is setting up its new organised immigration crime unit and a new intelligence centre and is strengthening enforcement. Alongside the UK’s strengthening our law to be able to go after the preparatory supply chains used by the people smugglers, Germany is also committed, as part of our new agreement, to strengthen its laws so that it can take action against the warehouses that we know hold huge numbers of the flimsy boats that are then used to transport people across the channel, putting lives at risk. He is absolutely right that this has to be done in co-operation and co-ordination with other countries, because the best way to strengthen border security is to work in co-operation.

The National Crime Agency is also clear that some of the organisers are here in the UK, such as those who do the facilitation, organise the supply chains and organise and help plan some of the routes, the dropping-off points and the advertising. Some of them are based in the UK, so we need the powers to be able to go after them here. If we are asking France, Germany and other countries to do their bit to help go after the criminal gangs, we need to make sure we are doing our bit, too.

That is why, to be honest, I find it absolutely astonishing that the Conservatives are planning to vote against Second Reading and against the provisions we are putting forward. [Interruption.] There is no point doing, “Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but”; the impact of the reasoned amendment from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) is to refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which puts forward counter-terrorism-style powers to go after the criminal people smugglers and traffickers who have undermined border security and put lives at risk. We have seen reasoned amendments from Reform and the Scottish National party, too, all wanting to oppose this Bill and the powers we need to go after the criminal gangs. Frankly, they should all explain why they want to let down the people of this country and stand up instead for the people smugglers and the traffickers who are putting lives at risk and undermining our border security. On the Government Benches, we believe we should go after those gangs, because theirs is a vile and illegal trade.

The Bill also strengthens intelligence gathering and intelligence sharing to tackle organised immigration crime. It will make it easier for customs data to be shared with the Home Office and police and provides for data held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on UK-registered trailers to be shared with law enforcement in real time. The House will remember the terrible case where 39 people died in the back of a trailer in Essex. The Bill will help detect attempts to smuggle people or goods into the country illegally via lorry. It will also provide for biometric checks to be taken more easily in different locations, including from Scottish ports and evacuation routes.

Importantly, the Bill also restores order to the asylum system by putting an end to some of the failed gimmicks and unworkable mess that the previous Government left us. That includes sorting out the chaos created by the unworkable and contradictory provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023, most of which are so unworkable that Conservative Ministers never commenced or implemented them. Some 34 major clauses were passed by this House but never commenced, because Ministers knew they would not work. Sixteen more were commenced, but never operationalised, because they were simply unworkable. The chaotic combination of section 9 and section 2 meant that anyone who arrived could claim asylum, get asylum support and get put up in an asylum hotel, but the Home Office could never take a decision on their case, so they would have to stay forever—an asylum Hotel California which people never leave, while the backlog soars and the taxpayer foots the bill.

We are repealing many of those chaotic, gimmicky and broken laws, including the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which will allow us to withdraw from the UK-Rwanda treaty that would otherwise have cost us hundreds of millions of pounds more for an unworkable scheme.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Home Secretary mentions asylum hotels. The Government have actually opened more asylum hotels since they have been in office. Can she give us a date when she will have met her manifesto commitment to close the last asylum hotel?

[Yvette Cooper]

I would just point out to the hon. Member that his party’s previous Government opened 400 hotels. This Government have already cut the cost of asylum accommodation substantially, and we continue to do so. We have also had to start clearing the backlog that was created by the previous Government collapsing asylum decisions in the run-up to the election, creating total chaos.

The Bill is about restoring order to the immigration and asylum system and rebuilding our border security. Immigration has always been important to the UK, but that is why it should be controlled and managed so that the system is fair. Our country will always do our bit to help those who have fled persecution and conflict, but the system needs grip and control, not gimmicks and false promises. Unlike our predecessors, we will not claim that there is a single fantasy gimmick that will solve the serious challenges. The gangs have been allowed to take hold for six years, so it will take time to loosen that grip and smash the networks that lie behind them, but there is no alternative to the hard graft of going after those gang networks, which have been getting away with this for far too long. Nor is there an alternative to working with international partners on this international crime, building new alliances against organised criminals—not just standing on the shoreline shouting at the sea.

If all the other parties are serious about tackling the criminal gangs that undermine our border security and put lives at risk, if they are serious about tackling crime, if they are serious about tackling criminals, and if they are serious about protecting our borders, they will support the Bill. The gangs do not care about borders, or whether the people they exploit live or die, but we have a responsibility to the British people, who rightly expect our borders to be secure, to go after the criminal gangs that are undermining them. We have a moral duty to prevent further tragedies, and stop the gangs that undermine border security and put lives at risk. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I have given way a lot. Let me make some progress.

The Home Secretary asked about the Opposition’s position on various topics. Our reasoned amendment makes it clear that we support measures to increase criminal penalties and to legislate against articles for use in serious and organised crime—measures that we introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Bill last year—but we do not support a path to citizenship for people who arrive illegally, and we do not support cancelling the Government’s obligation to remove them. That is why I moved the reasoned amendment.

[Yvette Cooper]

Perhaps the shadow Home Secretary can confirm that the measure in the Illegal Migration Act on citizenship was never commenced because it was unworkable. The Government have strengthened the powers to ensure that small boat arrivals cannot get citizenship by strengthening the rules. We have done more in seven months than the Conservative party did in 14 years. If he really wants to support counter-terrorism-style powers, why is he going to vote against the Bill on Second Reading?

[Chris Philp]

The reasoned amendment makes it very clear that we support those powers, but we do not support the totality of the Bill. In terms of tough action, the Home Secretary has yet to explain to the House why illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

The Government have today introduced the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill in the House of Commons.

Border security is fundamental to both national and economic security. Threats to the UK from serious and organised crime, including organised immigration crime, and from terrorism and hostile state actors are rapidly evolving. The first duty of a Government is to protect their citizens, and to not only keep up with but stay ahead of these threats. This requires a whole of state and legislative response.

The international and cross-border nature of these threats and challenges means that border security is an essential part of keeping our country safe. This is why strengthening our border security is one of the foundations of the Government plan for change.

Small boat crossings put these threats and challenges into sharp relief, they undermine our border security and put lives at risk. Organised by criminal smuggler and trafficking gangs, they are extremely dangerous with 78 reported deaths at sea last year, with people crowded into flimsy dinghies. Over the last six years, criminal gangs have been allowed to build a network of illegal and dangerous smuggling operations, taking hold along our border and across the continent, involving illegal supply chains, logistics, false advertising and illicit finance, underpinned by serious violence and exploitation.

