Borders and Asylum

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I will update the House on the actions we are taking with France to strengthen our border security and the next steps in our reforms to the asylum system.

The House will be aware that when we came into government, we found an asylum and immigration system in chaos: for seven years, small boat gangs had been allowed to embed their criminal trade along the French coast; the asylum backlog was soaring; and illegal working was being ignored. The previous Government had lost control of the system and, as a result, opened many hundreds of asylum hotels across the country, while returns were a third lower than in 2010. Before leaving office, they deliberately cut asylum decision making by 70%, leaving behind a steeply rising backlog. It is little wonder that people across the country lost confidence in the system and demanded to know why they were paying the price of a system that was so out of control.

However, that does not mean that people rejected the long and proud history of Britain doing our bit to help those fleeing persecution or conflict—including, in the past decade, families from Ukraine, Syria and Hong Kong. It is the British way to do our bit alongside other countries to help those who need sanctuary. However, the system has to be controlled and managed, based on fair and properly enforced rules, not chaos and exploitation driven by criminal smuggler gangs. It is exactly because of our important tradition that substantial reforms are needed now.

In our first year in government, we have taken immediate action, laying the foundations for more fundamental reform. We restored asylum decision making and then rapidly increased the rate of decisions. Had we continued with the previous Government’s freeze on asylum decisions, thousands more people would have been in hotels and asylum accommodation by now. Instead, we removed 35,000 people with no right to be here, which included a 28% increase in returns of failed asylum seekers and a 14% increase in removals of foreign criminals. We have increased raids and arrests on illegal working by 50%, and we cut the annual hotel bill by almost a billion pounds in the last financial year. We are rolling out digital ID and biometric kits so that immigration enforcement can check on the spot whether someone has a right to work or a right to be in the UK. On channel crossings and organised immigration crime, we are putting in place new powers, new structures and new international agreements to help to dismantle the criminal industry behind the boats.

I want to update the House on the further steps we are now taking. In August, I signed the new treaty with France allowing us, for the first time, to directly return those who arrive on small boats. The first detentions—of people immediately on arrival in Dover—took place the next day, and we expect the first returns to begin later this month. Applications have been opened for the reciprocal legal route, with the first cases under consideration, subject to strict security checks. We have made it clear that this is a pilot scheme, but the more that we prove the concept at the outset, the better we will be able to develop and grow it.

The principles the treaty embodies are crucial. No one should be making these dangerous or illegal journeys on small boats; if they do, we want to see them swiftly returned. In return, we believe in doing our bit alongside other countries to help those who have fled persecution through managed and controlled legal programmes.

This summer we have taken further action to strengthen enforcement against smuggling gangs. France has reviewed its maritime approach to allow for the interception of taxi boats in French waters, and we will continue to work with France to implement the change as soon as possible. In the past year, the National Crime Agency has led 347 disruptions of immigration crime networks—its highest level on record, and a 40% increase in a year.

Over the summer, we announced a £100 million uplift in funding for border security and up to 300 more personnel in the National Crime Agency focusing on targeting the smuggler gangs. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will give them stronger powers: counter-terrorism powers against smuggler gangs, powers to seize and download the mobile phones of small boat arrivals, and the power to ban sex offenders from the asylum system altogether. If Opposition parties work with us to speed the passage of the Bill through the other place, instead of opposing it, those powers could be in place within months, making our country safer and more secure.

Let me turn to the major reforms that are needed to fix the broken asylum system that we inherited. Although we have increased decision making and returns, the overall system remains sclerotic, outdated and unfair. As we committed to in the immigration White Paper, we will shortly set out more radical reforms to modernise the asylum system and boost our border security. We will be tackling the pull factors, strengthening enforcement, making sure that people are treated fairly and reforming the way that the European convention on human rights is interpreted here at home. We will be speeding up the system, cutting numbers and ending the use of hotels, and developing controlled and managed routes for genuine refugees.

