Palestine Action: Proscription

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Written Statements

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

I have decided to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. A draft proscription order will be laid in Parliament on Monday 30 June. If passed, it will make it illegal to be a member of, or to invite support for, Palestine Action.

This decision is specific to Palestine Action and does not affect lawful protest groups and other organisations campaigning on issues around Palestine or the middle east.

The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton in the early hours of the morning on Friday 20 June is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action. The UK’s defence enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this Government will not tolerate those who put that security at risk. Counter Terrorism Policing is leading the criminal investigation into this attack. It is important that this process is free from interference and that the police are allowed to carry out their important work gathering evidence and working to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, NATO, Five Eyes allies and the UK defence enterprise. Its activity has increased in frequency and severity since the start of 2024 and its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Palestine Action has also broadened its targets from the defence industry to include financial firms, charities, universities and Government buildings. Its activities meet the threshold set out in the statutory tests established under the Terrorism Act 2000. This has been assessed through a robust, evidence-based process, by a wide range of experts from across Government, the police and the security services.

In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the Government. These include attacks at Thales in Glasgow in 2022; and last year at Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. The seriousness of these attacks includes the extent and nature of damage caused, including to targets affecting UK national security, and the impact on innocent members of the public fleeing for safety and subjected to violence. The extent of damage across these three attacks alone, spreading the length and breadth of the UK, runs into the millions of pounds.

During Palestine Action’s attack against the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over a million pounds-worth of damage, including to parts essential to submarines. The sheriff, in passing custodial sentences for the attackers’ violent crimes, spoke of the panic among staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown in the area where they were evacuating. He further recorded the extent of damage to legitimate business activities, which included “matters of nationwide security” and disputed the group’s claims that its actions were non-violent. The attacks at Elbit Systems in Bristol and Instro Precision in Kent remain sub judice. To avoid prejudicing future criminal trials, the Government will not comment on the specifics of these incidents.

Palestine Action has provided practical advice to assist its members with conducting attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property. In late 2023, Palestine Action released “The Underground Manual”. The document encourages the creation of cells; provides practical guidance on how to carry out activity against private companies and Government buildings on behalf of Palestine Action; and provides a link to a website that contains a map of specific targets across the UK. The manual encourages members to undertake operational security measures to protect the covert nature of their activity.

Through its media output, Palestine Action publicises and promotes its attacks involving serious property damage, as well as celebrating the perpetrators.

Palestine Action’s online presence has enabled the organisation to galvanise support, recruit and train members across the UK to take part in criminal activity and raise considerable funds through online donations. The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK and has pledged to escalate its campaign.

It is vitally important that those seeking to protest peacefully, including pro-Palestinian groups, those opposing the actions of the Israeli Government, and those demanding changes in the UK’s foreign policy, can continue to do so. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy. Should Parliament vote to proscribe, that right will be unaffected.

What it will do is to enable law enforcement to effectively disrupt the escalating actions of this serious group. Only last month, Palestine Action claimed responsibility for an attack against a Jewish-owned business in north London, where the glass front of the building was smashed and the building and floor defaced with red-paint, including the slogan “drop Elbit”. Such incidents do not represent legitimate or peaceful protest. Regardless of whether this incident itself amounts to terrorism, such activity is clearly intimidatory and unacceptable. It is one that has been repeated many times by this organisation, at sites the length and breadth of the UK.

I have considered carefully the nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activity. Proscription represents a legitimate response to the threat posed by Palestine Action. The first duty of Government is to keep our country safe, which is the foundation of our plan for change.

Given significant public concern over recent activities by this group, including the incident in Brize Norton last week, and balancing the relevant considerations, I have decided to confirm this decision to proscribe to the House in advance of laying the relevant order.

[HCWS729]

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I will update the House on the audit the Government commissioned from Baroness Casey on child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, and on the action we are taking to tackle this vile crime—to put perpetrators behind bars and to provide the innocent victims of those crimes with support and justice.

The House will be aware that on Friday seven men were found guilty of committing the most horrendous crimes in Rochdale between 2000 and 2006. They were convicted of treating teenage girls as sex slaves, repeatedly raping them in filthy flats, alleyways and warehouses. The perpetrators included taxi drivers and market traders of Pakistani heritage, and it has taken 20 years to bring them to justice. I pay tribute to the incredible bravery of the women who told their stories and fought for justice for all those years. They should never have been let down for so long.

The sexual exploitation of children by grooming gangs is one of the most horrific crimes. Children as young as 10, plied with drugs and alcohol, were brutally raped by gangs of men and disgracefully let down again and again by the authorities that were meant to protect them and keep them safe. These despicable crimes have caused the most unimaginable harm to victims and survivors throughout their lives and are a stain on our society.

Five months ago, I told the House that our most important task was to stop perpetrators and put them behind bars. I can report that that work is accelerating—arrests and investigations are increasing. I asked police forces in January to identify cases involving grooming and child sexual exploitation allegations that had been closed with no further action. More than 800 cases have now been identified for formal review, and I expect that figure to rise above 1,000 in the coming weeks.

Let me be clear: perpetrators of these vile crimes should be off our streets, behind bars, paying the price for what they have done. Further rapid action is also under way to implement recommendations of past inquiries and reviews, including the seven-year independent inquiry into child abuse—recommendations that have sat on the shelf for too long. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we are introducing the long-overdue mandatory reporting duty, which I called for more than 10 years ago, as well as aggravated offences for grooming offenders so that their sentences match the severity of their crimes.

Earlier this year, I also commissioned Baroness Louise Casey to undertake a rapid national audit of the nature, scale and characteristics of gang-based exploitation. I specifically asked her to look at the issue of ethnicity and the cultural and social drivers of this type of offending—analysis that previously had never been done despite years of concerns being raised. I asked her to advise us on what further reviews, investigations and actions would be needed to address the current and historical failures that she found.

I told Parliament in January that I expected Baroness Casey to deliver the same kind of impactful and no-holds-barred report that she produced on Rotherham in 2015, so that we never shy away from the reality of these terrible crimes. I am grateful that Louise and her team have done exactly that, conducting a hugely wide-ranging assessment in just four months. The findings of her audit are damning. At its heart, she identifies a deep-rooted failure to treat children as children, and a continued failure to protect children and teenage girls from rape, exploitation and serious violence and from the scars that last a lifetime. She finds too much fragmentation in the authorities’ response, too little sharing of information, too much reliance on flawed data, too much denial, too little justice, too many criminals getting off and too many victims being let down.

The audit describes victims as young as 10—often those in care or children with learning or physical disabilities—being singled out for grooming precisely because of their vulnerability; perpetrators still walking free because no one joined the dots or because the law ended up protecting them instead of the victims they had exploited; and deep-rooted institutional failures, stretching back decades, where organisations that should have protected children and punished offenders looked the other way. Baroness Casey found that

“blindness, ignorance, prejudice, defensiveness and even good but misdirected intentions”

all played a part in that collective failure.

On the key issues of ethnicity that I asked Baroness Casey to examine, she has found continued failure to gather proper robust national data, despite concerns being raised going back many years. In the local data examined from three police forces, the audit identifies clear evidence of over-representation among suspects of Asian and Pakistani-heritage men. Baroness Casey refers to

“examples of organisations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist or raising community tensions”.

These findings are deeply disturbing, but most disturbing of all, as Baroness Casey makes clear, is the fact that too many of them are not new. As her audit sets out, there have been 15 years of reports, reviews, inquiries and investigations into the appalling rapes, exploitation and violent crimes against children—detailed over 17 pages of her report—but too little has changed. We have lost more than a decade. That must end now. Baroness Casey sets out 12 recommendations for change, and we will take action on all of them immediately, because we cannot afford more wasted years.

We will introduce new laws to protect children and support victims so that they stop being blamed for the appalling crimes committed against them; new major police operations to pursue perpetrators and put them behind bars; a new national inquiry to direct local investigations and hold institutions to account for past failures; new ethnicity data and research, so that we face up to the facts on exploitation and abuse; new action across children’s social services and other agencies to identify children at risk; and further action to support child victims and tackle new forms of exploitation and abuse online. Taken together, this will mark the biggest programme of work ever pursued to root out the scourge of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation.

Those vile perpetrators who have grown used to the authorities looking the other way must have no place to hide, so let me spell out the next steps that we are announcing today. Baroness Casey’s first recommendation is that we must see children as children. She concludes that too many grooming cases have been dropped or downgraded from rape to lesser charges because a 13 to 15-year-old is perceived to have been in love with or consented to sex with the perpetrator, so we will change the law to ensure that adults who engage in penetrative sex with a child under 16 face the most serious charge of rape, and we will work closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to ensure that there are safeguards for consensual teenage relationships. We will change the law so that those convicted for child prostitution offences while their rapists got off scot-free will have their convictions disregarded and their criminal records expunged.

Baroness Casey’s next recommendation is a national criminal investigation. As I have set out, arrests and investigations are rising, but the audit recommends that we go further, so I can announce that the police will launch a new national criminal operation into grooming gangs, overseen by the National Crime Agency. It will bring together for the first time all arms of the policing response and develop a rigorous new national operating model that all forces across the country will be able to adopt, ensuring that grooming gangs are always treated as serious and organised crime, and so that rapists who groom children—whether their crimes were committed decades ago or are still being committed today—can end up behind bars.

Alongside justice, there must also be accountability and action. We have begun implementing the recommendations from past inquiries, including Professor Jay’s independent inquiry, and we have said that further inquiries are needed to get accountability in local areas. I told the House in January that I would undertake further work on how to ensure that those inquiries could get the evidence that they needed to properly hold institutions to account. We have sought responses from local councils, too. We asked Baroness Casey to review those responses, as well as the arrangements and powers used in past investigations and inquiries, and to consider the best means of getting to the truth. Her report concludes that further local investigations are needed, but they should be directed and overseen by a national commission with statutory inquiry powers. We agree, and we will set up a national inquiry to that effect.

Baroness Casey is not recommending another overarching inquiry of the kind conducted by Professor Alexis Jay. She recommends that the inquiry be time-limited, and its purpose must be to challenge what the audit describes as continued denial, resistance and legal wrangling among local agencies. We will set out further details on the national inquiry in due course.

I warned in January that the data collection we inherited from the previous Government on ethnicity was completely inadequate; the data was collected on only 37% of suspects. Baroness Casey’s audit confirms that ethnicity data is not recorded for two thirds of grooming gang perpetrators, and that the data is

“not good enough to support any statements about the ethnicity of group-based child sexual exploitation offenders at the national level.”

I agree with that conclusion. Frankly, it is ridiculous and helps no one that this basic information is not collected, especially as there have been warnings and recommendations stretching back 13 years about the woefully inadequate data on perpetrators, which prevents patterns of crime from being understood and tackled.

The immediate changes to police recording practices that I announced in January are starting to improve the data, but we need to go much further. Baroness Casey’s audit examined local data in three police force areas—Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire —where high-profile cases involving Pakistani-heritage men have long been investigated and reported. She found there that the suspects of group-based child sexual offences were disproportionately likely to be Asian men. She also found indications of disproportionality in serious case reviews.

Although much more robust national data is needed, we cannot and must not shy away from those findings. As Baroness Casey says,

“ignoring the issues, not examining and exposing them to the light, allows the criminality and depravity of a minority of men to be used to marginalise whole communities”.

The vast majority of people in our British Asian and Pakistani-heritage communities continue to be appalled by these terrible crimes, and agree that the criminal minority of sick predators and perpetrators in every community must be dealt with robustly by criminal law.

Baroness Casey’s review also identifies prosecutions and investigations into perpetrators who are white British, European, African or middle eastern, just as Alexis Jay’s inquiry concluded that all ethnicities and communities were involved in appalling child abuse crimes. So that there is accurate information to help tackle serious crimes, we will, for the first time, make it a formal requirement to collect ethnicity and nationality data in all cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation. We will also commission new research on the cultural and social drivers of child sexual exploitation, misogyny and violence against women and girls, as Baroness Casey has recommended.

The audit’s final group of recommendations is about the continued failure of agencies that should be keeping children safe to share vital information or act on clear signs of risk. Worryingly, the audit finds that although the number of reports to the police of child sexual abuse and exploitation has gone up, the number of child sexual abuse cases identified for protection plans by local children’s services has fallen to its lowest ever, but no one has been curious about why that is. The audit also details an abysmal failure to respond to 15 years of recommendations and warnings about the failings of inter-agency co-operation. We will act at pace to deliver Baroness Casey’s recommendations for mandatory information-sharing between agencies, and for unique reference numbers for children, building on work already being taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will also work at pace to close loopholes in taxi licensing laws.

I want to respond to three other important issues identified by Baroness Casey in her report, but on which she has not made specific recommendations. On support for victims, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will fund additional training for mental health staff in schools on identifying and supporting children and young people who have experienced trauma, exploitation and abuse. Baroness Casey reports that she came across cases involving suspects who were asylum seekers. We have asked her team to provide all the evidence they found to the Home Office, so that immigration enforcement can immediately pursue individual cases with the police. Let me make it clear that those who groom children or commit sexual offences will not be granted asylum in the UK, and we will do everything in our power to remove them. I do not believe that the law we have inherited is strong enough, so we are bringing forward a change to the law, so that anyone convicted of sexual offences is excluded from the asylum system and denied refugee status. We have already increased the removal of foreign national offenders by 14% since the election, and we are drawing up new arrangements to identify and remove those who have committed a much wider range of offences.

Finally, Baroness Casey describes ways in which patterns of grooming gang child sexual exploitation are changing, and evidence that rape and sexual exploitation are taking place in street gangs and drug gangs who combine criminal and sexual exploitation. I do not believe that this kind of exploitation has been investigated sufficiently. The report also describes sexual exploitation in modern slavery and trafficking cases. Most significantly of all, it describes the huge increase in online grooming, and horrendous online sexual exploitation and abuse, including through the use of social media apps to build up relationships and lure children into physical abuse. The audit quotes a police expert, who says:

“If Rotherham were to happen again today it would start online.”

We are passing world-leading laws to target those who groom and exploit children online, and investing in cutting-edge technology to target the highest-harm offenders, but we need to do much more, or the new scandals and shameful crimes of the future will be missed.