The establishment of the Border Security Command in July 2024 spearheads the significant shift in strategy that this Government are taking, adopting a transformative approach to deliver stronger border security through strong leadership, effective partnerships and a long-term vision. Its initial focus is on dismantling smuggling networks, but its broader aims are to enable smarter, faster and more effective interventions across the entire system to strengthen the UK border.

Introduced today, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill delivers on the manifesto commitment to provide law enforcement with the powers it needs to protect the integrity of the UK border, including earlier intervention to detect, prevent and prosecute people smugglers, thereby disrupting their ability to carry out small boat crossings.

The measures, which have the strong support of law enforcement agencies like the National Crime Agency, Immigration Enforcement and police, include:

Placing the Border Security Command on a statutory footing

The Bill places the Border Security Command on to a statutory footing so that the commander has the authority to be an effective system leader, cohering and driving cross-Government systems to improve the collective response to cross border threats. This will give the commander the power they need to drive changes across different agencies and departments, and to be able to work internationally as we draw up new agreements with neighbouring, transit and upstream countries to tackle organised immigration crime and to co-operate on strengthening border security.

New and enhanced powers to strengthen border security, including new powers and offences

The Bill sets out new, transformative measures to provide law enforcement agencies with stronger powers to pursue, disrupt and deter organised immigration crime, including:

Creating new offences for supplying, offering to supply or handling items suspected of being for use in immigration crime, for example the buying, selling and transporting of small boat parts, as well as for the possession and supply of articles for use in serious crime.

Creating a new preparatory acts offence for collecting information to be used by organised immigration criminals to prepare for boat crossings. This includes arranging departure points, dates and times, with clear links back to the gangs facilitating the dangerous crossings.

Creating new powers to enable the search for and the seizure of electronic devices to identify links with organised immigration crime. This will enable the review of any information relevant to facilitation offences and to gather intelligence linked to smuggler and trafficking gangs.

The Bill makes it an offence to endanger another life at sea, to act as a deterrent to boat overcrowding and reduce further tragic loss of life among those making the perilous channel crossings. Those involved in physical aggression, intimidation or coercive behaviour, including preventing offers of rescue while at sea, will face prosecution. This stricter law sends a clear message that we are ready to take action against all those who are complicit in fatalities in the channel.

The Bill introduces new interim serious crime prevention orders to place severe curbs and restrictions on people involved in activities related to organised immigration crime, before they are arrested, ensuring that court delays do not mean a gap in our agencies taking action. Alongside this, two new criminal offences have been introduced which criminalise the making, adapting, importing, suppling, offering to supply and possession of a specified list of articles for use in serious crime.

The Bill also amends the counter-terrorism port powers to allow the police to take DNA samples and fingerprints at a port in Scotland, strengthening border security by bringing Scotland into alignment with the position across the rest of the UK.

Expanded data-sharing capabilities to assist in the development of the intelligence picture of organised immigration crime

The Bill strengthens information sharing which will allow law enforcement to access Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data on UK registered trailers in real time, enhancing the detection of illegal entrants via lorry both in the UK and upstream.

A new, simplified and clearer provision for HMRC to share certain entire datasets it holds for custom functions with the Home Office and other Government Departments will be introduced, subject to data protection legislation. This will enable the identification of suspicious patterns, activity, or intelligence that would not be apparent if each dataset was considered in isolation.

Measures to support and strengthen the asylum and immigration system

Among other measures to support and strengthen the asylum and immigration system, the Bill repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, delivering on the manifesto commitment to end the migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda which cost the taxpayer £700 million and sent four volunteers to Rwanda. The Government will be withdrawing separately from the UK-Rwanda treaty that underpinned that partnership.

The Bill also removes from the statute unworkable and counterproductive provisions from the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which allowed people to enter the asylum system but prevented asylum decision making, increased the backlog and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, driving up hotel use and costs. Many of those provisions were never enacted exactly because they were not workable.

Other measures in the Bill which seek to support the asylum and immigration system include introducing greater flexibility when taking biometric information, extending the trained cohort of those who can do so and creating a new power to take biometrics from foreign nationals outside of a visa process. The Bill also supports the disruption of professional enablers of abuse by amending governance structures to ensure the Immigration Services Commissioner can be an effective and more flexible regulator of immigration advice. Amendments to detention powers and creating the retrospective legal basis for fees to be collected in relation to the recognition of qualifications obtained overseas also work towards bolstering the immigration system.

Next steps

The Government are determined to strengthen UK border security and to tackle organised immigration crime. For too long the individuals behind this nefarious trade have been allowed to go unchecked. This legislation gives our law enforcement stronger tools than ever before to dismantle the gangs and provides the structure within which the full weight of the border security system can be brought to bear. These powers, alongside our work to ramp up returns, deportations, illegal working visits and action with the international community, transform the response to these threats and enable the step change needed.

[HCWS406]

Southport Attack

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Southport murders.

None of us will ever forget the events of 29 July. The school holidays had just started, and little girls were at a dance class to have fun, dance and sing. A moment of joy turned into the darkest of nightmares. We think especially of three little girls—Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar—their precious smiles and the dreams their families had, and we think of their families’ agony to have that future so brutally destroyed. They are in all our hearts and prayers, as are those who survived the attack but live with the physical and emotional scars. Nothing will ever take away their trauma and loss, and we will ensure that they receive the support and care they need in the years to come.

We think, too, of the police and first responders who ran into that scene of unspeakable horror. The courage they showed and the lives they saved are public service at its very best.

Yesterday, Axel Rudakubana pleaded guilty to all charges. He stands responsible for one of the most barbaric crimes in our country’s history—the most vile and cowardly attack on little children who could never defend themselves, carried out in the most horrific and traumatic way. The Crown Prosecution Service has described him as

“a young man with a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence”

who has

“shown no sign of remorse.”

On Thursday, before sentencing, the prosecution will set out what happened that day and the nature of those offences.

Now that the conviction has been secured, the families, the people of Southport and the entire country need answers about how this horrendous attack could ever have happened. The Government have been constrained in what we could say up to this point about Rudakubana’s past to avoid prejudicing any jury trial, in line with all the normal rules of our British justice systems, because nothing is more important than securing justice, but now we can start to lay out that background.

Multiple different agencies were in contact with Rudakubana and knew about his history of violence. He was referred to Prevent three times between December 2019 and April 2021, when aged 13 and 14. Between October 2019 and May 2022, Lancashire police responded to five calls from his home address about his behaviour. He was referred repeatedly to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. He had contact with children’s social care, the Early Help service, and child and adolescent mental health services. He was convicted of a violent assault against another child at school and was referred to the youth offending team. He was excluded from one school and had long periods of absence from another.

All those agencies had contact with him yet, between them, they completely failed to identify the terrible danger he posed. How did he fall through so many gaps? It is just unbearable to think that something more could and should have been done. There are grave questions about how this network of agencies failed to identify and act on the risks. There were so many signs of how dangerous he had become, yet the action against him was far too weak. Families need the truth about why the system failed to tackle his violence for so many years.