At the heart of the reforms will be a complete overhaul of the appeals system—the biggest obstacle to reducing the size of the asylum system and ending hotel use. Tens of thousands of people in asylum accommodation are currently waiting for appeals, and under the current system that figure is to grow, with an average wait time already of 54 weeks. We have already funded thousands of additional sitting days this year, and the border security Bill will introduce a statutory timeframe of 24 weeks.

However, we need to go further. We will introduce a new independent body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals. It will be fully independent of Government and staffed by professionally trained adjudicators, with safeguards to ensure high standards. It will be able to surge capacity as needed and to accelerate and prioritise cases, alongside new procedures to tackle repeat applications and unnecessary delays. We are also increasing detention and returns capacity, including a 1,000-bed expansion at Campsfield and Haslar, with the first tranche of additional beds coming online within months to support many thousands more enforced removals each year.

Our reforms will also address the overly complex system for family migration, including changes to the way that article 8 of the ECHR is interpreted. We should be clear that international law is important. It is because other countries know that we abide by international law that we have been able to make new agreements with France, to return people who arrive on small boats, and with Germany, to stop the warehousing of small boats by criminal gangs, and it is why we have been able to explore return hubs partnerships with other European countries. However, we need the interpretation of international law to keep up with the realities and challenges of today’s world.

There is one area where we need to make more immediate changes. The current rules for family reunion for refugees were designed many years ago to help families separated by war, conflict and persecution, but the way they are used has now changed. Even just before the pandemic, refugees who applied to bring family to the UK did so on average more than one or two years after they had been granted protection, which was long enough for them to get jobs, find housing and be able to provide their family with some support. In Denmark and Switzerland, those who are granted humanitarian protection are currently not able to apply to bring family for at least two years after protection has been granted.

However, in the UK those family applications now come in, on average, around a month after protection has been granted, often even before a newly granted refugee has left asylum accommodation. As a consequence, refugee families who arrive are far more likely to seek homelessness assistance. Some councils are finding that more than a quarter of their family homelessness applications are linked to refugee family reunion. That is not sustainable. Currently, there are also no conditions on family reunion for refugee sponsors, unlike those in place if the sponsor is a British citizen or long-term UK resident. That is not fair.

The proportion of migrants who have arrived on small boats and then applied to bring family has also increased sharply in recent years, with signs that smuggler gangs are now able to use the promise of family reunion to promote dangerous journeys to the UK. We continue to believe that families staying together is important, which is why we will seek to prioritise family groups among the applicants to come to Britain under our new deal with France, but reforms are needed. So in our asylum policy statement later this year, we will set out a new system for family migration, including looking at contribution requirements, longer periods before newly granted refugees can apply, and dedicated controlled arrangements for unaccompanied children and those fleeing persecution who have family in the UK.

We aim to have some of those changes in place for the spring, but in the meantime we do need to address the immediate pressures on local authorities and the risks from criminal gangs using family reunion as a pull factor to encourage more people on to dangerous boats. Therefore, this week we are bringing forward new immigration rules to temporarily suspend new applications under the existing dedicated refugee family reunion route. Until the new framework is introduced, refugees will be covered by the same family migration rules and conditions as everyone else.

Let me turn next to the action we are taking to ensure that every asylum hotel will be closed for good under this Government, not just by shifting individuals from hotels to other sites but by driving down the numbers in supported accommodation overall, and not in a chaotic way through piecemeal court judgments, but through a controlled, managed and orderly programme: driving down inflow into the asylum system, clearing the appeals backlog, which is crucial, and continuing to increase returns. Within the asylum estate, we are reconfiguring sites, increasing room sharing, tightening the test for accommodation and working at pace to identify alternative, cheaper and more appropriate accommodation with other Departments and with local authorities. We are increasing standards and security and joint public safety co-operation between the police, accommodation providers and the Home Office to ensure that laws and rules are enforced.

I understand and agree with local councils and communities who want the asylum hotels in their communities closed, because we need to close all asylum hotels—we need to do so for good—but that must be done in a controlled and orderly manner, not through a return to the previous Government’s chaos that led to the opening of hotels in the first place.