When the final report of Alexis Jay’s seven-year national inquiry was published in October 2022, the then Home Secretary, Grant Shapps, issued a profound and formal public apology to the victims of child sexual abuse who were so badly let down over decades by different levels of the state. As shadow Home Secretary at the time, I joined him in that apology on behalf of the Opposition, and extended it to victims of child sexual exploitation, too. To the victims and survivors of sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, on behalf of this and past Governments, and the many public authorities that let you down, I want to reiterate an unequivocal apology for the unimaginable pain and suffering that you have suffered, and for the failure of our country’s institutions, over decades, to prevent that harm and keep you safe.

But words are not enough; victims and survivors need action. The reforms that I have set out today will be the strongest action that any Government have taken to tackle child sexual exploitation. There will be more police investigations, more arrests, a new inquiry, changes to the law to protect children, and a fundamental overhaul of the way organisations work in order to support victims and put perpetrators behind bars, but none of that will work unless everyone is part of it, and everyone works together to keep our children safe. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Hopefully the report will be available in the Table Office for those Members who wish to see it. The Home Secretary quite rightly took longer than expected, and I have no problem with that. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and to the Lib Dems, that it is available to them to do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

Mr Speaker, they can point and shout as much as they like; they know the truth, just as we on the Conservative Benches do. Three times—[Interruption.] I will repeat myself: Labour MPs voted against the reasoned amendment to the children’s Bill; in Committee, they voted against that Bill; and they voted against the Crime and Policing Bill in Committee. They voted against a national inquiry and, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister repeatedly ruled out a national inquiry, to the cheers of all the Labour MPs who are now pretending that they believed in an inquiry all along.

No doubt, in her response to me, the Home Secretary will try to claim that the previous Government did nothing—a wholly false assertion that she should not repeat today. The Conservative Government took extensive action, starting with the original Jay report, commissioned in 2014 by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May. A year later, she commissioned the independent investigation into child sexual abuse, and Sajid Javid commissioned ethnicity data collection in 2018. It is wrong to claim, as the Home Secretary did, that ethnicity data collection had not been done. I remind her that the Foreign Secretary criticised Sajid Javid at the time, saying that he was bringing the office of Home Secretary “into disrepute”, and that he was pandering to the far-right for doing exactly what the Home Secretary says she will now do. They should be ashamed of themselves.

We accepted all the recommendations made by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in 2022, except the recommendation to have a new Cabinet Minister, which would not have made any difference at all to the victims of this scandal. The Home Secretary claimed that the recommendations sat on the shelf, but let me be clear that we went further than those recommendations. It was the Conservatives who established the grooming gangs taskforce, which supported police forces to make 807 arrests for group-based child sexual exploitation last year, so do not tell me that we did nothing.

It is vital that this inquiry is robust, swift and, above all, independent.

There are legitimate concerns about institutions investigating themselves, especially as some of the most egregious cases of institutional failure occurred in Labour-controlled authorities. [Interruption.] Labour Members can moan as much as they like, but the people out there believe that is why nothing has happened yet. In Greater Manchester, Operation Augusta was prematurely shut down. In Rotherham, which has been under continuous Labour control since 1974, we saw repeated failures. In Telford, where Labour has predominantly held power, the current MP, the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies), initially rejected calls for an inquiry while serving as council leader.

This inquiry must have teeth. It must start with known hotspots such as Bradford and Rochdale, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his persistent advocacy on this issue. We need clear commitments. For example, will the inquiry examine the role of ethnicity in these crimes, confronting hard truths about potential cover-ups motivated by fears of appearing racist? [Interruption.] There is no point in Labour Members muttering—the Home Secretary said it herself.

I spoke to the father of a survivor just this morning, and he told me that survivors need to have someone who is independent and who they can go to and trust. It is no use them being forced to speak to the same authorities who ignored them in the first place. Will this inquiry ensure that no one, whether police officers, councillors or council officials, is beyond scrutiny?

The Government’s approach to the Casey review itself raises serious concerns. While the review’s findings are crucial, we as legislators are sent here to make decisions, not to outsource the difficult ones. The Prime Minister has waited months for someone to take this decision for him. That is the kind of dithering and delay that the survivors complained about.

We need answers to the following questions. The House deserves to know what changed the Prime Minister’s mind from thinking that this was dog-whistle, far-right politics to something that he must do. When exactly did Baroness Casey submit her findings to Downing Street, and did the Government request any changes to her report? Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone in authority who deliberately covered up these disgusting crimes should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and that those prosecutions should happen alongside, not after the inquiry? We believe that anyone in the police, local authorities, social services or even the CPS who covered this up because they cared more about so-called community relations than about protecting vulnerable girls as young as 10 years old should be pursued.

We welcome the Home Secretary’s comments about perpetrators not being able to make asylum claims. I remind her that we put forward an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and she and all her colleagues voted against that very measure. Does she now agree that the perpetrators should also not be able to make human rights claims to avoid deportation, and will she legislate to do that? Will the inquiry be concluded within two years, and will every one of the 50 towns affected be covered, including Bradford, which is still refusing to conduct an inquiry into this? Will those local inquiries have the power to summon witnesses, or is that power only for the national inquiry? Most critically, we need a clear timeline for conclusions and actions. The victims cannot wait another decade for justice: we should be able to do this in two years.

Finally, we did not need to commission a report to tell us what we already knew. Will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of herself, the Labour party and the Prime Minister for wasting so much time and voting against this, dismissing the concerns of the survivors? The House, the British public and, most importantly, the many brave survivors deserve clear answers from a Government of dithering and delay.

[Yvette Cooper]

I do not think the Leader of the Opposition can have read the report and seen the seriousness of its conclusions, because it sets out a timeline of failure from 2009 to 2025. Repeated reports and recommendations were not acted on: on child protection, on police investigations, on ethnicity data, on data sharing and on support for victims. For 14 of those 16 years, her party was in government, including years in which she was the Minister for children and families, then the Minister for equalities, covering race and ethnicity issues and violence against women and girls. I did not hear her raise any of these issues until January this year. She will know that the Prime Minister did not just raise them but acted on them: he brought the first prosecutions against grooming gangs and called for action to address ethnicity issues in 2012. She will also know that the safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and I have raised these issues repeatedly.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to Professor Alexis Jay’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I called for that inquiry and strongly supported it, and we wanted it to work on a cross-party basis. We supported its conclusions, but the Leader of the Opposition’s party did absolutely nothing to implement them. Time and again, recommendations just sat on the shelf, and it has taken this Government to bring forward the mandatory duty to report. She says that we should ensure that people who have engaged in cover-ups are prosecuted. I agree, which is why the Labour party is changing the law to make that possible, so that cover-ups cannot happen and people are held to account.

The Leader of the Opposition also knows that in the vote she referred to, what she wanted to do—the amendment she tabled—would have wrecked the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. That Bill includes two of Baroness Casey’s recommendations to strengthen child protection, recommendations that the Leader of the Opposition and her party refused to introduce over 14 years. I am sorry that she chose not to join in the apology to victims and survivors for decades of failure in 2022. That apology was a cross-party one, which, if she really had victims’ interests and the national interest at heart, it should be again.

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

I listened with cold fury to what was coming out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition, because much of it was beneath contempt. I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and for commissioning a fiercely independent figure such as Louise Casey to conduct this national audit, without which we would not have had today’s outcome.

In Rochdale, we know all too well how many years it has taken for victims to get the justice they deserve. They have waited many, many years to see these sick criminals locked up and put behind bars. Only last week, we had seven more of these perverts locked up in Rochdale, which is a testament to the police and the prosecution who finally got those cases together. However, the victims also want accountability for anyone in a position of authority, as the Home Secretary has said—anyone who found out about this, or knew about it, and failed to act. Does she agree that no councillor from any political party, no social worker, no police officer, no council officer and no ethnic group should hide from the fierce scrutiny of this national inquiry?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the appalling case in his constituency, where seven people were convicted on Friday. He will also know that further criminal investigations are still ongoing—it is shameful how long it has taken to get justice for those victims. I agree with him that no one can hide from justice on this appalling issue, on which victims and survivors have been let down for far too long. I hope that supporting that aim will be a cross-party process.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Child sexual abuse and exploitation are among the most abhorrent crimes imaginable, and we must all support every effort to deliver justice for victims and prevent these vile acts from happening again. It is, of course, right that the Government follow the recommendations of Baroness Casey’s report, including a new national inquiry. Survivors must be at the heart of this process. Their voices, experiences and insights must shape both the inquiry and its outcomes, and I would welcome hearing more from the Home Secretary about how she intends to ensure survivors are heard, are respected, and—essentially—are allowed to build on their existing testimony without being asked to repeat themselves and relive their abuse again and again.

The seven-year inquiry into child sexual abuse, chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, delivered its final report in 2022, and the Government at the time delivered none of its recommendations, leaving survivors waiting for justice. In her remarks, the Home Secretary mentioned two of Professor Jay’s recommendations being introduced through the Crime and Policing Bill: a mandatory reporting duty and aggravated offences for grooming offenders. What does this new inquiry mean for the remaining recommendations of Professor Jay? Will victims and survivors see all 20 recommendations implemented while the new inquiry is being carried out?

Any new inquiry must be more than symbolic; it must be robust, victim-centred and capable of driving real change. A duty of candour would require public officials and authorities to co-operate fully with such an inquiry, so it continues to be disappointing that the Government have delayed bringing that provision forward. I ask the Home Secretary plainly: what is stopping the Government from introducing a duty of candour via a Hillsborough law now?

Finally, now that Baroness Casey has completed her review, I welcome her appointment as chair of the independent commission into adult social care. I trust that she will bring to that hugely important role the same determination to challenge injustice and to champion the voices of those too often left unheard.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes important points about the seriousness of this crime, and she is right, too, that we need to continue to implement the recommendations of the overarching inquiry into child abuse. The Safeguarding Minister updated the House before Easter on those recommendations and the action we are taking forward on them. I can tell the hon. Lady that in the Home Office, measures are already well under way, and we will continue to do that. It is important that we do not simply have recommendations sitting on shelves—things have to be implemented.

On the Hillsborough law, we are working at pace to get the details right and to bring it before the House. The hon. Lady will understand that it needs to meet the expectations of the Hillsborough families, as well as be right for the House. We will continue to work on the wider issues, too. In her foreword, Baroness Casey says:

“If we’d got this right years ago—seeing these girls as children raped rather than ‘wayward teenagers’ or collaborators in their abuse, collecting ethnicity data, and acknowledging as a system that we did not do a good enough job—then I doubt we’d be in this place now.”

We lost a decade. We cannot lose another one.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

First, may I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for her leadership and commitment to getting a grip on this issue? As a Member of Parliament for one of the largest constituencies of Muslim and Pakistani heritage people, I know the sheer anger and condemnation that the vast majority of them share, like all Britons who are against those who commit these vile actions and vile sexual abuse. That is backed up not only by recent polling by Opinium showing that a majority of Muslims are deeply concerned about grooming gangs, but by sermons in mosques, letters from leading figures, demonstrations on the streets and so much more that is often not given the media coverage it deserves. I am pleased to see that the National Crime Agency will be involved in the future inquiries. Let me reiterate in this House that British Muslims stand on the side of victims and support the full force of the law being used against all perpetrators of abuse. Does the Home Secretary agree that those who display selective outrage or fan the flames to blame entire communities do nothing to protect innocent victims or further the cause of victims?

[Yvette Cooper]

May I welcome my hon. Friend’s points that she makes about the anger in her community and the anger across British Muslim communities towards the grooming gangs, towards the rape of children and towards these appalling crimes? She has long called for work, including stronger action from the police to be able to go after perpetrators and bring them to justice. She is right that the horror at crimes committed against children and in particular against young girls is shared across communities. It is in the interests of those children and victim-survivors that we have reforms now.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for early sight of it, and I am pleased that Baroness Casey has agreed to appear before the Committee tomorrow to set out the contents of her report more clearly. However, I am concerned about the potential for inquiries intended to get to the truth to prejudice criminal trials. How does the Home Secretary envisage the two elements running alongside each other—an inquiry and criminal prosecutions?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome that question, and I am glad that Baroness Casey will have the opportunity to set out more details of her findings. As the right hon. Lady will know, Baroness Casey has huge expertise and determination, and will be forthright in giving the evidence that she has drawn together.

It will be important for the commission conducting the independent inquiry to have arrangements with police forces to ensure that criminal investigations that are currently under way are not cut across. It is also important to ensure that we can uncover institutional failings, because institutional failures to pursue action, or the turning of a blind eye, need to be looked into in particular areas, as part of the local investigations and the national inquiry. As the right hon. Lady will know, arrangements of this kind have featured in past inquiries, so they can be made and will need to be made again now.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

Let me first praise and pay tribute to survivors across the country, and draw attention again to the survivors who worked in Telford along with me and various organisations to carry out the local review. We did so because the then Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, and the then local government Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), refused to provide a statutory inquiry into what had happened in Telford. That is why we worked with the police and crime commissioner—who happens to be a Conservative—and with people across the political spectrum to take this matter out of the party political field and try to find answers in our small part of the world.