That is why we are setting up an independent public inquiry. Like the Angiolini inquiry into Wayne Couzens, it will begin work on a non-statutory basis so that it can move quickly into action, but with statutory powers added later, as required. We will set out the terms of reference and appoint the chair once we have consulted the coroner and given the families the opportunity to comment. In addition to examining what went wrong in this horrific case, I am also asking the inquiry to consider the wider challenge of rising youth violence and extremism.

I have been deeply disturbed at the number of cases involving teenagers drawn into extremism, serious violence and terrorism—including Islamist extremism, far right extremism, mixed and confused ideology, and obsession with violence and gore. In just three years, there has been a threefold increase in under-18s investigated for involvement in terrorism. Some 162 people were referred to Prevent last year for concerns relating to school massacres; the Met Commissioner has warned about

“young men who are fixated on violence...grazing across extremist and terrorist content”;

and Five Eyes counter-terror partners have warned about growing radicalisation of minors, happening as so many of our children and teenagers are being exposed to ever more disturbing materials online. An online ecosystem is radicalising our children while safety measures are whittled away.

The Online Safety Act 2023 illegal content codes of practice come into force in March and the child safety codes should be in place this summer, but companies should take responsibility before then. The prosecution will provide more detail on Thursday about material Rudakubana searched for online, but I can tell the House that the Government are this week contacting technology companies to ask them to remove the dangerous material that he accessed. Companies should not be profiting from hosting content that puts children’s lives at risk.

Let me set out four other areas where we are taking action in advance of the inquiry. First, on Prevent, the Government and counter-terrorism policing jointly commissioned an immediate Prevent learning review during the summer, and I will publish detailed findings following the sentencing. The three referrals took place between three and four years before the Southport attack, including following evidence Rudakubana was expressing interest in school shootings, the London Bridge attack, the IRA, MI5 and the middle east.

On each occasion, Rudakubana’s case was assessed by counter-terrorism policing, but in each instance there was no onward referral to specialist Channel support. The learning review has concluded that the referrals should not have been closed, and that cases such as these, given the perpetrator’s age and complex needs, should be referred to Channel. It concludes that too much weight was placed on the absence of ideology, without considering the vulnerabilities to radicalisation, or taking account of whether he was

“obsessed with massacre or extreme violence”,

and that the cumulative significance of those three repeat referrals was not properly considered.

The Prevent programme is vital to our national security and its officers work with huge dedication to keep us safe, but we need it to be effective. Some changes have already been made since 2021, including new Prevent duty guidance, new training for frontline workers on radicalisation and stronger policy on repeat referrals. In September 2024, a new Prevent assessment framework was launched, supplemented by robust training for all Prevent police officers, but those changes do not go far enough.

Given the importance of the programme, I cannot understand how it has been allowed to operate for so long without proper independent oversight. That is why I announced before Christmas the introduction of a new independent Prevent commissioner with power to review cases and ensure standards are being met. I am today appointing Lord David Anderson KC as the interim Prevent commissioner, to start work immediately. His first task will be to conduct a thorough review of the Prevent history in this case to identify what changes are needed to make sure serious cases are not missed, particularly where there is mixed and unclear ideology.

I have also tasked my Department with conducting an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds, including on Islamist extremism, where referrals have previously been too low. We are looking at cases where mental ill health or neurodivergence is a factor, and developing new arrangements with other agencies for cases that may not meet the threshold for Channel counter-extremism support, but where violent behaviour must be addressed urgently.

Secondly, two shocking facts around knife crime have emerged from this case. The Prevent learning review found that Rudakubana admitted to having carried a knife more than 10 times, yet the action against him was far too weak. Despite the fact that he had been convicted for violence and was just 17, he was easily able to order a knife on Amazon. That is a total disgrace and it must change. We will bring in stronger measures to tackle knife sales online in the crime and policing Bill this spring.

Thirdly, as the Prime Minister has set out this morning, we need to ensure our laws keep up with the changing violent and extremist threats that we face. It is for the police and CPS to decide whether individual cases meet the definition set out in the Terrorism Act 2000 when making charges, but given the growing number of cases where perpetrators are seeking to terrorise, even without a clear ideology, we need to ensure that the law, powers and sentencing are strong enough to cope. I have therefore asked the independent reviewer on terrorism powers to examine the legislation in this area in light of the modern threats we face.

Finally, let me address the issue of contempt of court. The British way of justice means that information is presented to the court by the police and CPS with restrictions on what can be said beforehand, so that the jury does not get partial or prejudicial information in advance, and to ensure the trial is fair and justice is done. Social media puts those long-established rules under strain, especially where partial and inaccurate information appears online, and the Law Commission is reviewing the contempt of court rules in that light. But let me be clear that where the police, Government and journalists are given clear advice from the CPS about contempt of court and about not publishing information in advance of a trial, if we did not respect that and a killer walked free, we would never be forgiven.

There are times when something so unfathomably terrible happens that whatever words we find feel grossly insufficient, and that is how it feels over the Southport attack. Let there be no doubt: responsibility for this outrage lies squarely with the perpetrator. Equally, in the wake of such a monstrous atrocity, we have to ask every question, no matter how difficult, and where change is needed, we must act. That now is our task. We owe that to the victims and their loved ones, and we owe it to the country, because protecting the public is the first duty of the Government and the shared purpose of this House. I commend this statement to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement and for the briefing she kindly arranged.

First, let us remember the three young, innocent victims of this savage and senseless attack: Bebe King was just six years old, Elsie Dot Stancombe was seven and Alice da Silva Aguiar was nine years old. Their lives were cruelly cut short as they attended a Taylor Swift dance class. It should have been a time of joy, part of a precious and innocent childhood to be cherished and remembered, and yet the darkest of shadows fell over Southport that day as those girls were robbed of their young lives. Let us not forget that eight more children and two adults were seriously injured on that day as well. Many of us in the House are parents or grandparents, and many people listening today will be too. We can only begin to imagine the pain and grief the parents and family of Bebe, Elsie and Alice must now be feeling. We should recognise and thank the first responders who arrived at the scene.

We owe it to the memory of those children and to their bereaved parents to learn the lessons from this terrible incident and to take steps to make sure it does not happen again. In that spirit, I welcome and support the inquiry announced yesterday. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it will be placed on a statutory footing as soon as possible, to ensure its independence and to enable it to compel disclosure of the evidence it may need? It is vital to get to the truth about the opportunities that may have existed to stop the evil perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, from committing those sickening murders.