Finally, let me update the House on the continued legal and controlled support that we will provide for those facing conflict and persecution. We will continue to do our bit to support Ukraine, extending the Ukraine permission extension scheme by a further 24 months, with further details to be set out in due course. We are also taking immediate action to rescue children who have been seriously injured in the horrendous onslaught on civilians in Gaza so that they can get the health treatment they need. The Foreign Secretary will update the House shortly on the progress to get those children out.

I confirm that the Home Office has put in place systems to issue expedited visas with biometric checks conducted prior to arrival for children and their immediate accompanying family members. We have done the same for all the Chevening scholars and are now in the process of doing so for the next group of students from Gaza who have been awarded fully funded scholarships and places at UK universities so that they can start their studies in autumn this year. Later this year, we will set out plans to establish a permanent framework for refugee students to come and study in the UK so that we can help more talented young people fleeing war and persecution to find a better future, alongside capped and managed ways for refugees to work here in the UK.

The Government are determined to fix every aspect of the broken system we inherited and to restore the confidence of the British people, solving problems, not exploiting them, with a serious and comprehensive plan, not fantasy claims based on sums that do not add up or gimmicks that failed in the past. What we will never do is seek to stir up chaos, division or hate, because that is not who we are as a country, and that is not what Britain stands for.

This is a practical plan to strengthen our border security, to fix the asylum chaos and to rebuild confidence in an asylum and immigration system that serves our national interests, protects our national security and reflects our national values. When we wave the Union flag, when we wave the St George’s flag, when we sing “God Save the King” and when we celebrate everything that is great about Britain and about our country, we do so with pride because of the values that our flags, our King and our country represent: togetherness, fairness and decency, respect for each other and respect for the rule of law. That is what our country stands for. That is the British way to fix the problems we face. 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. The Government have now been in office for well over a year, and I think it is fair to say that not even their kindest friends would say they think it has gone well, but listening to her statement, it sounds like she thinks everything is fine and that if there are any problems, it is somehow somebody else’s fault. Is she living in a parallel universe? After over a year in office, she must now take responsibility for what is happening under this Government.

It was interesting to note that, during her statement, she did not mention her favourite phrase from a year or so ago—namely, that she was going to “smash the gangs.” I wonder why she was so silent on her previously favourite catchphrase. The answer is that it is not going very well. She mentioned National Crime Agency disruptions. Let me gently point out that 84% of those National Crime Agency disruptions that she cited a few minutes ago are classified as not being high impact, and National Crime Agency arrests for organised immigration crime actually went down by 16% in the last financial year. That is hardly smashing the gangs. In fact, the NCA’s arrests for organised immigration crime in that financial year were only 26—a drop in the ocean compared with the tens of thousands crossing the channel.

It was also rather conspicuous that the Home Secretary did not mention even a word about the numbers illegally crossing the English channel. I wonder why that was. I wonder why she forgot to say a single word about that. The reason, I am afraid, is pretty clear. Far from smashing the gangs, so far this year, 29,000—to be precise, 29,003—illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. That is the worst year in history, and it is up by 38% compared with last year. That is not success; it is failure. Things are not getting any better; they are getting worse. This Government are failing and everyone can see it. That is why there are protests up and down the country, and where those protests are peaceful, I support them. That is why 75% of the public think the Government are handling immigration and asylum badly. That is a shocking figure; let it sink in.

Let me turn to hotels. In the nine months before the last general election, 200 hotels were closed down, including the Bell hotel in Epping, but since the election the numbers in asylum hotels have actually gone up by 8%. Had that previous trend of closures continued, there would be no asylum hotels open at all today. I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that she will not reduce hotel usage simply by shunting asylum seekers from hotels into flats and houses in multiple occupation, which are desperately needed by young people. Will she give the House that categoric assurance?

Last week the Home Secretary’s lawyers said that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of local people in places such as Epping. When this was expressly put in those terms to the Education Secretary yesterday on “Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips”, she shamefully agreed. Those statements are a disgrace. Does the Home Secretary realise how angry that makes people feel? It speaks of a Government not on the side of the people in this country. It means the Government appear to care more about the rights of illegal immigrants than our own citizens. Will she apologise for what her lawyers and the Education Secretary said, and will she undertake to ensure that Ministers and their lawyers will never say that again?