What we need, though, is action. We need action in respect of the Jay inquiry and in respect of the Casey review, but does the Home Secretary agree that we also need action in respect of the number of local reviews that have taken place up and down the country whose findings have not been on the desks of Ministers over the last 14 years and which have therefore not received the attention that they deserve?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: what we need is change and action, and recommendations from inquiries need to be implemented. Part of the strength of the Telford inquiry lay in the fact that victims and survivors were at its very heart, and there were also serious plans to ensure, and ways of ensuring, that the recommendations were implemented. That is crucial. It is no good having inquiries if recommendations just sit on the shelf; we must ensure that they are implemented, as well as pursuing answers.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

The fact that victims and survivors of this horrific crime literally had to become campaigners themselves to reach this outcome should make everyone in the House stop and think. When I last met the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), along with the leading child abuse lawyer David Greenwood, we pointed out the fundamental flaw in her Government’s grooming gangs strategy: namely, the completely ridiculous decision to give council leaders in areas such as Keighley and Bradford the option to simply say no to an inquiry. Now that we have an inquiry equipped with statutory powers, may I ask the Home Secretary what message she has for local leaders in my region who think that they can still get away with saying no, and what message she has for victims such as Fiona Goddard, who is also from my area and who will no doubt be worrying, like me, that there will still be no focus on Keighley and the wider Bradford district?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that the hon. Member has met the Safeguarding Minister. She has spoken again to Fiona Goddard this morning to ensure that the voices of victims, survivors and campaigners are at the heart of the inquiry. He will know that the Safeguarding Minister said to him in their meeting that she would not allow local councils to be able to turn their backs and say no to investigations where they are needed. That is why we have accepted Baroness Casey’s recommendation to have a national inquiry that will underpin those local investigations. Obviously, the final decisions will be matters for the independent chair of the commission, but we will ensure that the hon. Member’s concerns and those of victims are passed on the national inquiry.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I also pass on my thanks to Dame Louise Casey for meeting Oldham victims and survivors of CSE. They want no further delays to justice, and for perpetrators to face the full force of the law now. It is unacceptable that some are being given court dates for 2028, with all the risks that that implies. They want no more red tape, and they want survivors to be at the heart of rooting out perpetrators and getting justice. Can the Home Secretary ensure that this will happen, and will she now consider making misogyny a hate crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome what my hon. Friend has done over many years to champion victims in Oldham and across her constituency, and to work with survivors. She is right to point to the terrible delays in the justice system. She will know that the Lord Chancellor is taking forward reforms to look at how the huge backlog, particularly in Crown court cases, can be dealt with. Justice delayed is justice denied, and so many survivors have already waited far too long for justice. I assure my hon. Friend that those concerns are uppermost in the Lord Chancellor’s mind.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Regardless of whether local inquiries are commissioned by councils, will there be an opportunity for those same areas to fall under the remit of the national inquiry, to ensure that some of the ongoing issues to which the Home Secretary herself has referred are caught within the new framework of the inquiry?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question. Ultimately, the final decisions will need to be for the independent chair and the commission—that is what happens when we set it up as a national inquiry, rather than a Government process. He will know that concerns have been raised about investigations and inquiries that have taken place in Greater Manchester, where some areas could not be compelled to take part. As a result, there has been work with His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to pursue the final stages of an investigation and inquiry. We did look at whether there were other powers, either through local government Acts or through police inspection powers. However, the simplest way to address this issue is for it to be done through the national inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to make representations about his area, and other MPs will be able to make representations about their areas too.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and the absolute determination of Baroness Casey and this Government to hold to account perpetrators and those who may have been involved in cover-ups. One of the report’s recommendations is about the confusion between different agencies, and a particular element of that is about taxi licensing and taxis from out-of-town areas. I know from my city of Peterborough the challenge to law-abiding, decent taxi drivers who are undercut by different licensing laws, but also to law enforcement and the safety of passengers when we have number plates from different areas. I note that that is the focus of one of the recommendations. Can my right hon. Friend give us more details on how we will move at speed to create a level playing field nationally, so that passengers are safe and drivers have the support they need to keep everyone safe?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. As he will know, many local authorities across the country have worked to ensure that they raise standards and checks in their licensing arrangements, particularly those in areas where there have been serious problems and criminal cases. However, those checks and safeguards can end up being undermined by the licensing of taxis in other areas that do not have such checks, so we are looking to take forward reforms to the law. The Transport Secretary is looking at exactly this issue to make sure that we find a way to close the loophole.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

As a survivor of child sexual abuse myself, I stand in solidarity with the many victims and survivors the system has failed over many, many years. I can say that the horror, the trauma and the guilt never leave you, and I so hope that every survivor who is identified receives the mental health and other support that they deserve to help rebuild their lives.

Survivors have witnessed very many promises, the 20 recommendations and the call of “never again” time and again. What will the Home Secretary do, and how will she reassure them that this will not be another one of those examples?

Can I just say that I am really let down and disgusted that the Leader of the Opposition began her remarks with a party political assault on her opponents? Victims and survivors deserve more than a smug “I told you so” diatribe. Victims and survivors deserve action.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for speaking out about his experience. I do not underestimate how brave it is and how difficult it can be to do that, and he will be giving all kinds of support to other victims and survivors simply by the fact that he has done so.

The hon. Member is right to raise the challenge of how we ensure that recommendations are actually implemented. He will know that we want to extend therapeutic support to victims and survivors, but as the Health Secretary is setting out, we will start by providing additional support and training for those who provide mental health support in our schools.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

At Manchester Minshull Street Crown court last week, seven men were convicted for sickening crimes as part of a grooming gang. One of their victims, girl A, who was abused by in excess of 50 men, was advised by the police to make a claim for criminal injuries compensation, for which she would have received just £22,000. She did not make a claim, but that did not stop the defence from arguing that she made up accusations to bolster a claim for compensation.

The Government will be aware that I have raised on many occasions the inadequacies of the criminal injuries compensation framework for victims of sexual violence and exploitation, and they will be aware of recommendations from the IICSA review and the Victims’ Commissioner on this matter. While no amount of money could be adequate to compensate victims such as girl A, we owe it to them to ensure that they have the financial support required to rebuild their lives and do not have to choose between that and justice. How much longer will we all be waiting for this?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The Safeguarding Minister takes this issue very seriously, and we cannot have issues relating to the criminal injuries compensation scheme being raised in court in a way that undermines victims and survivors, who have bravely shown that they are able to speak out about abuse that has haunted their lives for so long. We will look at this issue further.

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

I welcome the statement from the Home Secretary, and the fact that there will now be a national inquiry. Does the Home Secretary think that it will be finished within, let us say, two years for the British people? Given that she quite rightly apologised to the victims and survivors, will she apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister, who smeared and labelled those of us who called for a national inquiry?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member raises the timescale. In the discussions we have had with Baroness Casey, and recognising the many issues that people want to raise in the inquiry, we had expected that it would take around three years, but if the commission is able to work faster than that, people will clearly want answers as swiftly as possible. The final details about the timings are obviously to be determined.

We need to make sure both that we are implementing the recommendations of previous inquiries and that we are pursuing further the investigations in local areas as swiftly as possible. I reiterated in my statement a recognition of the huge harm that has been done to victims and survivors through the decades. I would urge the hon. Member to look at the 17-page section of Louise Casey’s report on the failure, year after year, to follow through and take action, and I do believe that victims and survivors are owed an apology for that failure over very many years.

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

I think it is fair to say that although there are many issues in this House we disagree on, an issue of this magnitude is something that should bring all of us, as parliamentarians, together to work to ensure that we get justice for the victims. The Home Secretary outlined the next phase, but if we are really honest with ourselves, for every victim who has come forward to share her horrific testimony, there are so many more girls up and down the country who have not come forward. It is in their interests that we make sure we get this right. The Home Secretary outlined the issues around data and the lack of data gathering. One area I have raised consistently is criminal exploitation by gangs who sexually exploit young people and then use them to carry out their horrific county lines up and down the country. Does the Home Secretary agree that the collection of data must also lay with the Metropolitan police, other police forces across the country and the British Transport police?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that so many victims and survivors do not come forward. We need to make it easier for people to do so, and recognise the scale of abuse. I agree with her on the really important issue about county lines and the interaction between criminal exploitation and sexual exploitation. Too often, the county lines and criminal exploitation is seen as an issue involving teenage boys, but very often teenage girls are also drawn in—and very often, that also means sexual exploitation. I do not believe that enough investigation has yet been done into that particular pattern and form of child sexual abuse and exploitation. As we strengthen the law on the criminal exploitation of children, we need to ensure that this issue is properly pursued, as she says, as part of the data gathering and through further research.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

This Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to deliver a national inquiry, having dismissed the pleas of the nation as jumping on a far-right bandwagon. That reluctance is why my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) will continue his inquiry and why I will be supporting him it. Will the Government’s inquiry investigate the political motivations behind the cover-ups, including the role of the Labour party, or will that continue to be swept under the carpet?

[Yvette Cooper]

Everyone should want not just to get to the truth about past failures, but to ensure we make the changes to protect children for the future. That includes changes in social services; changes in policing and the police operation, which I hope the right hon. Lady would welcome, to take action to put perpetrators behind bars; and action to gather proper ethnicity data, which simply has not been gathered properly before. Louise Casey’s report is very clear: the data gathering that the right hon. Lady’s Government left behind is totally inadequate. I hope she will agree to all those factors being extremely important, so that we can get stronger protection, and truth, for victims.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement that there will be a national inquiry. Every penny spent on stamping out the evil of child abusers is money well spent. Although welcome, notice of this inquiry will undoubtedly cause a great deal of trauma and distress for both historic and present-day victims, as violations committed against them are revisited. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) referenced, what steps can the Government take to ensure that victims and witnesses have access to robust mental health support? How can we ensure that our courts—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams)—especially in places like Greater Manchester that face extensive court backlogs, are sufficiently resourced to ensure that at the end of the process justice is finally delivered?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that my hon. Friend has championed victims and survivors in her area and community. She is right to say that we have to make sure that victims and survivors get support. Some 7,000 victims and survivors gave evidence to the original Professor Alexis Jay inquiry. It is so important that they did not do so in vain, and that we make the reforms and the changes related to that recommendation. My hon. Friend is also right to say we need to increase the therapeutic support for victims and survivors. That will start with providing additional support for children.

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

One of the reasons I was not supportive six months ago, in January, of the Government’s strategy was that it could not compel local inquiries to bring forward witnesses, which is key. Listening to our questions carefully, could the Home Secretary clarify whether those local inquiries will be able to compel witnesses, whether that is also the case on the national side, and whether those powers will be used to ensure that no stone is left unturned?

[Yvette Cooper]

The answer is yes. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue. Back in January, I said that I would undertake further work to ensure that the local investigations had the powers to compel witnesses in order to be able to get the evidence. We agree with Baroness Casey and have concluded that the right way to do this is to have the national inquiry, which will mean that every local investigation has full powers to compel witnesses and evidence. Where and how those investigations take place will be directed by the national commission and the national inquiry, in order to ensure they have those full powers in place.

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

The crime we are discussing today is not just an historic crime; it is happening right now out in communities, and we are failing to protect the current victims of this awful child abuse. I welcome the new inquiry, but my concern is about delay. We have had plenty of inquiries, taskforces and reviews whose conclusions have not been implemented. My concern is that this new inquiry will monopolise our attention, when we should also be focused on protecting victims right now. Will the Home Secretary commit to this inquiry not detracting or diverting resource from the recommendations that we know need to be implemented and to rolling out nationally the devolved child trafficking pilot, which we know has been working for four years, in order to protect child victims?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we are going to expand that, and that we will not let up the pace of implementing measures and recommendations. That includes the work that the Education Secretary is already doing on the mandatory sharing of data on children at risk, the new identifiers and the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill on mandatory reporting. Crucially, we have also already increased the resources for policing operations to be able to review closed cases. That is why we already have 800 cases identified for review, although we expect that figure shortly to rise to over 1,000 cases. Those are cases that were closed with no further action being taken that are now being looked at again—not waiting for the inquiry, but taking action now to protect children.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and I are the sole remaining Members of the House who served on the Communities and Local Government Committee when we conducted the inquiries into Rotherham, in both November 2014 and March 2015. We heard from the victims then about the terrible abuse they had suffered and interviewed Dame Louise Casey at great length about her concerns over what was happening and what was being allowed to happen. There is clearly still something going on, which is that most victims are young girls from broken homes who have been taken into care by local authorities and have never experienced the love of a family. They then take the view that someone expressing some form of love is something that they should like and enjoy, when the reality is that they are being ruthlessly exploited by individuals who should know better, and are evil.

The key concern here is the lackadaisical approach that has been taken by many local authorities, social workers, police forces and other bodies. My genuine concern, which I am sure is shared by other Members, is that a local inquiry will not get individuals who either turned a blind eye or actually participated in the abuse to give evidence. Will the Home Secretary ensure that witnesses are called to those inquiries under oath so that we can get to the bottom of this, and make sure that those who turned a blind eye to or connived in this abuse are brought to justice as well as the perpetrators?

[Yvette Cooper]

I reassure the hon. Member that the point of having the national inquiry is to ensure that where local institutions are being examined, the commission has powers to compel witnesses, take evidence under oath and gather information, papers and evidence as it sees fit to make sure that we can get to the heart of this institutional failure.

The hon. Member is also right to say that this is about vile criminals knowing when young children—teenage girls especially—are vulnerable to the most appalling exploitation and coercion. They play with children’s emotions and vulnerability to draw them into what is ultimately violent crime and the most terrible abuse. This raises questions, particularly when the number of child protection cases around sexual abuse identified by social services has dropped. We are very concerned about that, and the Education Secretary is now investigating. There is also a failure to properly share data about the children who are at risk—the ones who are going missing. The hon. Member mentions the evidence from the work he and the Communities and Local Government Committee did 10 years ago about missing children and children in care. It is all the same evidence now, and we have got to be better at pursuing the evidence.