Rudakubana was encountered multiple times, as the Home Secretary has said, by the police, social services, the school system and the Prevent programme over a period of several years. The inquiry will find out, I hope, whether mistakes were made or whether the law needs to change. The Home Secretary mentioned some areas that will rightly be looked at, and I support that. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will include consideration of whether the Mental Health Act 1983 was adequate for this case?

The Home Secretary has rightly referred to Prevent. A review of Prevent was conducted by Sir William Shawcross and the last Government responded to that in February 2024. Will the Home Secretary now commit to implementing all the recommendations of the Shawcross review?

I now turn to what happened after the murders and to the importance of openness and transparency. First—this is a serious and important question—will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will also cover the Government, police and CPS response to the murders and especially the handling of public communications and the appalling riots that followed? It is a very important question, and I will be grateful if the Home Secretary answers that directly in her response.

The Prime Minister this morning acknowledged that he knew about the background to the case and to Rudakubana himself, including that he had been referred to Prevent on three separate occasions and that he had been found to be in possession of ricin—a highly toxic chemical—and a manual detailing al-Qaeda terrorist methods, which is itself an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006. The Prime Minister also said this morning that he did not disclose any of that to the public in the days and weeks after the murders for fear of prejudicing the subsequent murder trial.

It is, of course, important for journalists, politicians and this House to do nothing that might prejudice a trial. However, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said this, in the context of the case, on the “Today” programme in October:

“The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.”

He went on,

“if there is any information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful that you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch, because there are criminal proceedings’.”

He continued:

“Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain”.

Jonathan Hall concluded by saying that that police realise now

“that just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say any more’, is not going to cut it these days.”

The independent reviewer is therefore saying that the Government and police can put some material into the public domain without prejudicing subsequent trials.

In fact, on 29 October, Rudakubana was charged with possessing the ricin and the terror manual, and that was then made public. If that can be made public in October without risking prejudice of the murder trial, it follows that it could have been made public in August without prejudicing that same trial. Background facts on other cases over the years have been made public after arrest and before trial without prejudice—the shields relating to two of those cases are in this Chamber. Why, therefore, did the Prime Minister not make public some of that background information in August when he knew it, when later disclosure of that information in October demonstrated that such disclosure could be made without prejudice? Why, too, did the Deputy Prime Minister, on 31 July, dismiss as “fake news” those saying that there may be further facts to come out?

Briefly, before concluding, let me explain why that is important. As Jonathan Hall said, if there is a void, misinformation can fill that void, especially online. That appears to be what happened here and some of that information, it is said, originated overseas from hostile states. It is possible—indeed, even likely—that that misinformation that was put into the void fuelled the totally unacceptable riots we then subsequently saw. Will the Home Secretary therefore accept, given what Jonathan Hall and I have said, that there should and could have been more openness and transparency, as I just set out, without prejudicing the trial, and that disclosing more of that truth openly and transparently would have helped combat the damaging misinformation that circulated and which, arguably, fuelled the riots? Will she confirm the inquiry will look at that aspect of events?

This was an appalling tragedy: young girls, murdered, with their whole lives ahead of them. Let us all learn the lessons from this tragedy in honour of their memory.

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Home Secretary raised a series of points, which is obviously a substantial shift in position for him and his party from the one they took in government. He asked about the status of the inquiry. I can confirm that it will start quickly on a non-statutory basis, in the same way that the Angiolini inquiry did. However, I can also confirm that it will be given whatever powers it needs, including on a statutory basis, so that it can get any information that it needs.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Shawcross review. I can confirm that the Government have implemented 33 out of the 34 recommendations. I will gently point out, however, that the approach that the Shawcross review took was to say that the Prevent programme should be narrowed and should focus particularly on the cases around terrorism. That could have risked including fewer cases like this one, where ideology is less clear.

The shadow Minister then raised the issue about the information that was provided. He will know that the Contempt of Court Act was set out in 1981. Jonathan Hall has highlighted the problem of disinformation online, with social media actors not bound by the same rules that the police, the media and the Government follow. He refers, for example, to the name and nationality being provided, which in practice they were in this case after misinformation appeared online. Ultimately, he has also said that all that is governed by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and the Law Commission is reviewing that. However, it is not for the Government to ignore the law or the advice that we are given when justice for families is at stake.

I will point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Conservative Government did not publish information before the trial about the Prevent referral for the perpetrator who killed Sir David Amess. None of us criticised them for that because none of us wanted to put at risk justice for Sir David’s family. Nor did they publish information before the trial on the Prevent referral of the asylum seeker who killed Tom Roberts. In fact, they did not even publish that after the trial; it only came out in the inquest. Further, the Minister, who even after the trial refused to answer my questions on whether they knew that the asylum seeker was wanted for murdering two people in Serbia when he was allowed to enter the country, was the current shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).

We have been keen to publish the information on Prevent referrals from the start, but the advice to us has been clear throughout. If we had ignored the advice that we were given about the case that was put to us and about the information that the police and the CPS were working through in order to get justice, and if, as a result, a killer had walked free, no one would ever have forgiven the Government or anyone else. The most important thing is to get justice and then, once justice is secured, to make sure at this point that the questions are answered about what went wrong and why three young girls’ lives were lost. That is the question the shadow Home Secretary should be focusing on right now.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It has been another tough week for my Southport constituency, as I am sure that Members across the House will appreciate. I want to start by thanking the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for the calm, diligent way in which they have undertaken their work over the last six months, and for the way in which they have been good friends to Southport.

I was clear back in the summer that I did not want people speculating online as to the motives or the background of the person who we can now say was the murderer of those three girls. We were risking prejudicing the trial, and it could have collapsed because of that speculation. In fact, it was not just speculation, but in some respects, downright lies—downright lies that were being circulated in the interests of political gain, with the interests of justice a distant second. Does the Home Secretary agree that the next stage of achieving justice for my community and for the families impacted so desperately by the crime back in July—that is, the public inquiry—should also be allowed to undertake its work and make its recommendations free of the ridiculous nonsense and lies that we have seen from public figures who should know better and which have been circulating purely for their own interests?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend has been an important voice for the people in his community throughout this unimaginably difficult time and has spoken for them with great dignity and passion, including in this House.

My hon. Friend is right that nothing of that sort should be done; it is part of our British justice tradition that information is produced at the trial, but not in advance for fear of prejudicing a jury, of undermining justice and of potentially letting criminals walk free. He is right that we should never do that. He is also right that his community, including the families involved, need answers now. And the answers that they need include how on earth this shocking, disturbing and barbaric attack was able to happen. What went wrong? What could have been done to prevent it? There is also the question of how we as a society face up to the rising youth violence and extremism that we have seen, with this being just one example among some very disturbing cases. That is the justice and the answers that those families need.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. What happened in Southport last year was a horrific tragedy. Three innocent young girls—Alice, Bebe and Elsie—lost their lives to an act of senseless brutal violence, and our thoughts go out to the bereaved families and their friends, for whom this week will be incredibly difficult. We all owe it to these girls to ensure that a senseless tragedy such as this can never happen again.