The Home Secretary talks about her returns deal with France. It has been reported that the deal will return only about 50 people a week, amounting to 6% of arrivals. Does she accept that allowing 94% of illegal arrivals to stay will act as no deterrent at all? If she does not accept that figure of 50 a week, will she tell the House exactly how many immigrants crossing the channel will in fact be returned under her deal? She may recall that back in July we were told by the Government that the first returns would happen “within weeks”. Will she confirm to the House that the number that has actually been returned so far is precisely zero?

The Home Secretary said to the House a couple of minutes ago that there would be security checks on those people reciprocally taken from France into the UK, but will she confirm that her agreement with France says expressly that the French Government will not provide the UK Government with any information at all—any personal data about those migrants—so if there are criminal convictions or suspicions about extremism or terrorism, the French Government will not provide information to us? If that is true, as her agreement says, how can she possibly conduct security checks?

The Home Secretary talked about tweaks to family visa rules. Let me be clear about the Opposition’s position on this. If someone enters this country illegally, they should not be allowed to bring in any family members. In fact, everybody entering this country illegally should be immediately removed, to their country of origin if possible, and if that is not possible, to a safe third country such as Rwanda—a scheme which she cancelled just days before it was due to start. The public expect that approach—an approach which she cancelled—because the numbers crossing the channel so far this year have been the worst ever; the worst in history.

It is not just that the numbers are high. Hundreds of migrants, having crossed the channel and living in those hotels, have been charged with criminal offences, including sexual assaults on girls as young as eight years old and multiple rapes. This is not just a border security crisis; it is a public safety crisis as well, and people up and down this country are furious. That is why they are protesting, and that is why 75% of the public think this Government are failing on asylum and immigration.

If this Government were serious about fixing this problem, they would know that little tweaks here and there are not enough. Tweaks to article 8 are not going to be enough. Tweaking the family reunion rules is not enough. Returning maybe 50 people a week, if we are lucky, to France is not going to be enough. Intercepting maybe a few boats—worthy though that is—is not going to be enough. The only way these crossings will stop—the only way we are going to get back control of our borders—is if everybody crossing the channel knows that they will be returned. We tabled a Bill in Parliament a few weeks ago to do that. We had a plan to do that: the Rwanda Bill. We need to go further by disapplying to immigration matters the entire Human Rights Act 1998, not just tinkering with article 8. If the Government were serious, that is what they would do.

If the Home Secretary really wants to control our borders, and if she really wants to get down the record numbers that have been crossing on her watch, she would back our plan, disapply the Human Rights Act in its entirety to immigration matters, and ensure that every single person crossing the channel is immediately removed.

[Yvette Cooper]

I worry about the shadow Home Secretary’s amnesia. In the 14 years that the Conservatives were in government, they never managed to do any of the fantasy things that he claims they did. Let us come back to reality from his fantasy rhetoric.

The shadow Home Secretary talked about the approach that his Government were taking before the election. It is worth reminding the House of what that approach was. Asylum decisions dropped by 70%. The Conservatives effectively had a freeze on taking asylum decisions, and they were returning those asylum seekers nowhere—not to France, not to the safe countries that people had passed through, and not to Rwanda, despite running that scheme for over two years with only four volunteers going at a cost of £700 million. Their approach left us with a soaring backlog. Had we continued with that totally failed approach—not taking asylum decisions, not returning people anywhere—there would have been tens of thousands more people in asylum accommodation and hotels across the country right now. That is the kind of chaos that his policies were heading towards. It is the kind of chaos that he is promising again now.

The House will remember the shadow Home Secretary’s personal record. Small boat arrivals went up tenfold on his watch as immigration Minister. Fewer than 1,000 asylum seekers were in hotels by the time he became immigration Minister, but there were more than 20,000 by the time he left his post. On his new concern for local councils, he was the immigration Minister who wrote to local authorities to tell them that he was stopping the requirement on them to agree to accommodation and that he had

“instead, authorised Providers to identify any suitable properties that they consider appropriate.”