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of an inquiry and its commitment to survivors. It is absolutely right that the inquiry focuses on local areas where we know that survivors have been failed by the authorities that were supposed to protect them, but it is also essential that we draw lessons for the whole UK. Earlier this year, Professor Alexis Jay from the University of Strathclyde warned the Home Affairs Committee that Scotland is not immune to the kind of organised abuse that we have witnessed elsewhere in the UK. Scotland’s victims and survivors deserve the same assurances on accountability and robust safeguarding measures as anywhere else in the UK, so will the Home Secretary actively seek engagement with the Scottish Government, and offer them support and advice to ensure that they wholeheartedly implement the Jay recommendations effectively?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The Minister for Safeguarding will follow up these issues with the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend is right that this is a devolved issue but that this kind of appalling crime is happening everywhere. Action is needed everywhere to safeguard and protect children.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I appreciate how sensitive the topic is, but longer questions mean that fewer colleagues will get in. Shorter answers from the Secretary of State will help as well.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

At one of my surgeries, I heard from a civil servant who had gathered evidence for the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse across the whole of England. They described themselves as being

“left emotionally and physically drained”

after collecting evidence, only for the Government not to act on it. I welcome this Government’s acceptance of the 12 Casey review findings, but will the Secretary of State assure my constituent and other civil servants that there will be no delay in implementing the findings of the IICSA?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can assure the hon. Member that we are taking forward the recommendations already. The Minister for Safeguarding updated the House on all the IICSA recommendations before Easter. Some require legislation, including legislation that is passing through the House at the moment. We will have further discussions on those issues later this week. We are already able to take forward some of the issues, and we will continue to update the House on the progress of the recommendations.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I welcome this evidence-led action on grooming gangs. It takes courage to come forward and share deeply traumatic experiences, so will the Home Secretary confirm that this inquiry will build on the evidence already collected and recommendations made over previous inquiries, investigations and reports, including the last national inquiry, which in 2022 produced a 200-page report specifically on grooming gangs and looked at over 400 recommendations that had already been made? Crucially, will she ensure that there is no delay to the action that this Government are already taking to bring perpetrators to justice, stamp out these vile crimes and protect our vulnerable children?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have agreed to implement all the recommendations from the two-year inquiry into child sexual exploitation conducted as part of the Professor Alexis Jay review. We are taking forward one of those—on aggravated sentencing for grooming offences—as part of the Crime and Policing Bill. We are also introducing similar, parallel arrangements for online abuse because we must ensure that we are also taking action on online grooming, which has escalated and accelerated since Professor Jay’s work.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

My Hillingdon constituents have seen the work that the local authority has had to do over many decades to deal with child sexual exploitation and trafficking arising from Heathrow. When I led the Local Government Association’s response—when these cases first came to light—one issue that arose was the sharing of information. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, following this inquiry, she will upgrade the status of the “Working Together to Safeguard Children” guidance and, in particular, ensure that those bodies accountable to the Home Office, such as the police, understand it and take it as seriously as other bodies do so that we do not see people falling through the cracks between agencies?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Member’s points. Baroness Casey’s review identifies that sexual exploitation is a central part of trafficking, and modern slavery as well. I agree with him about the importance of sharing information. Time and again on these basic things, everybody says the right words and then it does not happen in practice. We need the law to change, but we also need systems to change to make it easier to share that information. We will take that forward both in policing and as part of the work that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is doing so that it is much easier to share that information.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been no vote on whether to have a national inquiry into grooming gangs—the vote was about the safeguards of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill—and that following the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and the 200 pages that dealt specifically with grooming gangs, the Government were right to have the local inquiries and the rapid national audit? Now that Baroness Casey has recommended a national inquiry into grooming gangs, the Conservative party should be working with us for the sake of the victims rather than attempting to score political points, as the Leader of the Opposition did.

[Yvette Cooper]

Baroness Casey’s audit was conducted in just four months but looked at some of the issues in considerable detail. It also sets out the fact that we have had 16 years of different reports and inquiries—that includes some of the issues around the 200-page report that my hon. Friend refers to, and other reports as well. The crucial thing is that we need action. Victims and survivors need answers, and we need to pursue serious failings wherever they are found, but we must also ensure that when recommendations are made, they are implemented.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Plaid Cymru welcomes the Government’s statement and hope that it will lead to concrete, properly funded action. In February, a Plaid Cymru amendment called on the Welsh Government to work with police forces on an all-Wales audit of child abuse cases, and it was backed unanimously. What concrete steps have been taken between the Welsh and UK Governments since the passing of that vote to bring justice to victims?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that many of the issues around social services provisions are matters for the Welsh Government, but issues around policing are covered by the Home Office. We have already been working with police forces across the country to strengthen the work of the child sexual exploitation taskforce to be able to look at different cases that have been closed, as well as to strengthen their work with local partners to be able to pursue these terrible crimes. As part of the policing operation that will be led by the National Crime Agency and draw on expertise from across the country, we will ensure that that connects with the work being done by the Welsh Government. The Safeguarding Minister is following up with devolved Administrations.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the quite pertinent comment from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), this country’s broken social care system for children is potentially creating future victims today, and while a review at local level will look at what happened in the past, we need to do our best to make sure that these crimes by appalling people do not continue. What more will the Home Secretary be doing with the Department for Education to ensure that young people who are being groomed online and groomed in public can spot the signs so that they know when and how to ask for help? Otherwise, unfortunately, we could see this cycle continuing for decades to come.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need action across social services, and that is why the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that the Education Secretary is taking forward is so important. The issues around online grooming and exploitation are immensely important. This is both about the abuse that stays online, often forcing children to get involved in the most appalling abuse and acts through online blackmail, pressure and coercion, and about the way in which this is used to provoke offline activity leading to offline physical abuse and contact abuse. We are working with the National Crime Agency on new technology to address this and with the Education Department on how we build children’s resilience in dealing with these crimes.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Much has been made in the House this afternoon of the fact that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, now the Prime Minister, instigated a prosecution against grooming gangs. That being so, he was clearly better placed than most of us to understand the need for the national inquiry that he initially so rigidly resisted, but I would like to associate myself with the apology offered by the right hon. Lady to the House on behalf of all of us and all the authorities that have failed young people so dismally. Those young people now want to know that they can have confidence and trust in the national inquiry, and in who leads it. Can she tell the House who that is likely to be, and what terms of reference they will have?

[Yvette Cooper]

The terms of reference will be set out in due course. We have not yet appointed or determined the chair for the national inquiry. We will do so and set that out for the House. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s response on the issue of the national apology for the historical and current challenges that have led to victims being let down over very many years. I think his response echoes the way in which the whole House came together in 2022 around similar support for victims.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I welcome the Casey report and the new actions outlined by the Secretary of State today. I specifically welcome the requirement for the collection of ethnicity and nationality data. The report refers to different and changing models and patterns of abuse. The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been historical allegations involving the grooming and sexual abuse of Sikh girls. Will she ensure that the requirement to collect ethnicity and nationality data extends to victims, so that we can see the evidence for any such model once and for all?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about victims. Victims in the many communities that he has talked about, including Sikh girls, often lack the confidence to come forward and feel the sense of shame that prevents young people from being able to ask for help when they need it. It is therefore essential that we strengthen the ethnicity data around victims as well as around perpetrators, to make sure that victims and survivors in all communities get the support and safeguarding they need.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The official document published online by the Government says that the national inquiry will only

“co-ordinate a series of targeted local investigations.”

How many local investigations will the inquiry co-ordinate? Will it cover the whole of England and Wales—yes or no?

[Yvette Cooper]

The decisions about which areas are looked into, and how many, will be matters for the commission. We envisage the commission lasting for three years. I know that the Leader of the Opposition suggested two years, but we think it will need around three years to be able to pursue the scale of work that is needed. I think it is right that the final decisions are ones for the commission and the independent national inquiry itself, and it will be able to look anywhere across England and Wales and to pursue the evidence wherever it sees fit.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for the robust measures she has laid out. Can she reaffirm the commitment that the Government made in January that the IICSA recommendations relevant to the Home Office will be implemented in full?

[Yvette Cooper]

Yes, I can. That work is either completed or well under way.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

In an era when information is increasingly contested and weaponised, political parties would do well to lead by example by providing credible information and avoiding the spread of disinformation, including about the events, proceedings and procedures of this House. Given that Baroness Casey’s report addresses what is, frankly, a matter of the utmost sensitivity involving highly vulnerable young girls, will the Secretary of State ensure that the operation and eventual findings of the report are communicated clearly, responsibly and in a timely manner to the public, and that disinformation is actively countered to prevent political distortion, the incitement of harm and the further diminution of public trust?

[Yvette Cooper]

I respect the hon. Member’s important points. In fact, inaccurate information was one of the issues that Baroness Casey raised. Whether it is about ethnicity or anything else, inaccurate information can cause huge problems, and the more we ensure that information is robust, the better. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee said, Baroness Casey will also give evidence tomorrow, so people will be able to hear directly from her as well as reading her report.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

The victims and survivors of grooming gangs and CSE have been institutionally let down, and we must ensure that they are front and centre in our approach. I join other colleagues in saying that court delays must be looked at. They are a particular issue in West Yorkshire, and it is traumatic for the survivors. Baroness Casey reports on the Smith algorithm developed by West Yorkshire police, which brought hundreds of people into scope as victims and survivors and helped prosecution rates. Will that best practice be shared?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Baroness Casey was impressed by the work that West Yorkshire police had done using what it called the Smith algorithm; it is included in her report. It looks at risk factors, such as children missing from home or school, those with repeated missing episodes, and children in care, and at areas where risks were high. It uses that to identify people who might be victims of child grooming and sexual abuse and exploitation, and then to pursue that evidence. West Yorkshire police has had a series of effective and successful prosecutions that have put perpetrators behind bars, so I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that work.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I would like to ask the Home Secretary about the historical sexual abuse and child sexual abuse of Sikh women and children. The Sikh community has said that when Sikh girls went to the local authority or the police, they were told—even by the media—that it was an “ethnic problem”, or that it was an “Asian problem”. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary will be recording data, but what data will that be? Will Sikh girls who have been abused no longer just be told that it is an “Asian problem”?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Member’s point. It is immensely important that victims and survivors in every community of every ethnicity can get justice and the support they need, and that issues around race and ethnicity are never used as an excuse to ignore victims or to fail to pursue criminals committing the most terrible crimes. We want to work with the police to ensure not only that we can get effective data and recording on victims, but that the right kind of services and support are in place so that every victim is heard.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I am shocked that the Conservatives do not seem able to recognise that they were in power for 14 of the 15 years to which Louise Casey refers in her report. If they had had any kind of enthusiasm for an inquiry when they were in government, they would have called one—so we can dismiss them.

Is my right hon. Friend confident that we are hearing the voice of the victims—the children and their parents? When we had a similar problem when I was in local government back in the ’90s, we set up a thing called Childline to give a direct voice to young people so that they could raise their concerns. Does she think that we should have a similar thing here so that victims of child sexual exploitation can have their voices heard?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. On the history and the action that has been taken, one thing that Baroness Casey criticises in particular is a 2020 report produced by the Home Office under the previous Government. She says that the conclusions that it came to were simply not justified by the data, and that the data gathered was inadequate. I think everyone should recognise that sufficient action has not been taken, be it on data, sharing or implementing recommendations. On victims and survivors, the Minister for Safeguarding is doing immensely important work to look at ways of ensuring that their voices can be at the heart of the new national inquiry and all Home Office work in this area.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I do not believe that I heard an answer to a number of the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition, so I will ask the Home Secretary again. When did Baroness Casey submit her findings, and did the Government request any changes?

[Yvette Cooper]

Ten days ago, and this is Baroness Casey’s independent report. Anybody who suggests that she would change her views and reports for anyone has not met her.

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

I welcome the pace and focus that the Home Secretary has brought to Baroness Casey’s report. She is right to highlight the risk of the online space and the rapidity with which it has become a focus. Can she give assurances that protocols will change accordingly, so that we look for the information that we do not know about, and that the cases of survivors and victims who have been criminalised will be quashed, so that those people do not carry convictions for the exploitation that they experienced?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about the need to ensure that victims are not criminalised for the coercion and crimes committed against them. That failure—the tendency to blame victims for the appalling crimes committed against them—has been a pervasive problem through the years. We are looking further at the issues of online grooming and exploitation, which are escalating. In a complication, more teenagers themselves are involved in that exploitation. It is more complicated to identify where people are being coerced and where they are actually criminals committing these crimes.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is amazing, staggering, that Labour MPs can come here today and welcome an inquiry, yet when they were given the chance, they all voted against one. These girls—the victims of the Pakistani grooming gangs—were kidnapped, abused, drugged and raped, and when they reached out for help, everybody ignored them. It is little wonder that they have no faith in the system. But they can regain faith if the Home Secretary agrees with me and appoints Maggie Oliver as chair of the inquiry.

[Yvette Cooper]

I say to the hon. Member that child sexual exploitation and abuse are some of the most vile crimes that our country faces. What Baroness Casey’s report sets out in some detail, over 17 pages, is that there has been report after report after review after review but so many of the recommendations were never implemented, so concerns that were raised at the time of the Rotherham inquiry about issues around ethnicity, lack of information-sharing and lack of protection for children were simply not acted on. Baroness Casey herself says:

“If we’d got this right years ago—seeing these girls as children raped rather than ‘wayward teenagers’…then I doubt we’d be in this place now.”

The hon. Member was a member of the previous Government, who failed to do that. I hope that he agrees that successive Governments and agencies across the country have failed to act. We need to ensure that there is a proper independent inquiry, as well as, most crucially of all, action by police in the operations that will bring perpetrators to justice and put them behind bars.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for her statement. One of the questions running through Baroness Casey’s audit is “Why?”—not just why that type of offending has been allowed to grow unchecked in our society, but why people are driven to commit such vile crimes. Can the Home Secretary assure me that the Government will commission serious, thorough and considered research into the drivers of group-based child sexual exploitation, including looking at all the issues around ethnicity and age? Will those findings be shared with the devolved Administrations who, as we have heard, have not been exempt from these issues?

[Yvette Cooper]

Yes, I can say to my hon. Friend that we accept that recommendation in Baroness Casey’s report and we will commission research into the drivers of child sexual exploitation and, more widely, violence against women and girls, so that we have stronger evidence to keep children safe.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Bradford and Keighley taxis operate in Skipton and south Craven—there have been some horrific cases in that area. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will not be restricted to Bradford and the bigger conurbations? In the UK, we have a crisis in our inquiry system: they all take too long. The covid inquiry is still ongoing, which is an absolute scandal. Can she accelerate the timings? Will she give serious consideration to this public inquiry being held in the north of England?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree that there are challenges with inquiries that can take a long time, which means that victims and survivors, or those affected by the inquiry, wait a very long time for answers. That is why it is critical that we introduce and implement recommendations from previous inquiries—that we get on with it and strengthen police operations now to put perpetrators behind bars. I can also tell the right hon. Gentleman that we will not restrict where the inquiry goes or where the commission chooses to investigate.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I welcome Baroness Casey’s audit and the Government’s instigation of the national inquiry, which must leave no stone unturned, lead to convictions and lead to perpetrators and anybody complicit being put behind bars where, as far as I am concerned, they can rot. It is also important that this most serious of issues demands serious and considered conduct from people in this place, including not misrepresenting what happens here. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if the reasoned amendment referred to by the Leader of the Opposition had passed, it would not have led to a national inquiry; it would have blocked child protection measures, and it weaponised child rape to go after clicks—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call the Home Secretary.