It has been deeply concerning to hear reports about how, in the lead-up to the attack, warning signs were missed as the attacker fell through the cracks in the system. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to an inquiry, and, clearly, tough questions need to be asked. The inquiry must not shy away from getting the answers. This inquiry, like others, will only reach its full potential when there is a duty of candour that requires public officials and authorities to co-operate fully. I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary on when her Government plan to finally introduce the Hillsborough law to Parliament.

Our country also deserves a counter-terrorism strategy that keeps our community safe and is fit to tackle the modern challenges that we face in an increasingly complex online world that crosses international boundaries. Will the Home Secretary confirm that these concerns will be addressed in the upcoming counter-terrorism strategy? This must be a watershed moment from which we move forward by building a system that avoids future failures such as we have seen in this case. It is my sincere hope that we can work together across this House to make that a reality.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes an important point: we want to introduce the duty of candour as part of the Hillsborough law. She is also right to talk about the challenges of countering terrorism, extremism and these changing patterns of extreme violence. As the Met Commissioner has said, those with a fixation on violence and gore are also consuming different bits of terrorist and extremist material. The ideology may be unclear, but they pose a danger to the public. This inquiry needs to look at all those issues, and, as part of our Prevent work and counter-terrorism work, we need to act at pace in these areas as well.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon. As many Members have said, our thoughts remain with Bebe, Elsie and Alice. We can all remember where we were that late mid-morning on 29 July. I had just dropped off my two children at their holiday camp at school. When the news broke, I could feel that panic. I almost stopped for a minute to think: are my children safe? We think about the other children and the trauma that they will be feeling, and the first responders who ran towards that danger knowing that they could be harmed.

The Home Secretary has announced an inquiry, but, sadly, there is also the issue of the nature of the violence that children as young as 15 or 16 are viewing online—the nature of the violence that was used on Elianne Andam when she was tragically stabbed in Croydon on 27 September, and the nature of the violence that Axel Rudakubana used on these three girls. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the institutions which, if we are honest, failed to see those warning signs will not fail in the future? What will the inquiry do differently, so that, as a House, we will not be coming back to recount dangerous tragedies again in the future?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to describe how every parent and grandparent will have felt on hearing those awful descriptions on that day in July. She is also right to focus on what our young people—our children—are seeing online. If we do not face up to this, the damage that we could be doing to generations down the line is disturbing and troubling. That means that social media companies need to take responsibility. The Online Safety Act 2023 will introduce stronger codes and requirements, but the companies themselves also need to take some responsibility, instead of going backwards, which they are at the moment.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, and my thoughts are with everybody involved. The list that she set out of the points where the agencies and institutions could have intervened sooner is truly terrifying. What reassurance can she give the House that this is a cross-Government piece of work and that all agencies and institutions will be involved? Furthermore, as and when the inquiry makes recommendations, which it will hopefully do on an interim basis, will she give a commitment that she will look carefully at them and implement them as soon as possible?

[Yvette Cooper]

We will certainly look at any recommendations that come from this important inquiry. We need to look at what went wrong in this case. This is particularly about the interactions between the different agencies. There were so many agencies involved, but, as a network, they failed to identify the risk and to have sufficient actions in place. Lancashire county council has carried out a rapid initial review, but there still has to be a statutory child safeguarding practice review and a coroner’s inquiry. However, our view is that those are not sufficient, because we need a cross-agency examination of all of the things that went wrong in this case. We have to start with the dangers that were posed to those children in Southport in such a devastating way and then see why the system so badly failed to protect them from those dangers. We need that rather than organisations working in their own silos, doing only their bit and then leaving children at risk.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for announcing the public inquiry. I want to remember Alice, Bebe and Elsie, and their families and friends. I also want to remember the other victims of the attack and the first responders, some of whom have given harrowing accounts over the last six months of what they found at the Hart Space in Southport.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we in this House should recommit to the principle that nothing that we say or do in this place or elsewhere should prejudice criminal proceedings or prevent justice from being secured? Does she agree that to have done so in this case would have been an insult to the memories of Alice, Bebe and Elsie, an insult to their families and friends, and an insult to everyone in the community in Southport who were, and remain, so badly affected by what happened on 29 July last year?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The families and all the people across Southport and the country need the truth. They need answers about what happened and what went so badly wrong in this case. That is why the information is put before the trial and then released after the trial. That is how the British justice system works. Crucially, at the heart of this, people need to see justice. There has to be an account for such a terrible, terrible, barbaric crime. All of us have to make sure that justice is delivered, because when lives have been lost in such a terrible way, justice is the minimum that they deserve.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I hope the Home Secretary will not take it as a discourtesy if I say to her that it should be the Prime Minister making this statement here today. This morning, he said on television that singleton terrorist attacks are a very new occurrence; they are not. They have been going on for nearly a decade. There have been many in London, including one in the yard of this House of Commons, and one that killed Sir David Amess, our colleague. In that attack on Sir David Amess, the police declared it a terrorist incident the same day. Without three Prevent references, without ricin, and without an al-Qaeda manual, they declared it a terrorist event the same day. So we all wonder why this was not the case here when there was such evidence. This is a clear mistake, is it not?

[Yvette Cooper]

The decision about the application of the Terrorism Act 2000 is one for the police and, ultimately, the CPS when it lays charges based on the operational information that it has. The prosecution will lay out more information before sentencing that they would have put before the court today had the offender not pleaded guilty initially, and that is for them to decide. But the point the Prime Minister made this morning was that this was clearly a case where someone attempted to terrorise the community. That was clearly their intention—to kill those children and to terrorise more widely. That is why we have to ensure that, even in cases where the police and the prosecution say they have not been able to prove ideology, we still have the right powers, sentencing and ability to respond with swiftness and seriousness to the kinds of cases we are facing. That is why the Prime Minister has said this needs to be reviewed—I referred to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation looking at those issues—and also why we have this statement to the House and are doing this inquiry.