We agree with communities across the country that asylum hotels must all close, and I understand why individual councils want to take action in their areas, but I say to the shadow Home Secretary that a party that wants to be in government should have a proper plan for the whole country, and not just promote a chaotic approach that ends up making things worse in lots of areas. That is the Conservatives’ record. We have asylum hotels in the first place because the Conservatives did no planning and let the Manston chaos get out of control. As immigration Ministers, both the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the shadow Home Secretary rushed around the country opening hotels instead of taking a practical, steady approach to get to the heart of the problem, reduce the asylum system, strengthen our border security and tackle and reform the appeals that are causing huge delays.

Let me make a final point. The Government strongly believe that sex offenders should be banned from the asylum system altogether. That is why we have put those details into the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which the shadow Home Secretary’s party has voted against time and again and is still resisting in the House of Lords. If Opposition parties supported and worked with us, that law could be on the statute book and we could have stronger powers against sex offenders, stronger counter-terrorism powers to go after criminal gangs, and stronger powers to tackle the offences being committed in the channel and across the country.

The trouble is that what the Conservatives are doing in opposition is an even worse version of what they did in government: ramping up the rhetoric with policies that would make the chaos worse. This Government will fix the chaos that we inherited and strengthen our border security for the sake of the whole country.

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for everything that she has revealed today—it will make a difference. As we move from hotels into community distribution, how can we ensure sufficient vetting and transparency in asylum dispersal—especially for groups known to be high risk—in order to safeguard our residents, restore faith among our communities and prevent the threat of disorder such as that seen in Nuneaton this summer?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Anyone who comes to our country needs to abide by our laws. The rules need to be enforced. We also believe that new partnership and stronger measures are needed between policing and immigration enforcement and the Home Office to ensure that there are proper public safety plans for the asylum estate. We are drawing up new arrangements, including not only stronger checks at the border but stronger arrangements in local communities. I recognise the important point that she makes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

Anyone with any sense knows that the Conservatives trashed our asylum system and left the backlog spiralling out of control, with applications for asylum routinely taking years to process. Some of the Home Secretary’s remarks are welcome, but I worry that this Government risk repeating some of the same mistakes.

The Liberal Democrats will closely scrutinise the plan that the Home Secretary has talked about today, but given that the Home Office itself says that one of the reasons that those human beings seeking asylum make dangerous small-boat crossings is the lack of safe, alternative family reunion routes, cutting those back further seems counterproductive, especially when more than half of those granted family reunion visas in the year ending June 2025 were children under 18.

It is right that the Government have increased the rate of decisions made—those with no right to be here should be sent back swiftly, and those who have a valid claim should be able to settle, work, integrate and contribute to our communities. The backlog is still too large, however, and initial application decisions still take too long. As the Home Secretary stated, a significant share of the backlog comes from appeals. According to the Government’s own figures, in 2024 almost half of rejected asylum applications were overturned on appeal. For applicants from high-grant countries, that proportion was even higher. I would welcome clarity from the Home Secretary on how long it is currently taking to process the average asylum application, and on what concrete steps are being taken to ensure not only that cases are processed more swiftly, but that decisions are right the first time, so that applicants are not left in limbo, the courts are not overburdened and taxpayers are not footing the bill for avoidable delays.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s encouraging comments about the reciprocal agreement with France. Can she confirm whether the Government plan for that to be scaled up and, if so, when? Given that one of the main drivers of dangerous channel crossings is the absence of safe, legal family reunion routes, does the Home Secretary agree that cutting family reunion rules risks making the small-boat crisis worse, not better?

The Home Secretary rightly also mentioned the impact on local authorities. When individuals leave hotels, many present as homeless, creating an unsustainable burden on councils, including my own. Will the Home Secretary explain how she is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support councils and ensure that this crisis is not simply shifted from one overstretched system to another?