[Yvette Cooper]

We want action to be taken across the board to make sure that children are protected and that the recommendations are introduced. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that the Opposition voted against is an opportunity to implement two of the recommendations in Baroness Casey’s audit. It is right that we implement those changes to strengthen the protection of children and to keep young people safe.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I welcome a lot of what the Home Secretary has said today; she keeps referring to institutional failures. In Bradford in 2020, a little girl, Star Hobson, was murdered by her mother’s partner. Evidence came to light from neighbours and social services that the case was dismissed because it involved a lesbian couple and people feared being accused of being homophobic. I have also had issues in my constituency since the last election where social workers have been worried about the other labels that they may get; they have a tick box and leave the child at the bottom. I ask the Home Secretary to consider that institutional failure where people are afraid to offend one group or another, and they often lose sight of the fact that the child is the most important part of the care service.

[Yvette Cooper]

Crime is crime, and the safety of children should always be paramount, whatever the circumstances, and we must always pursue the evidence. That is why the mantra around policing is to pursue the evidence “without fear or favour”, and that is the standard that British policing has long applied. That is the approach we always have to take to children’s safety, wherever issues or concerns are raised.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I put on record my thanks to Baroness Casey and the Home Secretary—the first Home Secretary in 16 years to come here with an independent review. These girls, now women, were abused, traumatised and then retraumatised by a system that did little to protect them or help them get justice. We should always put the lives and safety of young girls before any political concerns, which is why I welcome today’s decision. Will the Home Secretary lay out how predators, and those who denied victims justice, will be held accountable following this inquiry?

[Yvette Cooper]

We must ensure that recommendations are implemented. One conclusion in the Baroness Casey audit states:

“The timeline set out above—”

that is the history of failed reports in the past—

“shows a pattern of case after case of offending that is prosecuted, reviewed and then recommendations for improvement made and repeated, but not followed through. We become so used to hearing about these issues that they become more about justifications for failures rather than problems that need to be fixed.”

We must ensure that these problems are fixed.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement that those who are convicted of such crimes will not be able to take part in the asylum system, and I suggest that she may want to extend that to all crimes against the person. The question that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) asked was this: will the Home Secretary ensure that no fallacious human rights claims can be made that mean that these people cannot be deported if convicted of these crimes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

We are strengthening the safeguards in the asylum system. The system that we inherited was too weak and not strong enough to ensure not only that the rules are respected and enforced, but to deal particularly with issues of criminality and public risk. We are strengthening those safeguards, including the law around sexual offences, and we are looking particularly at issues around the way article 8 is being interpreted. We are also strengthening public protection arrangements. We are bringing in new arrangements to ensure that, should any issues be raised by the police or others about any safety risk or anybody in the asylum system, joint public protection agreements and arrangements between the police and Immigration Enforcement, people can be kept safe.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

I welcome the clarity and focus on action that the Home Secretary has brought to the House. This morning I spoke to the father of a young woman in my constituency who was the victim of child sexual exploitation. He thinks that this is the right way forward, but his concern, and mine, is for those victims and survivors whose trauma will be opened up again by the process. As he put it:

“When you open Pandora’s box, you’ve got to have the tools to deal with whatever comes out.”

Will the Home Secretary say more about the tools that she will put in place to support the survivors at the heart of this issue?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Too often, victims and survivors have been asked to tell their story, often to multiple agencies, and then have seen no action, which simply strengthens the distress that they feel. Seven thousand victims and survivors gave evidence to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. As we draw up the arrangements for the national inquiry, we will work closely, as will the safeguarding Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips), to keep victims and survivors in our minds. We must ensure that they have support, and that the point my hon. Friend has raised on behalf of her constituent, and for the victims and their families, is taken seriously.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, specifically about allowing the NCA to head the operation, with partner agencies, and working across all regions. As a barrister, I have spoken to many NCA officers and law enforcement officers, and one consistent criticism is that they do not have enough resources. This will be an enormous investigation, up and down the country, so will the Home Secretary assure the House that the resources that those officers will need to complete the investigation will not be limited?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have already provided some additional resources for policing, so that officers will be able to undertake the assessment and identification of cases that were closed but need to be reopened, or where other lines of inquiry need to be followed up. The hon. Gentleman will know that the National Crime Agency already does immensely important work through Operation Stovewood around South Yorkshire, and through its work on online child abuse. We need to bring all the different programmes of work closer together, involving both the National Crime Agency and the new centre for public protection that we are setting up, which will be about setting new standards across the country and rolling out the national operating model that all forces can then follow.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I commend the Home Secretary for the dignified way in which she gave her statement. I associate myself with her apology to the victims and survivors of sexual exploitation and grooming gangs for past failures. I welcome the Government having accepted the recommendations of Baroness Casey’s rapid audit and the announcement of a national criminal operation to pursue and convict perpetrators. Justice for victims of these horrific crimes must always be our top priority. West Yorkshire police have taken a proactive approach to securing justice for victims. As recently as January this year, eight men were given jail sentences of nearly 58 years for multiple sexual offences against two children in Keighley in the 1990s. Will she join me in commending the work of West Yorkshire police in bringing the perpetrators of those vile crimes to justice?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the work of West Yorkshire police. They have done pioneering work to find new ways to identify victims who may be at risk and to summon evidence where there are repeat missing cases, and they have been forensic and determined in pursuit of action. I commend the work of the assistant chief constable. Learning from the work that the police have done, we want to make Baroness Casey’s recommendation a central part of the national criminal operation.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

The sexual exploitation of vulnerable children in this country is a stain upon our society, and the victims want not just the truth out but transparency. With that in mind, will the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government asked Baroness Casey to change any elements of her report—yes or no?

[Yvette Cooper]

This is Baroness Casey’s independent report. The whole point about asking somebody like Baroness Casey to do an independent report is that we know that they will come to their own conclusions, not anybody else’s. As the hon. Gentleman will see, the report has Baroness Casey’s forthright style and conclusions. In her evidence tomorrow at the Home Affairs Committee, I think she will make it clear that these are her conclusions.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to victims, survivors and campaigners. I am 40 years old and it has taken being that age for me to be able to talk about some of the abuse that happened when I was a child. As one of the countless victims living with the impact of grooming, sexual and psychological abuse, I found it galling to watch Tory and Reform Members who never once lifted a finger—[Interruption.] No, you didn’t—not one finger lifted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for speaking out about his experiences. To speak out as a victim of child abuse in that way is immensely difficult, and I think everyone should listen to what victims and survivors have to say. I thank him for speaking out, because by doing so he provides strength and inspiration to other victims and survivors across the country, and I pay tribute to him for doing so. He is right that this should be something that everyone can agree on, because it is about the protection of children and the tackling of serious crime. I hope all of us can do that with respect and together.

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

I hope something else we can all agree on is our admiration for the former Labour MP Ann Cryer, who exposed what was going on back in 2003, which was only five years into a 13-year-long Labour Government, and was disgracefully smeared as a racist for doing so. Let us belatedly make an apology to her and thank her for her courage.

[Yvette Cooper]

I do thank my former honourable Friend Ann Cryer, because she did speak out and stand up for children who were being abused. It is because of that that I recognise, as part of the response I made to the 2022 child abuse inquiry and again today, that this has been a historic failure over very many decades. Just as I recognise that historic failure, which everyone should recognise, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will persuade those on his Front Bench also to recognise the historic failure and to take some responsibility. It is really sad that the Leader of the Opposition did not choose to respond to, or join in, the historic apology in 2022, which was a cross-party apology involving the former Home Secretary. I am really sorry that she chose not to do so today.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Home Secretary calling a national inquiry. I am particularly taken with Baroness Casey’s first recommendation that children must be seen as children. I am extremely concerned by the number of cases she has identified that were dropped because those children were seen as consenting to sex with their perpetrators. Will the Home Secretary reassure me that those cases will be opened and looked at immediately and that we do not have to wait for the outcome of the national inquiry?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working with the Lord Chancellor on taking forward this recommendation now and not waiting for any further local inquiry. Baroness Casey is really clear that the adultification of children, treating them as consenting to something into which they were coerced and in which they were exploited, lies at the heart of a lot of the institutional failure to take this crime seriously. That is why we need to change the law, but we also need to change attitudes, because some of the cases that Baroness Casey refers to are recent, and that cannot go on.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Home Secretary refers to this inquiry as a national inquiry, but it is not, is it? The inquiry’s terms of reference and scope will exclude concern about grooming and organised sexual exploitation in Northern Ireland, whether by foreign nationals, paramilitary groups or others. Is that less important to this Government? Will the legislative change increasing the statutory rape age to 16 apply across the whole United Kingdom?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. and learned Member will understand that Home Office responsibilities around policing and crime cover England and Wales. The Safeguarding Minister will be following up with the devolved Administrations, and it will be for them to decide how they want to take these issues forward, including in Northern Ireland. The Lord Chancellor will consult in the normal way with devolved Administrations on changes to the law.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

Any and every instance of child sexual exploitation should shame all of us, but I think what so many of us found particularly horrific about the grooming gangs scandal was the fact that those crimes continued to be perpetrated because of a failure to act by stakeholders and agencies that had completely indefensible preconceived notions about the victims they were speaking to. As such, I welcome the Government following the evidence, not the politics—first in appointing Baroness Casey to conduct the review, and then in ensuring that we do not shy away from a national inquiry when she has called for one. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the inquiry has all the powers it needs to compel any and every stakeholder who potentially played a part in walking on by from this scandal to take part and give evidence, and will she legislate where necessary so that anyone who is shown to have played a part in those victims not getting the justice they deserved to begin with is accountable before the law?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that those attitudes towards teenage girls—towards children—and treating them as adults still persist. Baroness Casey quotes a serious case review of a case involving a teenager online. She was just 12 or 13 years old, and was being drawn into the most explicit and abusive chatrooms and pornographic sites online. This was treated as somehow being the child’s choice, even though there was evidence of exploitation and crime taking place. We have to ensure that we do more to protect our teenagers, and we will bring in the mandatory duty to report to strengthen the law in that area.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Dr Ben Spencer to ask the final question.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for changing her mind on the need for a national inquiry. She has had the Casey report for the past 10 days. Could she lay out what evidence in that report was most persuasive in changing her mind, or, if she reached that conclusion independent of the report, which factors led her to do so?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is an important question. I undertook to this House in January that I would look further at how to ensure that local investigations had the powers they needed to compel witnesses or evidence. That was raised with us by Members of this House, but also by mayors, to ensure that those investigations could properly get to the truth. We pursued that and looked at other powers—those in the Local Government Act, inspection powers and so on. All those powers had complexities attached to them, so we asked Baroness Casey to look at this issue, as well as the responses we got from local authorities. We looked at that evidence, but also asked Baroness Casey to look at it as well and make final recommendations. That is why we have agreed with Baroness Casey’s recommendation to have a national inquiry in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

14. What steps her Department is taking to improve neighbourhood policing.

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

We are providing £200 million across England and Wales this financial year to increase neighbourhood policing. As part of our neighbourhood policing guarantee, every community will have named, contactable officers dedicated to addressing local issues. Alongside that, during the course of this year we will have 3,000 additional officers and police community support officers working in neighbourhoods teams. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) that, for Thames Valley police, that will include an extra 68 police officers on the streets this year.

[Peter Swallow]

Bracknell Forest has seen a spate of tool thefts recently. Tool theft is a double whammy: traders have to fork out thousands for new tools, all while they are out of work. I have raised this issue with Thames Valley police and the police and crime commissioner, but what more can be done through the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee to stamp down on this cruel crime?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise that serious crime. Honest, hard-working tradespeople in communities across the country are being robbed of their livelihoods as a result of this kind of crime. That is why we are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on how we target the serious and organised crime that is often behind such equipment and tool theft, and putting neighbourhood police back on the streets in communities, so they can both work on prevention and go after the criminals responsible.

[Matt Western]

Under the previous Government, the number of PCSOs more than halved in Warwickshire. Indeed, in summer 2023, local teachers were forced to police a park in Warwick and Leamington after a knife gang terrorised pupils, stealing their bikes. More widely, constituents are fed up with crime and antisocial behaviour; 50% say that they have been personally impacted by crime in the past five years. Will the Home Secretary outline how the Government will address these crimes and make our streets safer for everyone?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of PCSOs as well as police officers in neighbourhood teams working to prevent crime. He is also right to raise concerns. Over the last two years of the previous Government, both street theft and shoplifting increased by more than 60%, at the same time as neighbourhood police were cut. We are putting the bobbies back on the beat.

[Jen Craft]

This week, I will be meeting eight new community police officers who begin their roles on the beat thanks to the Government’s investment through the national policing guarantee. Does the Home Secretary agree that investing in community policing is the best way to tackle so much of the crime that blights our communities? Will she join me in wishing these vital officers all the best as they begin their new roles?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to welcome the additional neighbourhood police in Thurrock. She will know that that is part of 74 additional neighbourhood police officers across Essex just this year, as a result of our neighbourhood policing guarantee, and we will go beyond that. She is right, too, that local police who know what the problems are in Thurrock and across Essex are crucial to tackling local crime.