Where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is when he said we have had such cases for a long time. We have seen in recent years a big increase in youth violence and extremism on a disturbing scale, and that needs to be part of the inquiry as well.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

I associate myself and my community with the statement from the Home Secretary on this tragic incident. Whether it is the purchasing of knives online or the sharing of horrible videos celebrating violence and death, there is clearly a gap in the ability of the state to hold social media companies and online retailers to account. What more can the Government do, together with the intelligence services, to take robust action and hold to account social media companies that are allowing extremism, violence and horror to be present on their sites?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are raising with the companies some of the particular dangerous material that this terrible offender accessed online, and the police and prosecution will say more about some of that material later this week.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue around online knife sales. We know that in the case of Ronan Kanda, who was brutally murdered with a ninja sword, that the perpetrator was able to buy that online and pick it up with no age checks at all. In this case, for a 17-year-old to be able to get the knife he used online from Amazon, that is frankly shocking. Commander Stephen Clayman has been doing a review for us of online knife sales and the kinds of checks that should be taking place. We will bring forward new measures to tackle this problem based on that review.

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I am particularly drawn to the line in the immediate learning review where it concludes that “too much weight was placed on the absence of ideology, without considering the vulnerabilities to radicalisation”. Much of the challenge over the summer was because there was an understandable lack of public understanding of the distinction between a terrorist incident and a non-terrorist incident. Had this person done exactly the same thing but been driven by a desire to create a caliphate here in the UK, it would of course have been defined as a terrorist attack. The fact that it was not is of no solace to the families who lost loved ones. Is it not now the time—I appreciate this could be part of the review, but I urge the Home Secretary to ensure it is given particular emphasis in the review—to get rid of this entirely arbitrary distinction of motivation and to focus exclusively on the risks and actions?

[Yvette Cooper]

The former Home Secretary makes an extremely important point because, from the point of view of the families and the community, the attack was intended to terrorise the community, and their real concern is about the scale of the harm. They saw the loss of children’s lives and the impact on the community.

The law is set out in the Terrorism Act 2000, and there is serious consideration for different agencies about the nature of the response. If there is an ideological attack or motivation, it may be that a counter-extremism response—the kind of support that the Channel programme provides—is targeted at the extremist ideology that needs to be challenged, tackled and taken down. Alternatively, if the issue is around mental health or an obsession with violence and gore, it may need a different kind of response. But the right hon. Member is right that the threats from the point of view of the community will feel the same. That is why the law needs to be looked at again, but it is also why we need to have this inquiry, which can look at where the gaps are in the way that different state agencies respond, because we have seen those growing gaps—obviously, in the most traumatic of ways in this case.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. In her statement and in the Prime Minister’s speech this morning, they painted a terrifying picture of how terrorism is changing in this country and how the threat we face is evolving, especially with the proliferation of extremely violent online content, which is having an effect on mixed ideologies and ideologies from across the spectrum. Clearly, part of the response will be from the intelligence services. Will the Home Secretary tell us how the intelligence services will be responding to this evolving threat and what the Government are doing to prevent the growth of extremism through extreme online content?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that we seem to have cases where there is extreme violence, or where obsession grows around extreme violence, and then young people cast around to consume different kinds of terrorist or extremist material, but at its heart it may be an obsession with violence. Different circumstances will require different kinds of responses, but the scale of the growing obsession with violence should be a serious concern to us because it makes us think, “What are we allowing to happen to our kids and teenagers if we see this kind of obsession grow?” That is why we need action. Clearly, the focus of the intelligence and security agencies is on those cases where there is organised ideology and radicalisation, as well as state threats, but we have to deal with the kinds of threats that our society faces much more widely, and that means everyone needs to be part of it.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I associate myself with colleagues’ remarks about the murder of those three wee girls and the bravery of the first responders. Most of all, we think about the families left behind. I agree that we have a responsibility to the victims, when talking about these kinds of cases, to ensure that we do so responsibly, while keeping the Government under scrutiny. There is a fast evolving situation regarding technology companies. Will the Home Secretary tell us what areas she is looking at on enforcement? In this diverse, multi-agency case, what interaction has she had with the Scottish Government and the devolved Administrations in the areas where they have responsibility?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right that there are issues around the responsibility of social media companies. Stronger powers will be brought in as part of the Online Safety Act, but we urge the companies to take responsibility now and not to continue to profit from dangerous material that is putting kids at risk.

On the discussions with the Scottish Government, we have broad discussions planned for later this week on some of our shared Home Office responsibilities. The hon. Member will know that policing and crime are devolved, but that national security issues, where terrorism cases may fall or have an impact, are reserved. On such cases, we would expect to consult the Scottish Government and discuss the way forward.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone involved. Acts of terror devastate the families of victims who are left to pick up the pieces, having their closest loved ones robbed from them in the cruellest way. As with the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack in 2020, which saw my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lose their beloved son James, these acts often take place after multiple agency failings. The Forbury Gardens perpetrator had been referred to Prevent four times and was known to mental health services. It will be important to those families in Southport that lessons are learned and acted on in a timely way. Will the Government engage with me and Survivors Against Terror on its calls for a survivors’ charter, which would extend rights to survivors and the families of victims?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Security Minister has met and had regular discussions with survivors of terror. They raise serious concerns about, for example, the way in which survivors of the Manchester Arena attack ended up feeling badly let down, and the additional support needed in such cases. We will continue to discuss the support that is needed with those organisations.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I trust that the Home Secretary agrees that the courage shown by the dance teacher and the member of the public who intervened should be recognised appropriately. What troubles me is that we seem to have a subtext here of saying that if only that particular ticking time-bomb had been successfully referred to Prevent, it could have stopped him doing what he did. Assuming that someone so committed to fanaticism would not respond to Prevent, will the Home Secretary share with the House what measures are in place to keep such terrible events from happening? Do terrorism prevention and investigation measures, for example, apply in a case like that?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member makes an important point. Those referrals were three to four years before the attack, and multiple different agencies had contact with Rudakubana, but there is a huge question about the powers and interventions that were available. Even if the scale of the risk and danger that he posed had been sufficiently identified, what could have been done? That is one of the reasons why the Government are determined to bring in a new power, a youth diversion order, to address some of the difficult cases—particularly those involving teenagers—and see what requirements might be put on young people in such cases. We will bring forward legislation as part of the crime and policing Bill.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

The barbaric murder of those three little girls in Southport is part of a growing problem of youngsters fixated on violence and gore, as the Home Secretary said. That worrying phenomenon has been fuelled by the rapid growth of websites and social media forums that promote and revel in such violence. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry into Southport will look into exactly that danger promoted by such websites?