In recent weeks, constituents have been in touch with me as they are concerned about the number of flags that have gone up on lampposts around our area. They worry that the flags have been put up by those who seek to divide our community, not bring it together. Patriotism is a good thing. We should be proud of our country. We should be proud that our country welcomed people such as my nan in the 1930s, when she was fleeing the Nazis. We should be proud of our record of doing our bit. We should be proud of the British values I see in action across my community every day.

I am proud of those police officers who kept everyone safe during the protests at two hotels in my constituency over the summer; proud of those teachers and pupils who welcome new classmates when they have been placed in one of the hotels; and really proud of those who volunteer their time to support new arrivals, whether through local churches or other voluntary groups and charities—because that is what patriotism looks like.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and questions. At the heart of the France pilot that we have developed is the principle that those who arrive on dangerous and illegal small boats should be returned, but alongside that we should also have a legal route for those who apply and who go through proper security checks. As part of that, we will seek to prioritise people who have a connection to the UK, such as family groups —people who have family connections to the UK. Families will continue to need to be an underpinning part of the approach. The House will recall that the Ukraine family scheme was an important part of the response to the situation in Ukraine, for which Labour called in opposition.

The family reunion arrangements are being used differently from how they were used five years ago. The number of people applying for family reunion immediately —before they have a job, a house or any way of being able to support their families—is increasing the homelessness pressures on local authorities at a time when we need them not just to do their bit to help to clear hotels, but, crucially, to provide homelessness support in the local community. It is important to ensure that arrangements for the families of refugees do not put additional pressure on the homelessness support system, so we will set out reforms and ensure that, in the interim, refugees are included in the existing arrangements that apply to all sponsors in the UK for family reunion.

We need to speed up appeals. The average appeal time is now 54 weeks, which is far too long. Some appeals go on for way longer, meaning people with repeat appeals are in asylum accommodation for years, preventing the closure of asylum hotels that needs to take place, which is why we need the reforms.

Finally, the hon. Lady raised the issue of flags. I strongly support the flying of flags across the country—we fly the St George’s flag in Pontefract castle each year. As she will know, the Union flag is on the Labour party membership card—[Interruption.] I can show her a copy if she has not seen one. Flags should be an embodiment of bringing our country together—that will be the same in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and a way to bring our country together through symbolism.

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

A couple of years ago, I was working in local government in Scotland, trying to deal with the impact of asylum hotels. At that time, the shadow Home Secretary was a Minister in the Home Office, and he opened hotel after hotel, without even telling councils that that was happening, so his amnesia today is staggering. We did not have asylum hotels five years ago, but we have them now because the last Government signed a contract with private providers that has cost billions of pounds, putting pressure on communities, as well as being a procurement scandal. Will the Home Secretary commit to reading the report on this issue that the Home Affairs Committee is about to publish, and to looking as creatively as she can at managing those asylum contracts to get the best deal possible for the taxpayer?

[Yvette Cooper]