[Yuan Yang]

Across neighbourhoods in my Earley and Woodley constituency I have seen too many incidents of electric bikes and electric scooters being ridden dangerously, including on pavements. Residents have told me of collisions in areas such as Woodley Precinct and Kennet Island. I have been raising the issue with Thames Valley police, and I am very glad to hear the Home Secretary’s announcement of 68 neighbourhood officers across our region, but what more can she and the Home Office do to support the work of the police in cracking down on dangerous riders?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: we need to make sure that Thames Valley has the 68 additional neighbourhood police just this year and give them the powers they need. That is why we are strengthening the Crime and Policing Bill both on dangerous cycling and dangerous riding, and giving the police stronger powers to take e-scooters and off-road bikes literally off the roads.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I recently met the chief constable of West Mercia to discuss neighbourhood policing. The West Mercia area covers Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire, and the word is that the integrated care board reorganisation will split that area into one that covers Warwickshire and one that covers some of Shropshire. I have had a letter from the police and crime commissioner citing the chief constable’s concerns that amid that reorganisation and the local government reorganisation, safeguarding the most vulnerable and children could fall between the cracks. Will the Home Secretary have a word with her Cabinet colleagues to ensure that does not happen?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes a really important point, because having links between local services is crucial. We will ensure that the Home Office looks into and takes up the points she raises, so we can ensure strong local partnerships working to tackle crime.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Last week, I visited many retail businesses in North Devon that are suffering from prolific shoplifting. This is a big problem across the country. Will the Home Secretary explain what she is doing to help police forces resource the tackling of shoplifting and dealing with antisocial behaviour?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right. There has been an increase in shoplifting in recent years, at the same time as neighbourhood policing numbers have fallen. As a result of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, there will be 110 additional neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs in Devon and Cornwall police over the next 12 months. That is important, but we are also strengthening their powers to tackle shoplifting.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary acknowledge the role that special constables play in neighbourhood policing, and does she agree that granting special constables the right to unpaid time from their employment to perform their duties would assist in their recruitment?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about the role of specials. We want them to be able to play a much stronger role, not just in neighbourhood policing but across the board. People who take time out to be part of police forces can bring all kinds of additional skills. We are working on what more can be done to support specials and their recruitment, which has plummeted in recent years. It is important that that trend is turned around.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

In North Ascot, neighbourhood police have been out on the streets trying to clamp down on pavement parking, which forces disabled and vulnerable people on to the roads and into dangerous situations. Will the Home Secretary outline what more could be done to help neighbourhood police when it comes to pavement parking?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that neighbourhood police understand the challenges in each area, whether it be in North Ascot or other parts of the country, and local police can target those issues and work with local councils. There are different rules for different councils, so combined work between the council and the police is the best way to tackle local crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Six of Britain’s most senior police officers have warned that the Government’s actions are making it harder to keep our streets safe. From the damaging jobs tax to releasing criminals early, Labour is pushing forces to the brink. Does the Home Secretary agree with Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley that he will be forced to cut 1,700 police officers, PCSOs and staff this year?

[Yvette Cooper]

I gently remind the hon. Member that thousands of police and PCSOs were taken off our streets under the Conservatives. That is why the number of people who say that they never see the police in their communities doubled under the Conservatives. This Government are turning that around, with 3,000 additional police on our streets this year alone. That includes 470 more neighbourhood police on London’s streets.

[Matt Vickers]

We did not get to whether Mark Rowley was right or wrong, and I notice that the Home Secretary forgot to mention the hundreds of millions being gobbled up by Labour’s jobs tax, or the fact that police numbers reached record levels under the last Government.

That aside, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has published its anti-racism commitment, saying that racial equality does not mean treating everyone the same or being colour blind, and calling for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups. Does the Home Secretary agree that the police should respond to people’s actions regardless of race? If so, why did the policing Minister endorse this barmy document?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Minister is, as he knows, talking nonsense. The police have to police without fear or favour; that is the standard that they apply and sign up to. I am really sorry that he wants to undermine the important work of police across the country, just as his party in government undermined the number of police on the streets—took them off the streets—so we ended up with thousands fewer police on our streets. This Government are finally putting them back into communities and back on the beat where they belong.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Peaceful protest is a fundamental right in any free society, but for protests to remain safe and orderly, a visible, well-trained and effective police presence is often needed on top of existing neighbourhood police teams. Cities such as Manchester are seeing rising numbers of demonstrations, which the combined authority estimates will cost up to £2 million this year to police. While the Met receives specific grants to cover the cost of policing protests, Greater Manchester police receives no such allocation. That is not only unfair to my constituents, but unsustainable. In the light of the worries highlighted by police leaders about their funding being cut in the upcoming spending review, can the Home Secretary ensure that areas such as Greater Manchester receive the funding they need to police protests properly without taking away from the neighbourhood policing our communities deserve?

[Yvette Cooper]

We will continue to support Greater Manchester police and police forces across the country. It is right that they should be able to deal with issues and challenges, including public order. We are strengthening the system in that area as a result of weaknesses in the national co-ordination that we have inherited. I can tell the hon. Lady that Greater Manchester police will be getting 176 additional police officers for their neighbourhood teams over the course of this year.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

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

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

23. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle vehicle nuisance.

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

Off-road bikes careering through estates and communities are dangerous and an antisocial nightmare. We are giving the police stronger powers to seize bikes without the need for repeated warnings, in order to help keep our streets safe.

[Darren Paffey]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. My constituents around Weston Shore have had enough of exactly the kind of thing she describes. Antisocial motorbikes are racing outside their homes every night. The constant noise disturbs everyone’s sleep, yet they have seen no meaningful enforcement in recent years. The Secretary of State has outlined that further powers are coming. Will she confirm that she expects local police forces to use these powers fully to tackle this issue seriously, so that this blight on my constituents’ lives can be stopped?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The issue he raises will resonate with people across the country; whether it is Southampton or south Tyneside, too many areas are facing the blight of off-road bikes and street racing. At the moment, the police have to give people multiple warnings. It can be two strikes or three strikes and the bikes are still on the streets. That is not good enough. We want to make it much easier for the police, so that it is one strike and out.

[Tristan Osborne]

I thank the Home Secretary for her response. In Kent we are using section 59 powers to confiscate bikes, including in Snodland and Walderslade in my constituency. However, the police have stated that the legislation is not powerful enough, and that they welcome powers to seize bikes. Can we ensure that police inspectors and police and crime commissioners are given guidance and that the number of vehicles seized is monitored, so that we can stop this problem once and for all?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right; we need to ensure that the police have the powers that they need and are able to act swiftly. We want to make it easier for them to crush bikes more quickly as well as to seize them and take them off the streets, and that requires additional neighbourhood police. In Kent, that means an additional 65 neighbourhood police officers, and there are similar numbers for Hampshire.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Many residents in my constituency complain about motorcycle noise from illegally modified exhausts. Can the Home Secretary inform me of her plans to help local police and local authorities address this nuisance?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to raise this issue. Noise and speed are used deliberately in order to harass people and intimidate local residents. It is disgraceful antisocial behaviour, and it is really unfair on local families. That is why we need to give the police stronger powers to clamp down on it.

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

Off-road bikes are often used illegally across private farmland, causing damage to crops, spooking animals and leaving farmers feeling scared and vulnerable. While the Crime and Policing Bill includes a provision to make it easier for the police to seize vehicles associated with antisocial behaviour, Avon and Somerset police has little or no resource to police rural crimes properly. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to stop the illegal use of off-road bikes on farmland?

[Yvette Cooper]

As well as strengthening the law, we are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a stronger rural crime strategy. I can tell the hon. Lady that Avon and Somerset police will be getting 70 additional neighbourhood police officers across the area this year as a result of the neighbourhood policing guarantee.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle violence against shop workers in rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle knife crime.

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

We have taken action to ban zombie knives, and the ban on ninja swords will come in this August. We are also bringing forward Ronan’s law, which puts stronger restrictions on online sales, through the Crime and Policing Bill. There will also be additional funding, through the hotspot action fund, for high-visibility patrols in the areas with the most knife crime and antisocial behaviour.

[Chris Bloore]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, and for the seriousness with which this Government are tackling the scourge of knife crime in constituencies like mine. In Redditch, the anti-knife-crime campaigner Pete Martin is making a real difference by educating young people in schools about the dangers of knife crime. Will the Secretary of State consider visiting Redditch to see Pete’s work at first hand, and the real difference that it is making in our schools?

[Yvette Cooper]

Can I pass on my thanks, through my hon. Friend, to the team who are doing such good work in his community? We are certainly keen to know more about that, because he is right about local work preventing young people from being drawn into knife crime. That is why we are setting up the Young Futures prevention programme, and we are introducing a new law on child criminal exploitation to go after the gangs who draw young people into crime.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

As Sussex police consider how to tackle knife crime in Eastbourne and invest in community policing, I have been urging them to prioritise investment in their Grove Road premises in the town centre, as opposed to their Hammonds Drive industrial estate premises. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should prioritise investment in town centres such in Eastbourne, so that we can better tackle knife crime there?

[Yvette Cooper]

Obviously, police forces have to make their own operational decisions, but we do believe that town centres need to be a particular focus of neighbourhood policing, and when it comes to preventing youth crime, including knife crime. Sussex police are getting 64 additional neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers under the neighbourhood policing guarantee this year, but we are also focusing on hotspot policing, targeting the areas with the highest knife crime.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

11. What steps her Department is taking to tackle illegal working.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

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

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

May I first pay tribute to the first responders, the police, ambulance, fire service and others who dealt with the horrific incident at the Liverpool parade, some of whom I met last week? I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with those who were injured and affected.

The House will also have seen the disgraceful and unacceptable small boat crossings on Saturday. No one should be making those journeys, and criminal gangs are likely to have made millions of pounds this weekend alone. The gangs are increasingly operating a model where boats are launched from further along the coast, and people climb in from the water, exploiting French rules that have stopped their police taking any action in the sea. That is completely unacceptable. The previous Government raised the issue with France for years, but to no avail, and I have raised it with the French Government since the summer. The French Minister of the Interior, and the French Cabinet, have now agreed that their rules need to change. A French maritime review is looking at what new operational tactics they will use, and we are urging France to complete the review and implement the changes as swiftly as possible. This weekend I have again been in touch with the French Minister of the Interior, who supports stronger action, and further discussions are under way this week. I will update the House in due course.

[David Simmonds]

On Friday in my constituency I met the leader of Hillingdon council, which hosts 3,000 asylum seekers in Home Office accommodation—the most per capita of any local authority in the country. He told me that the council faces a £5 million per annum funding shortfall, which is more that its entire budget for libraries and culture on supporting asylum seekers. What plans does the Home Secretary have to ensure that local authorities are reimbursed in full for the role they play in supporting asylum seekers in this country?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member raises an important point, and we did inherit an unacceptable asylum backlog, including huge and unacceptable bills for asylum accommodation. We have already brought the bills for asylum accommodation down, saving hundreds of millions of pounds, with hundreds of millions of pounds more to be saved over the course of this year. That is a result of the action we are taking to clear the backlog that the previous Government left us with, and as part of that we are working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on how to co-ordinate support for local councils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the people and emergency services in Liverpool.

On the Home Secretary’s watch, this year so far has been the worst in history for illegal immigrants crossing the channel. The Government’s laughable claim to “smash the gangs” lies in tatters—they are not smashing gangs; they are smashing records. The right hon. Lady mentioned the French. The French prevention rate on land is lamentably under 40%, and even those who are stopped are then released to attempt a crossing again the next day. Although she talks about action at sea, nothing has happened whatsoever. At the weekend we saw pictures of the French police just standing there taking photographs while illegal immigrants departed. Does the Home Secretary agree that the recent 12-year fishing deal should be suspended until the French agree to stop those small boats at sea and prevent illegal immigration?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me remind the shadow Home Secretary that when he was Immigration Minister he said:

“I will continue to push my French counterparts to look hard at interceptions at sea.”

Five years of Conservative government later, the French Government had not agreed to any changes at all. This Government have reached a new agreement with France, and we are now pressing for that to be operationalised as swiftly as possible. But we will not take lessons from a former Immigration Minister who, on his watch, let legal migration treble and small boat crossings soar more than tenfold.

[Chris Philp]

Immigration is at a record level on the Home Secretary’s watch, but as usual she does not answer the question or take responsibility. Let me try this instead: it emerged yesterday that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, chose not to refer for a longer sentence under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme—as the Attorney General can—a man who had been given just 28 months for rape, yet Lucy Connolly got more prison time for a tasteless tweet. Why does Lord Hermer think rape is less serious than Twitter comments? This is two-tier justice in action. Does this not show that Lord Hermer has appalling judgment and the Prime Minister should fire him?

[Yvette Cooper]

The question comes from a former policing Minister under whose Government charge rates for rape and domestic abuse plummeted, while charge rates for crime dropped substantially. This Government support much stronger action on violence against women and girls because we recognise the serious damage that those crimes do. Shamefully, the previous Government left us with a shocking legacy on crime, on immigration and across the board, but this Government are turning that around.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

T4. At the Home Affairs Committee, we have heard worrying evidence about unaccompanied children arriving in this country and being placed in wholly unsuitable accommodation, including staying in rooms with adult males, which presents safeguarding risks. Clearly, there are issues about the age assessment process at the border and the responsibility of the contractors who organise the accommodation. Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure children in this country are safe?

--- Later in debate ---

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

T6. Since taking office almost a year ago, the Home Secretary has spectacularly failed to put a cap on illegal immigration or a deterrent in place, and this weekend’s record number of boat crossings demonstrates that she has clearly completely failed to take control of our borders. What can she say in all honesty to my constituents about her plan, because clearly it is not working?

[Yvette Cooper]

Given that the right hon. Member was a member of the previous Government, her question might be rather more plausible if she apologised for the 100-fold increase in small boat crossings under her Government’s watch and for the quadrupling of net migration as a result of the policies that she supported in government. If she wants to support stronger action against illegal migration and the gangs that are organising it, why will she not support the counter-terrorism powers that this Government are putting in place to go after them?

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

T7. In the light of the ban on disposable vapes, which came into force this week, will the Minister outline the measures being taken to step up the work at ports, including at East Midlands airport, to prevent counterfeit and banned vapes from being imported into the country?

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

In my constituency, we have seen the parks police slashed from Bushy Park and rates of theft and knife crimes soaring. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner warned last week that the Home Secretary will not meet her laudable targets on neighbourhood policing, tackling knife crime and tackling violence against women and girls without additional investment. Can she reassure my constituents that they will see the bobbies on the beat that she has promised, or will they see only the Chancellor’s iron fist?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell the hon. Lady that more than 400 additional neighbourhood police officers will be on the streets in London this year as a result of our neighbourhood policing guarantee.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

T8. There is increasing concern in my constituency that a number of Deliveroo riders are subcontracting to unregistered riders, some of whom are working illegally. Will the Minister say what is being done to crack down and ensure that all Deliveroo riders are registered and are not here working illegally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the work that South Yorkshire police has been doing and the Doncaster East neighbourhood policing team going after the offroad bikes, which cause havoc and are a total nightmare in the community. They are getting additional neighbourhood police as part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, and we will give them stronger powers to keep the streets safe.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Leicestershire police has signed a reported £800,000 contract with Palantir—a company that has a worrying history of racial profiling and surveillance concerns in the USA. It has since removed all the contract details from the public record, and the Home Office holds no central records of such a deal. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give that the people of Leicester are protected from intrusive and discriminatory policing practices? How can transparency and oversight be upheld in such partnerships where no central records are kept?