[Yvette Cooper]

We will certainly ensure that that issue is clearly in the scope of the inquiry, which must consider why so many young people are drawn into an obsession with violence and extremist activity, and what exactly is going wrong and why, so that we can take the action needed across society to keep our children safe.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The Home Secretary told us that, last year alone, 162 people were referred to Prevent over concerns relating to school massacres—a truly shocking and disturbing figure. How many of those people are currently in detention?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that a referral to Prevent can be for young people who may have expressed an interest in school massacre, as opposed to those who have committed a crime. The point of the Prevent programme is early intervention to take action preventing young people from committing crime. My view is that the powers are not strong enough currently to prevent young people from committing crimes or getting drawn into extremist violence. That is exactly why we need to introduce the youth diversion order—a stronger power for the police to take action in these extremely serious cases.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

It is important to note that this attacker is a terrorist. He has been charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Biological Weapons Act 1974. The man is a terrorist. The attack itself has not been labelled terrorism because of the lack of a clear ideological motive—that is a decision for the police and the CPS. Will the Home Office look into how our legal frameworks might be updated to recognise the full horror of acts intended to terrorise?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. We need the legal framework to be up to date to ensure sufficient scope, powers and sentencing are in place to deal with acts that are intended to terrorise, even where there is no ideology. He is also right to say that this man has been charged under the Terrorism Act and has pleaded guilty to a terrorist offence, and I can confirm that he will be treated as a terrorist offender in prison.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

If the authorities remain silent, bad people write the script. On 16 October 2021, those authorities, and then their political masters, were frank about what had happened the previous day in Southend, and there were no riots. Why is that different from this?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member refers to the attack on Sir David Amess, who I regard as a friend, as I know he does—Sir David was a great loss to this House. The Government did not publish crucial information about, for example, the Prevent referral that had taken place. A lot of information was not provided until the trial. In fact, this Government are going further in providing information after the trial than was provided in that case. I do not think that anyone should attempt to excuse people who threw bricks and rocks at police officers by saying that it was something to do with the information they were provided with and when. They committed crimes; they need to take responsibility for those crimes.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

We have heard from Merseyside police, the CPS and counter-terrorism police about the wide range of violent content that the accused was accessing, including on genocide, and about his social media searches for violent and fatal stabbings. I know that the Home Secretary covered some of this in her statement and in response to previous questions, but what more should the social media and search engine giants be doing, first, to prevent our young people from accessing such content in the first place and, secondly, to take it down quickly from their sites once they are aware of it?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The thing about the social media companies is that they have incredibly sophisticated technology and resources. They know exactly how to target every single one of us online with things in which we might be interested, and they use their algorithms in all kinds of sophisticated ways. They have the capability to do far more to identify this dangerous content and take action on it. I believe that they should use those capabilities, rather than rowing back from content moderation and reducing the responsible action that they take.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Constituents across Lagan Valley send their thoughts and prayers not just to the families of Elsie, Alice and Bebe, but to the community of Southport. Something that has deeply concerned me for a long time is the radicalisation of young people in particular. As the Home Secretary explicitly stated, there is an online surge of young people becoming radicalised, including those who are interested in and look at content on violence against women and terror-linked activity. How will a lack of ideology be captured so that we can identify potential perpetrators? What laws can we pass in this House not only to stop social media companies profiting, but to ensure that they are aware of such violent and terrorist content on their platforms?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. The director of MI5 has talked about how the security services are seeing far too many cases of very young people being drawn into poisonous online extremism, and 13% of all those investigated for involvement in UK terrorism are now under 18. That is a disturbing fact for us all. The hon. Member is also right to say that we need to consider the complexity. Some young people become radicalised around an ideology early on. Others become obsessed with violence, and still others may switch between different extreme ideas and perspectives, but all of them are at risk of becoming dangerous to communities if they get drawn down that extremist track, and if their ideas get poisoned by things that they see online. That is why the issue is so important, and is a central part of the inquiry.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for updating the House, and welcome the uncompromising inquiry that she and the Prime Minister have announced. I would like to ask about social media and the digital information environment. I worked in a technology company for a long time, and I concur with the Home Secretary’s comments: the companies that we are talking about know what is circulating online and what is getting virality. After last summer, does she feel that she and the Prime Minister have the information that they need to make decisions in real time in order to secure our online information environment?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not think anyone would suggest that Ministers are in a position to make decisions on individual cases, but what we need is the right kind of framework. Clearly, the Online Safety Act will put new structures and systems in place. The Prime Minister made it clear this morning that we should not shy away from taking any further action needed to address this issue, because fundamentally, if it is impacting the safety of our children, we need to act.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Prime Minister’s denial in August that Rudakubana was being investigated for offences under the Terrorism Act 2006 did not protect the trial, because we found out the facts anyway when Rudakubana was charged in October. The same disclosure did not cause other trials, such as that of the Parsons Green tube bomber, to fail. I am not talking about the detail of Prevent referrals, which the Home Secretary has mentioned in answers to similar questions, but about the information that was disclosed in October. If a jury knew that before the trial, why could the Prime Minister not have told the country the truth in August?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that investigation is carried out by the police. The Crown Prosecution Service decides what charges to bring, and how and when to bring them, based on the evidence it has gathered. That is the British justice system. Decisions are made by the police and prosecutors, who are rightly independent of Ministers. I strongly believe that this independence, which is part of our British judicial tradition, must continue.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

We have heard that the murderer in Southport had a history of violence and a fascination with it, and was just 17 years old at the time of this horrific attack. There are no circumstances in which he should have been able to buy a knife. Does the Home Secretary agree that we have to get to the bottom of how that deadly weapon ended up in his hands, and ensure that teenagers are unable to buy these weapons in the future?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: the perpetrator should never have been able to buy a knife online. It is really disturbing that despite all the cases we have seen in the past, it is still far too easy for young people to get access to knives online. That is why, through the policing and crime Bill, we will take action, including by ensuring that executives of online companies take responsibility for the checks that need to take place.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Despite the attacker’s three referrals to Prevent, five referrals to the local police force and multiple referrals to multiple hubs, we still did not protect Elsie, Alice and Bebe. We have failed them. We must ensure that this never happens again. Does the Home Secretary agree that whoever the perpetrator is, the victims are always terrorised, and that an obsession with ideology may have been an underlying factor in why we missed this perpetrator? Should we not look again at the Shawcross recommendations on ideology obsession?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right that the Prevent learning review identified that in this case, the focus on ideology may have meant that some of the vulnerabilities to radicalisation were missed. We also have to recognise that cases in which there is ideology are different from cases in which there is not, and may require a different kind of response. The assessment of risk, and of the danger that a young person poses, may be the same, but the action that the state takes may need to change, depending on what is driving that danger and risk. For too long, though, some of those mixed-ideology cases—those unclear cases—may have been missed because we have not had sufficient focus on them. That focus is what the inquiry needs.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and of course, the victims and all those affected are very much in our thoughts and prayers. Nothing we say should detract from the fact that the perpetrator has sole responsibility for these awful crimes, but it is right to look at what happened beforehand. The Home Secretary has mentioned a few times the involvement of multiple agencies and their warnings. For me, that is one of the most concerning and shocking things. How come so many agencies were aware of the issue and raised concerns? This was not a lone wolf who popped out of nowhere. Who does the Home Secretary think ultimately bears responsibility for managing this perpetrator’s risk?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member’s question gets to the heart of the problem. He is right that the responsibility for this appalling and barbaric attack lies with the attacker, and he needs to face the consequences. He has committed the most heinous crime. However, we have to ask questions on behalf of the families. There should have been a network of responsible agencies, and the inquiry needs to look at why, ultimately, so many agencies together failed to identify the scale of risk, and to take the action that was needed. Part of the challenge is that it can be too easy for each agency to think that somebody else is addressing a particular bit of the problem. There needs to be a much stronger approach to what happens between agencies. That is what the inquiry must look at.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I think the vast majority of the British people agree with the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who has said repeatedly that when these horrific crimes take place, more information needs to be put out sooner to avoid an information vacuum. However, that is in conflict with the need to avoid prejudicing a fair trial. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is incumbent on this House to find a way to overcome or reduce that conflict, so that we get more information sooner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