I look forward to reading the Home Affairs Committee’s report and I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Committee. We have already been working to get better value from the contracts that we inherited, which is one reason that we have saved nearly £1 billion on asylum accommodation costs since the election. He is right to point out that the previous Government completely lost control of the system in 2022. There was a total lack of planning or any grip on the situation, as well as chaos around management that was incredibly costly. The sudden surge of asylum hotels opening all over the country, with poor contracts that provided poor value for money, was bad for the taxpayer and damaging to having an effective system across the country. We cannot go back to that kind of chaos.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Home Secretary, please: we have a tinder-box situation in Epping. We have the Bell hotel, with alleged sexual and physical assaults, and now twice-weekly major protests, some of which became violent, with injuries to police officers. Appallingly, last week the Government successfully appealed against the injunction on the hotel, prioritising the rights of illegal migrants over the rights and, indeed, safety of the people of Epping. Our community is in distress. The situation is untenable. This week the schools are back. The hotel is in the wrong place, right near a school, and many concerned parents have contacted me. When will the Home Secretary and the Government listen to us, address this issue and do the right and safe thing: close the Bell hotel immediately?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree that all asylum hotels need to be closed as swiftly as possible, including the Bell hotel. That needs to be done in an orderly and sustainable manner so that they are closed for good. The hon. Gentleman is not right in the characterisation of the Government’s case, because we are clear that all asylum hotels need to close. We need to ensure that that is done in an ordered way that does not simply make the problem worse in other neighbouring areas or cause the kind of disordered chaos that led to the opening of so many hotels in the first place. We also need to strengthen the security and the co-operation with policing, and we want to strengthen the law on asylum seekers who commit offences and can be banned from the system. That will be part of our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill as well.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It was Orwell who urged us to be proud of our countries and to call out the nationalists trying to demand that we express our pride or be called traitors accordingly. Let us be proud of this country and the work it has done to support people fleeing persecution; let us be proud of what we have done to help families from Ukraine and Hong Kong. I know the Home Secretary recognises that safe and legal routes for refugee children to be reunited with their parents are something that we should be proud of. In that vein, if there is to be a delay in providing those safe and legal routes, will it apply to all children, including Ukrainian children, or will we recognise that helping children so that they do not face penalties is our best and proudest action?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes important points. The new arrangements that we set out will include both stronger border security and reforms to the asylum system to make it more controlled and managed and to reduce its size, as well as to have the controlled and managed legal routes. That needs to include arrangements for family and dedicated arrangements around unaccompanied children. My hon. Friend is right to raise that as a serious issue. Obviously we have a separate dedicated scheme for Ukraine, and we are continuing with that scheme.

On my hon. Friend’s point about what we should recognise, I think that people across the country continue to support that. Having spoken to Ukrainian mums who described how they fled in the first few weeks of Putin’s invasion, knowing that their home villages had been overrun by Russian troops and not knowing whether other family members were safe or whether they would ever be able to return again, let me say that we should always remember what people can be fleeing from and the importance of countries working together to support them.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary believe that the rights of the people coming over the channel in dinghies should take precedence over the rights of local residents in places such as Epping, as her lawyers argued for in court and as the Education Secretary said in an interview at the weekend?

[Yvette Cooper]

No, that is wrong. That is wrong about the Government’s position. The Government have made it clear that all asylum hotels need to close, and they need to do so in an orderly manner that does not end up increasing the problems in other areas. We need to close the hotels for the whole country, and the judge themself has said that this is not about a hierarchy of rights.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I am very glad the Home Secretary has acknowledged that, like other countries, we have a duty to safeguard those fleeing persecution and seeking sanctuary in Britain. The reason we had 400 asylum hotels back in 2023, at a cost of £9 million a day, and we now have just over 200 asylum hotels, is that the Conservative party failed to deal with asylum claim applications, which this country and this Government are now doing. If there is any Government who will end the use of hotels for asylum seekers, it is this Labour Government.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s points. We need the consistent, practical plans that will close hotels right across the country, clear the appeals backlog, which would otherwise grow, and prevent the increase in asylum claims in the first place. We also need the restarting of decisions, because had we carried on with the freeze on asylum decisions that the previous Government left us with, there would be tens of thousands more people in hotels across the country right now. That would have been deeply wrong.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