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for visiting my constituency last week after the horrific incident following the Liverpool football club victory parade. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the emergency services on acting so swiftly, but also in condemning the Reform UK party and the far right for trying to stoke up hatred? Can she explain how her Department will tackle this misinformation to prevent further action in future?

[Yvette Cooper]

I join my hon. Friend in saying a huge thank you to all the first responders—those who I met last week, but also many more who were involved in a very swift response that undoubtedly saved lives that day. It was a day of huge joy across the city of Liverpool that ended in a horrific incident, but I know from her constituency and across Liverpool that it is a city where communities come together in the face of the greatest difficulties and show their strength as a community.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

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

Can I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the amendment I have tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill, which would extend the definition of exploitation in the Modern Slavery Act to include orphanage trafficking? It is a horrific crime that affects about 5 million children across the world, and it is something we need to recognise in our legislation.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Chair of the Select Committee raises a very important point. I know that she has a strong interest in this issue that goes back many years, and has taken strong action herself on modern slavery. We will look at the amendment she has tabled, and are happy to discuss it with her further.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

Last week, my whole community was shocked and appalled to hear about the stabbing of a 15-year-old boy in Cribbs Causeway. Thankfully, he is stable, and I know we will all be thinking of him and his family at this time. Three 16-year-old boys have been charged. Could the Minister please set out what steps the Government are taking to tackle knife crime, including among young people who could have much brighter futures?

[Yvette Cooper]

I convey all thoughts to the family of the victim in this awful stabbing case, and all of those affected across the community. My hon. Friend is right to raise the deep concerns that exist about the number of young people getting drawn into serious violence—we are seeing this across the board. That is why the Young Futures prevention programme is so important, and why we need to work to prevent this by strengthening the law on child criminal exploitation.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

As I speak, there is a removal van outside the illegal immigrant hotel in my constituency—let us hope they are moving them out, not moving more in. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that these illegal immigrants are not being dispersed in the community, being housed in houses in multiple occupation owned by private landlords, and will she advise me on where they will be housed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Lord Hermer does not decide sentencing—he has a particular role as the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman, as a very experienced Member of this House, will know the way in which the system works.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Harpreet Uppal.

National Security Act 2023: Charges

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the charging of three individuals under the National Security Act 2023 that took place on 17 May, and the further action that the Government are taking to counter national security threats. I want to thank the police and the security and intelligence agencies not just for their work on the vital operations and investigations that are currently under way, but for the dedication that they show each day to defending our national security and keeping our communities safe. Their tireless work—often in the shadows, often in secret, and often in great personal danger—is indispensable, and I hope that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their service.

On Saturday, three Iranian nationals were charged with offences under the National Security Act 2023. All three have been charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service. Additional charges were brought in relation to engaging in conduct, including surveillance, reconnaissance and open research, with the intention to commit acts of serious violence against a person in the United Kingdom. The foreign state to which these charges relate is Iran, and those individuals are the first Iranian nationals to be charged under the National Security Act. The criminal and national security investigations in these cases are ongoing, and the police and security services have my support in their vital work. These cases must now also progress through the criminal justice system, which means that until the trial, there are limits on what we can discuss so as not to prejudice that process. However, in respect of a series of grave, wider issues, I want to update the House on the stronger action that the Government are taking to strengthen our national security, including the introduction of new powers on state threats, further action on Iran, and strengthening our border security to keep the public safe.

This is the first time there have been charges under the National Security Act linked to Iran, although the House will be aware that it comes against a backdrop of a rising number of Iran-linked operations on UK soil, where there have been repeated warnings by Ministers, the police, and our security and intelligence agencies. The director general of MI5 said in October last year that the police and MI5 had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats. Let me be clear: we will not tolerate growing state-backed threats on UK soil. The Iranian regime poses an unacceptable threat to our domestic security, which cannot continue. 

Following the charging decision, I can confirm that the Iranian ambassador has been summoned, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has told the Iranian Foreign Minister in the strongest terms that we will not accept any Iranian state threat activity in the UK. As the Security Minister set out in March, we have placed the whole of the Iranian state in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which is due to come into effect on 1 July. The Government have also introduced sanctions as part of efforts to systematically dismantle the criminal networks and enablers that Iran uses to carry out its work, including the Foxtrot network, which was sanctioned last month. 

International co-operation is critical in challenging Iranian transnational threats, which is why we are convening ministerial counterparts from allied nations facing similar threats to discuss co-ordinated action, but we need to go further in strengthening our powers to address national security threats. The Security Minister and I have both warned of the increasing complexity of the threats we face. Threats from extremist and terrorist groups and individuals, including from Islamist extremism and far-right extremism, continue, and vigilance and action against them remain crucial.

But malign activities against us by, or on behalf of, foreign states have grown and the threats we face have become more complex and intertwined. MI5 state threats investigations have increased by nearly 50% in a year, and police investigations into state threats, led by counter-terrorism police, are up fivefold since 2018. As well as growing, those threats are becoming more interconnected, and the old boundaries between state threats, terrorists and organised criminals are being eroded. We have seen malign foreign state organisations seek to exploit any vulnerability, from criminal networks to our cyber-security and our borders, to do us harm. 

In our manifesto we committed to stronger action on state-based security threats. Before entering government, the Foreign Secretary and I set out plans for the establishment of a joint unit to pursue and co-ordinate action. I can announce that the new state threats joint unit is now in place, with staff from across Whitehall driving a broader approach across Government and building new partnerships with industry and academia. Last week the Security Minister set out the recommendations of a review by the defending democracy taskforce into transnational repression—where foreign states attempt the intimidation, surveillance and harassment of UK-based individuals—including providing stronger support for those who are being targeted. This is criminal activity and will be treated as such, because everyone in this country should be able to go about their daily lives freely and without fear. 

We have of course supported the National Security Act, which was rightly brought in by the previous Government, but we need to go further. That is why I commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, to examine further gaps in the national security legislation where counter-terrorism powers could be emulated and to look at proscription powers, because I have long raised concern that it is too difficult to apply existing powers to state and state-backed bodies. Today Mr Hall has published his review, and I thank him for working so swiftly and comprehensively. He has concluded that there are gaps in a series of areas, including proscribing legislation, where he identifies a series of legal difficulties in using powers that were designed to deal with terrorist groups for state and state-backed organisations, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. 

I can tell the House that we are committed to taking forward Mr Hall’s recommendations and that we will draw up new powers, modelled on counter-terrorism powers, in a series of areas to tackle state threats. Crucially, I can tell the House that we will create a new power of proscription to cover state threats—a power that is stronger than the current National Security Act powers in allowing us to restrict the activity and operations of foreign state-backed organisations in the UK—including new criminal offences for individuals who invite support for or promote the group in question. We will not hesitate to use the power against organisations that pose a threat to UK residents, because we will not stand for foreign state organisations seeking to escalate threats on UK soil.

As was confirmed at the weekend, the three individuals who have been charged came to the UK between 2016 and 2022 by lorry and small boat. This Government have made it clear that border security is national security, which is why we are introducing new counter-terrorism powers at the border. However, let me also be clear that our border security needs to be strengthened. Those involved in organised crime, malign state actors and extremists can all exploit any vulnerabilities, so the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is introducing a wide range of counter-terrorism-style powers to pursue organised immigration crime and strengthen border investigations. We have introduced the Border Security Command, which is drawing together security operations around our border that have not been taken seriously enough before, modelled on the approach that successive Governments have taken to counter-terrorism.

As part of our existing CT capabilities, security identity and criminal record checks are carried out on everyone who applies for a visa through our immigration system, on identified clandestine entries and on those who arrive by small boat, so that immigration and counter-terrorism powers can then be used to address threats, including refusals, restrictions, tagging, heightened monitoring and immigration bail. However, I have instructed officials to review those capabilities against the state threats as well as the terrorism-related risks we face, so that we can strengthen our security response alongside the new counter-terrorism-style border powers that we are introducing. We are already reviewing our current response to criminality or threats in the asylum system, including the potential for greater use of a range of techniques and technology, as well as the existing ability to revoke or refuse asylum.

Finally, in the face of this increasing range of hybrid threats to our national security, the Prime Minister has committed to publishing a new national security strategy. The strategy, which is in development, will set out how not just our world-leading police and security and intelligence agencies, but the whole of Government and society, including businesses and communities, need to respond to these changing and complex threats.

National security is the first duty of Government, and it is the foundation of our plan for change. The threats we face are more intertwined than ever, and our response needs to adapt. Together with our international allies, we need to face down the security threats and strengthen the powers and capabilities of the police and security services, who work around the clock to investigate and disrupt those who mean us harm. Our agencies have the wholehearted support of this Government because, in a volatile and uncertain world, their efforts could not matter more. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I join her in paying tribute to counter-terrorism policing and the security services for the work they do daily to keep us safe. Let me straightaway put on the record that the Opposition support the Government’s plans to place Iran into the enhanced tier of the FIRS regime, and we will also support the moves they wish to make to increase proscription powers and any other powers that are necessary to keep us safe. We will support those measures.

The whole House should be in no doubt about the malign influence that Iran spreads around the world. It is responsible for supporting Hamas, who perpetrated the sickening massacre on 7 October 2023. Iran takes western hostages, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was held in squalid conditions for years. Iran supports the Houthis, who have attacked and tried to sink civilian merchant shipping in the Red sea as part of their war against the Saudi-backed, internationally-recognised Government. In Ukraine we see Iranian drones and military equipment used by Putin to murder Ukrainians and further Russia’s illegal invasion. Of course, Iran also threatens to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Iran also persecutes its own people. Women are abused, imprisoned, and in some cases even killed, for not adhering to the behaviour demanded by the ayatollahs. Twenty-two-year-old Mahsa Amini was arrested and killed by the Iranian religious police simply for wearing what she wanted, and I am sure every single Member of this House will condemn that atrocity. People who are gay in Iran are persecuted and sometimes killed, and those who oppose the Iranian regime are brutally oppressed and often murdered. We should be in no doubt about the threat that the Iranian regime poses to its own people and to international peace.

The tentacles of the Iranian state now stretch on to our very own soil here in the United Kingdom. Iran International TV, an independent TV channel, had to temporarily locate to the US not long ago, because its premises and people here were threatened by Iranian agents. Iranian dissidents on UK soil are threatened and harassed. And, as the Home Secretary set out, just two weeks ago eight Iranian nationals were arrested while planning attacks on UK soil.

In opposition, the Home Secretary said that she would proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—she said so a number of times, including from this very Dispatch Box on 15 April last year. The Home Secretary has now been in office for nearly a year, so my first question is this: why has she not yet done what she said she would do by proscribing the IRGC? She said that the Iranian ambassador has been summoned. That is not an adequate response. Why have Iranian diplomats, including any suspected of supporting espionage activity, not been expelled? What further steps can be taken to develop international sanctions against the Iranian regime?

The Home Secretary confirmed that the three individuals charged over the weekend entered the UK illegally, including by small boat. As recently as March this year, just a few weeks ago—I think it was on 6 March—extremist Abu Wadee entered the UK by small boat. He had previously been pictured on social media wielding an AK47, throwing pipe bombs and calling for the slaughter of Jews. This is the kind of illegal immigrant who is able to enter the country by small boat.

The Home Secretary talks about her new Bill, which we debated a week ago today, but the truth is that it will not make very much difference. Confiscating mobile phones from illegal immigrants and slightly enhanced powers to monitor communications will not stop the crossings. The Border Security Commander has no actual powers other than to publish an annual report and set some strategic objectives. I do not think people smugglers are going to worry too much about that.

What will stop the crossings is a proper deterrent so that all those who arrive—not just some, but all those who arrive—are removed. Then, they will not bother to attempt the crossing in the first place. This deterrent approach worked in Australia about 10 years ago. The Home Secretary must by now be regretting the decision to cancel the Rwanda deterrent before it even started. Crossings since she became Home Secretary are up by 30% year on year, and 2025 so far has been the worst in history. Does she finally agree that it is time to follow other countries and establish a proper removals deterrent applying to all those who arrive illegally by small boat? It is time to bring back Rwanda.

In their first six months in office, the Government have not returned a single Iranian to Iran—not one—including Iranian criminals. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is now time to repeal the Human Rights Act for immigration matters, so that criminals and other dangerous people can be more easily removed from the UK and can no longer persuade UK judges to allow them to stay here on ever-more tenuous human rights grounds? The only way to protect our borders and ensure security is to remove all illegal immigrants as soon as they arrive. I hope she urgently adopts that policy.

[Yvette Cooper]

I just say to the shadow Home Secretary that he was an immigration Minister when the number of small boat crossings soared and when net migration soared. On his watch, controls were reduced. Under his party, we saw returns plummet. This Government are clear that the rules need to be respected and enforced. That is why this Government are introducing counter-terrorism-style powers to strengthen our border security, something that his party, shockingly, has repeatedly voted against. The right hon. Gentleman still refers to his Rwanda scheme, which cost £700 million and, in the two years that it was operational, sent four volunteers—just four volunteers—to Rwanda.

Border security is a part of our national security. Frankly, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not taking sufficiently seriously the national security threats that we face. I supported the work that his Government did to introduce the National Security Act, but, as he will know, I warned repeatedly that the powers were not strong enough, and that we could not use legislation designed for terrorism to proscribe state-backed organisations. We called on his Government repeatedly, if they were unable to proscribe the IRGC, to strengthen and amend the powers to be able to do so under national security provisions. In fact, we even put forward an amendment to the National Security Act in the previous Parliament, and the Conservatives voted against it.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman now says he will support our measures to strengthen our national security and bring forward stronger proscribing powers that can be used against all kinds of state or state-backed organisations that might attempt to do us harm. Our national security is the first duty of any Government, which is why this Government will continue to take ever-stronger action to pursue issues around criminality and extremist or terrorist, border and national security threats. That is how we keep our communities safe.