In the world of social media, there can be all sorts of information online, but as the hon. Member rightly says, we have to make sure that justice is done. We have to make sure that a jury is not prejudiced by information in such a way that a killer can walk free, but also that people can get answers and the crucial information that they need. The Law Commission is reviewing the Contempt of Court Act, which dates back to 1981, but I know the hon. Member recognises the importance of us following the law in the meantime. We need to make sure that justice is done and, now that we have a verdict, that the families can find out what went wrong in this case and get the answers that they so badly need and deserve.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on her proposals; she has my full support in turning over every stone in looking into this case, and I wholeheartedly agree with all the powers she is bringing forward. However, that is half of the story. She rightly talks about balancing the risk of a criminal walking free, but we have to bear in mind the riots that happened across this country. Will she consider conducting a review that looks into the creation of a framework for how Government talk about these issues in the media, so that the approach is standardised and there is no political point-scoring across this Chamber? At the heart of this issue is the public perception that information was withheld from them. We could then hold a review on the rioting, to make sure that there are no further riots, because there were no riots in October, when this information came out. There is a discrepancy there that needs looking at, and I would be grateful if the Home Secretary took up this matter.

[Yvette Cooper]

I point out that the violent disorder stopped when people realised that they would face consequences for it, and when there was a clear police and criminal justice system response. There is no excuse for throwing rocks and bricks at the police—the same police officers who had to deal with the most horrendous attack on those little children in Southport. It is really important that the inquiry’s focus is on getting the families of those children the answers that they need about what went wrong in this terrible case, not on trying to excuse a bunch of thugs who were throwing rocks and bricks at the police—something for which there is no excuse at all.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As we reflect on the horror of the murder of these three young girls, we all have many questions, as do the public. Will the inquiry’s terms of reference permit an answer to this question: how far was the inaction by the various agencies influenced by fear of disturbing race or community relations? Was that a factor in the inaction? We have heard that there were three ineffective referrals to Prevent, and have heard of 162 other referrals to Prevent. Has the adequacy of the response to those referrals been reviewed?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have introduced a new Prevent commissioner—Lord David Anderson is beginning work as the interim commissioner right now—because there is no independent review of Prevent decisions or processes. That is a problem, because the decisions that Prevent takes are incredibly important. They need to be effective, and we need to make sure that standards are maintained. That is why we need an independent review. We have independent inspectors of aspects of the work of other public services, such as policing. We need an independent commissioner brought in to review not just this case, but similar cases. On the scope of the inquiry, the Prime Minister made it clear this morning that this inquiry will follow the evidence wherever it takes the inquiry, and no stone can go unturned.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On what dates were the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary made aware that Axel Rudakubana was in possession of ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual, and will the inquiry cover public communications after the murders?

[Yvette Cooper]

Ministers were of course updated throughout. The Home Office was advised about ricin in August, and we were advised about the document much later on in October. We made sure that the official Opposition were also briefed. In the end, those decisions and investigations are matters for the police on an operational basis. The tradition in this country is that we have operational independence for policing, and operationally independent decisions made by the CPS.

It is really sad that so many Opposition Members have chosen to ask questions about the timing of the release of information—they know that such issues are governed by the Contempt of Court Act, and that this is about providing justice for the families who lost their loved ones—rather than asking the serious questions about why that terrible, horrific and barbaric act took place. I would just ask the hon. Member, and others deciding what issues they want to focus on, to think very seriously about what the most important issue is here, when so many lives were lost.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

In her statement, the Home Secretary said, “Let there be no doubt: responsibility for this outrage lies squarely with the perpetrator.” That is indubitably true, but I would argue that there is blood on the hands of the myriad very difficult to understand Government agencies and quangos that charge around in ever decreasing circles, blaming everybody else when something goes wrong. Will she commit to reviewing every single dropped or downgraded case on which Prevent failed to act appropriately, to avoid another heartbreaking catastrophe like this one?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have announced two important things today. The first is the inquiry, which needs to go to the heart of what went wrong in this case—why so many agencies knew about this incredibly dangerous perpetrator who committed this barbaric act. The second is establishing the new Prevent independent commissioner, who can review different cases and ensure that the right approach has been taken, that risks are being identified and, frankly, that action is being taken. What disturbs me about some of the information—particularly the knife crime issues identified in this case—is that strong enough action was not taken. To keep people safe, we need to ensure that such action is taken.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary very much for her statement, her tone and her well-chosen words. I think every one of us in the Chamber is heartbroken for the families and their loss. The trust of local communities was damaged by the information that was released, and I believe a lesson about transparency must be learned. Can the Home Secretary outline how the Government will ensure that trust is rebuilt in the system, that misinformation can be corrected and that such corrections are trusted in the future?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to raise the important issue of trust. The police and criminal justice system are rightly independent of Government and of politics, but there needs to be trust in the work they do. This Government have made it part of our mission to restore confidence in policing, which I think has been undermined for far too long, and to stand up for the rule of law. We must defend the different parts of the justice system, which rightly play different roles, otherwise they will not provide justice for people in the future.

Crucially, to ensure that there is trust, we need to get to the truth about what happened in this shocking, terrible case: what went wrong and why a dangerous man was able to commit this terrible crime. Above all, all of us should keep in our minds and in our hearts the three little children, their families and all those who have been affected by this truly appalling attack. We must ensure that we get them the truth and answers, and do everything that we can to prevent such terrible crimes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement.

Bill Presented

Arms Trade (Inquiry and Suspension) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Zarah Sultana presented a Bill to make provision for an inquiry into the end use of arms sold to foreign states to determine whether they have been used in violation of international law; to immediately suspend the sale of arms to foreign states where it cannot be demonstrated that arms sold will not be used in violation of international law; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed (Bill 164).