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

Given the wide range of threats that we face from hostile state actors, it is more important than ever that we protect ourselves from state-backed cyber-attacks and similar threats. Can the Home Secretary update us on what is being done to increase the nation’s resilience and countermeasures against such attacks?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, because the complex national security threats that we face now take different forms and are increasingly intertwined. Cyber-threats and the use of technology are increasingly a part of those threats. Work on that will form a central part of the new national security strategy that the Prime Minister has announced, which is being developed at the moment, so that we recognise the interplay between these different threats.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

The Liberal Democrats remain extremely grateful to all the extraordinary people from our police, intelligence and security services who continue to put themselves at risk to keep our country safe. We support the action taken by the Government so far, and stand ready to support further robust sanctions and other actions against cowardly regimes that seek to destabilise our and other western democracies.

We last discussed the threat posed by the Iranian regime in this Chamber a couple of weeks ago. In response to questions about the proscribing of the IRGC, the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), referred to the work undertaken by Jonathan Hall KC to review the legislation we have in place, and it is good to hear that that review has been published today.

The Home Secretary mentions planned changes that will be made and additional powers that will be introduced to respond to the legal difficulties in using powers designed to deal with terrorist groups for state and state-backed organisations such as the IRGC. Could she confirm that these new planned powers will finally enable us to proscribe the IRGC? I would be grateful if she could update the House on the timetable she foresees for bringing forward those changes and, given the difficulties with previous counter-terror laws, if she could tell the House whether any of those changes will be subject to the appropriate pre-legislative scrutiny.

Our democracy has faced and continues to face systematic threats from hostile foreign states—not just from Iran, but from China and Russia. Now that our police and security services have had a chance to use the provisions in the National Security Act, could the Home Secretary update the House on any further gaps they have found during their work?

We live in a perilous world with war on our continent, and we Liberal Democrats welcome the increase in defence spending. However, the decision to take that money from the official development assistance budget will leave a vacuum in some of the most vulnerable places. We know that China and Russia are seeking to fill that void, and Iran will undoubtedly try to do the same. What assessment have the Government made of malign actors using their soft power to influence events overseas and the resulting threats to our national security?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments and her support for the police and the intelligence and security agencies. She asked about the IRGC. In his report, Jonathan Hall states specifically that, under the existing legal framework, there are significant challenges when it comes to trying to take restriction or banning action against state-backed and state organisations—there are legal challenges to doing that—and he refers particularly to the IRGC in that context. That is why he set out the need for new powers, and we are committed to bringing those in. Obviously, we will need to follow the process by bringing in the new legislation, but I continue to be concerned about the IRGC.

The hon. Member is also right to highlight threats from Russia and the different kinds of threats and challenges from China. In his report, Jonathan Hall identifies other areas where powers could be strengthened, including stop and search, cordons and post-charge questioning in specific circumstances. We will be looking at the detail in order to take forward all the recommendations and the issues that are raised.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The charging of Iranian nationals raises alarming questions about the extent of Iranian state activity in the UK. We know that Tehran uses the IRGC to push its influence around the world, including by supporting attacks against Jewish people and Israelis around the world. What assessment have the Government made of the threat posed to the British Jewish community by Iranian operatives? What steps are being taken to protect the community and eliminate those threats?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the importance of security for our Jewish communities, which should never be compromised either domestically or by any kind of foreign state influence or activity. That is why we work very closely with the Community Security Trust on a range of issues around support and protection for the Jewish communities across the UK, and why we take immensely seriously any malign Iranian influences that are targeted towards Jewish communities.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

The Home Secretary rightly says that the threats from hostile states are complex and intertwined, so will she update the House on what further steps the Government have taken to protect critical national infrastructure, in particular from cyber-attacks? Our security services commit vast expertise in our protection. Their successes must be hidden, but their failures are often picked over. The one thing they really need is additional resources, and I urge the Home Secretary to make the case for that vigorously during the forthcoming spending review. That is the least they deserve from this House.

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that the right hon. Member took these issues immensely seriously when he was in government. I agree with him about the importance of critical national infrastructure and the implications of cyber-attacks. I know that he will agree that the critical national infrastructure is changing: what is critical now is different from what might have been critical even 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago. We need to have the processes to be able to adapt swiftly, and that will be considered as part of the national security review. He can be assured that I will always argue strongly for support for our intelligence and security agencies.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, in particular on the outcome of the Jonathan Hall review and the steps being taken to proscribe the IRGC. It is very sad that the previous Conservative Government failed to do that in 14 years. While we wait for the legislation, will she reassure the House by reaffirming that anyone in the UK who fails to declare a relationship with the Iranian regime is committing a criminal offence?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right; that is exactly the reason we have put the IRGC on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, alongside the whole of the Iranian state. We expect people to abide by that law, and there will be criminal offences if they do not.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Home Secretary may be aware of a visit I made to Iran International just a few weeks ago, during which it expressed its appreciation for the fantastic support it has received from the Metropolitan police and security services. If she has not already done so, will she or the Minister for Security visit Iran International in order to send the message that threats to its journalists and those of the BBC Persian Service are utterly unacceptable, as are threats to their families based in Iran?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the right hon. Member for his important question. Threats to Iran International, its journalists and their family members are disgraceful and completely unacceptable. He is right to commend the work of counter-terrorism police and the security services in addressing this issue. We take the safety of anyone on UK soil immensely seriously, and no threat to the safety of any individual, and certainly any organisation or journalist, will ever be acceptable in the UK.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for this important statement, and I thank our security services—the finest in the world—for keeping us safe. It is important that we have tools to assess the threat or potential threat posed by those who arrive through irregular means, such as small boats. Can the Home Secretary update the House on progress made to intelligence sharing with our international partners?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. In order to address transnational and international threats, networks and challenges—whatever form or route they take—it is immensely important that we strengthen co-operation and work with our international allies. We are already working to strengthen international co-operation and information sharing, but we are looking further at what checks and security assessments we can do in the UK.

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

The British people will be appalled to learn that Iranian nationals who have come across the English channel have been charged with terror offences. They will also be concerned that the Home Secretary talked in opposition about proscribing the IRGC, but now we have Jonathan Hall KC recommending a delay in proscribing the IRGC. Surely the right thing to do is proscribe it now and if any more powers are required, introduce them through emergency legislation, but we must not kick the can down the road.

[Yvette Cooper]

Our border security is national security. That is the approach the Government are taking. We will continue to strengthen border security, including by introducing counter-terrorism powers. When in opposition I repeatedly called on the previous Government to strengthen the legislation in order to be able to take much stronger action on state-backed organisations like the IRGC. The Jonathan Hall report that is out today identifies the legal difficulties and problems with applying legislation that was designed for terrorism to state-backed threats. It is important that any legislation we apply is actually effective and does not unravel.

That is why some years ago, in 2023, the Labour party put forward proposals to strengthen the legislation and bring in the new stronger powers that we are talking about for use against organisations that are state-backed, such as the IRGC. It is because we believe that national security is so important that we are prepared to give the Government, police and security agencies the powers they need to take action and make sure that something happens in practice.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I put on record my thanks to those who work day in, day out to keep our streets and communities safe, and who undertake work and activities that many of us may never hear about. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that with this Government the police and security services will always have the powers and resources that they need to keep us safe?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the vital work that the police and the security and intelligence services do. It is because we support them so strongly that we are putting forward proposals to strengthen the law so that they have the powers they need at all stages to keep us safe.

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

We understand that the three individuals concerned entered the country illegally and then claimed asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that this country is particularly attractive to those who wish to claim asylum because it is relatively easy to be successful in that endeavour compared with, for example, France, so it makes sense to claim asylum here? Does she attribute any of that to the Human Rights Act? If so, how does she plan to amend it? Does she have cause for concern that those who are tasked with making decisions are sometimes guilty of overzealous application of the law in respect of asylum?

[Yvette Cooper]

The three individuals that the right hon. Member referred to entered the UK between 2016 and 2022 and were granted asylum. Grant rates for asylum have fallen in the last year and returns of failed asylum seekers have increased. We are strengthening our border security with counter-terrorism powers and strengthening the checks around criminality across the immigration and asylum system.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and the Security Minister for his written statement last week on the work of the defending democracy taskforce. As the Home Secretary will be aware, the Joint Committee on Human Rights is conducting an inquiry into transnational repression. I am sure that she will look at our findings carefully. Will the state threats joint unit bring a cross-Government approach to the work on transnational repression so that we can tackle this important issue?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The inquiry that his Committee is pursuing is important. The Security Minister will give evidence to that inquiry about the work being done on transnational repression, including the work of the defending democracy taskforce. The state threats joint unit is looking at a wide range of issues in respect of how we tackle the threats we face across the country.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As President Trump seeks to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, may I ask the Home Secretary, along with senior Ministers across Government, to work with Five Eyes partners and the National Security Council and National Security Adviser team in the White House to ensure that any deal is comprehensive—it must not exclude ensuring that Iran cannot continue to work in proxy form, whether through criminal gangs or other states—in order that we do not have sanctions lifted without further action in the areas that she has discussed today?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member makes an extremely important point. It is essential that Iran is prevented from developing any further nuclear threat. That is why the US-led talks are so important; we support them strongly. He is right that this needs to be a comprehensive approach, and we agree with the approach across the Five Eyes partners.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the praise for our intelligence, police and security services. I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement about the combination of international co-operation and robust action at home, as was set out previously by the Security Minister, which is critical when tackling alleged acts of direct threat to life and property. Does the Home Secretary agree that measures such as the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme are really important because we are increasingly seeing actions by organised criminal gangs and other groups, which are an insidious force in our country, and we must deter other states and organisations from the nefarious actions that they are taking?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. We are increasingly seeing a pattern where foreign state organisations end up using criminal proxies to pursue malign activity. That is why we have to link up the work around serious and organised crime with work around counter-terrorism and work around state threats. It is about combining the different hybrid threats that we now face, which is why the new national security strategy is so important.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The Home Secretary said in her statement:

“The Iranian regime poses an unacceptable threat to our domestic security, which cannot continue.”

Yet we know that Iranians make up the third-largest group of illegal migrants crossing channel, so does the Home Secretary agree that any Iranians crossing the channel should be detained and deported and should not be allowed to claim asylum?

[Yvette Cooper]

The system that we inherited from the previous Government—including a Government that the hon. Member was at different times a part of—was not strong enough. Border security needs to be treated as a national security issue, but it has not been for far too long. That is why we are introducing counter-terrorism-style powers as part of our border security response. I am really sorry that he and his party repeatedly chose to vote against those counter-terrorism powers, because we need those powers to be introduced. We are also strengthening the security and criminality checks across the asylum and immigration system, because we need to make sure that we are doing everything possible to keep our country safe.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today. I join her in paying tribute to the security services and thank them for keeping us safe. The actions of the last few days have underlined the profound threat that Iran poses to our country. Many of the Iranian community in my constituency of Hendon live in fear of transnational repression. Could my right hon. Friend say more about what the Government are doing to protect our Iranian community and all those who live in fear of transnational repression, so that they can live their lives in freedom in Britain?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that transnational repression has become a growing threat and challenge, not just from Iran but from other countries. The Security Minister provided an update to the House just last week on the further actions that we are taking, including further support for those who are being targeted and further advice and guidance for those who face threats. Those are the kinds of threats that our police and security service are particularly vigilant towards, to ensure that everyone in our country can feel confident that they will be kept safe.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Can the Home Secretary explain why the British envoy in Tehran was summoned by the Iranian authorities at the weekend? More importantly, does this not signal a complete disconnect from reality on the part of the Iranian state?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to raise this. We have made extremely clear to the Iranian regime our views about the unacceptability of state-backed threats on our soil, including through the summoning of the Iranian ambassador to the UK and through further measures, not just in the foreign influence registration scheme but those we are now going to take forward in response to Jonathan Hall’s report. It is immensely important that the Iranian regime hears the points that we are raising and that it understands our determination to protect the security of those on UK soil.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today and for the work that she and her Ministers have done on this really important issue. I also want to put on record my thanks and the thanks of the people of Harlow for the work that the police and security services do to keep us all safe. Does she agree that, as the methods of state-backed agents change and adapt, we too need to change and adapt? I am thinking in particular of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) said about intelligence gathering, and the Jonathan Hall report will be an important part of that.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. The Jonathan Hall report identifies a series of areas where we have long-standing counter-terrorism powers that go further than the powers we have around state-backed threats. That might be something as simple as the power for the police to set up a cordon around the target of a potential terrorist incident, and they should have the same ability to do that for the potential target of a state threat incident. We will be looking to take forward those powers, but in order to use them most effectively, we also need the best intelligence gathering. We already have the best security and intelligence agencies in the world, but they need to be able to work ever more strongly with international partners too.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her strong and determined words and actions—we appreciate them. I offer my thanks to the counter-terrorism unit for its work on the case. I know that this is the tip of the iceberg of the work being carried out unseen to keep us all safe across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The arrest of these three asylum seekers will naturally highlight the failings in the system, and I say that regardless of which party was in power at various times through that journey. What action will the Secretary of State and this Government take regarding the influx of young single men claiming asylum who seem empowered to declare war against this nation that has fed and clothed them for so many years? How do we assure our British public—my British public—that the end has come to housing these foreign nationals who hate this nation and all it stands for?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to pay tribute to the police and the security and intelligence services. He will know more than many in this House the complexity and wide range of different threats that our agencies have had to deal with through the years. They continue to need to deal with terrorist threats, from Islamist extremism to far-right extremism. They have of course had to deal over many years with Northern Ireland terror threats, and they have to deal with changing patterns of state threats, the different forms those threats can take and the way in which they interact with criminality.

This Government have made it clear that we see border security as part of national security. That is something the Prime Minister said in his speech to Interpol before Christmas, and it is why we are strengthening the counter-terrorism-style powers we are using and bringing forward through this House. We are also strengthening international co-operation. We held the first ever international summit on organised immigration crime because we see that as a national security issue, too.

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.