People with a wide range of views about how to tackle immigration spoke to me over the summer, and none of them is happy with how things are. They are furious about how the Conservatives trashed our border security, and they certainly do not want the hare-brained schemes of Reform—they want action that fixes the system fast. After years of failure, will the Home Secretary finally ensure that our immigration system keeps out people who would come here for the wrong reasons, while properly supporting those who need our help?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Yes, we need to strengthen our border security. That is why the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently passing through the other place, includes the ability to use counter-terrorism powers against criminal smuggler gangs. Those powers are crucial—we need to strengthen the work of the National Crime Agency in going after those gangs, because they are pursuing a vile trade in human lives.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I do not envy the Home Secretary trying to clear up the mess that the last Government left on migration. I doubt, however, that the measures she is currently putting before the House will be as successful as she and I wish them to be. They do not really deal with the fact that many migrants are not coming from war-torn countries; they are coming from France, which is not persecuting them in any recognisable form. The reason is demand pull from this country—migrants believe they will have a better and an easier time, and get through the system more easily, in this country than they would in France or in other European countries. Denmark has been successful in reducing the demand pull. If the Home Secretary’s measures are to be as successful as she wishes them to be, will she look more closely at what Denmark has done to improve the situation?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that obviously, small boats are mainly setting off from France—people have travelled through France. That is exactly why we have negotiated the pilot agreement with France to be able to return people there. It is the first time this has happened; it is something that previous Governments tried and completely failed to do. It is important that we do that and build on it, but we also need to tackle some of those pull factors, particularly illegal working. That is why we have had a 50% increase in illegal work raids and arrests. We also need to recognise that family reunion is being used by some criminal gangs. One thing Denmark has done is increase the time before refugees can apply for family reunion, so that they are more likely to be working and supporting their families and to prevent criminal gangs from being able to use family reunion as a pull factor.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has spoken about tweaks to the rules and regulations, and potentially to interpretation of the law. The problem with that, of course, is that our courts will also interpret the law, and may go against what the Home Secretary wants to do. Will she set out what changes to the law she will introduce to ensure we stop the illegal migrants coming to this country?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to change the law. First, obviously, we have the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which will bring in a whole series of changes including counter-terrorism powers, banning sex offenders from the asylum system and a new offence of endangerment. We also believe that new legal changes to the asylum system are going to be needed, and we will bring forward further legislation in order to make those changes. Later this year, we will set out detailed reforms —not just on appeals, but more widely around the asylum system—to enable us to tackle some of both the historic chaos and the delays in the system, and to get that system back under control.

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

As many are aware, a number of well-known delivery companies and other companies are employing asylum seekers with no right to work, which is helping to incentivise the boat crossings and ultimately to undermine our national security. Will the Home Secretary liaise with the Treasury before the Budget to discuss bringing in a windfall tax on some of those delivery companies, so that they can start contributing to the cost of a problem that they are helping to exacerbate?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the gig economy and the need to ensure that it does not become rife with abuse and misuse when it comes to illegal working. That is why we are bringing in—again, in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which unfortunately the Conservatives and Reform have continued to vote against—requirements for employers in the gig economy to abide by checks on illegal working. We have also recently signed with some of the major delivery companies a new agreement to share information, so that we can target abuse and crime.

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

What a country the UK is becoming! Rarely has the national mood been so ugly and intimidating. People are congregating at hotels, screaming at asylum seekers to go home, and those on the right wing are so emboldened that they feel the streets belong to them. Does the Home Secretary not realise that every time she moves on to Reform’s ground, all she is doing is further encouraging and emboldening them? How about trying something different? How about just occasionally saying something positive about immigration? How about not dehumanising asylum seekers, and instead showing them some compassion, decency and humanity?

[Yvette Cooper]

I just point out to the hon. Member that I have spoken about Ukrainian mums and their experiences fleeing from Putin; the students in Gaza who currently cannot take up their places—we are working on expedited visas for them, so that they can pursue a better future—and the importance of having a proper, legal and controlled route as part of an effective system. That has been part of our history, but we also have to have a system that is properly controlled and managed. We have to have a system that is not open to abuse, misuse and exploitation by criminal gangs. We also need stronger border security, so that it is Government, and not gangs, who choose who comes to our country.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. There is a lot to unpick, and we need more detail on this new appeals system. One of my key concerns when I was in the Home Office many years ago was the poor legal advice that people were getting early on. Lawyers were making them jump through many hopeless hoops to extend their stay unnecessarily. They were putting them in a miserable situation, costing the taxpayer, and creating chaos and duplication in the system. Is the Home Secretary looking at what legal advice people will get at an early stage, so that appeals and processes can be expedited?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is a former Home Office Minister; she has a lot of experience with immigration case issues, and real concerns about the advice people are given and the way that decisions are made. We are strengthening some of the regulation, and improving the way the legal advice system works, in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend further about this issue.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Stanwell hotel in my constituency is being used to house asylum seekers. I wrote to Home Office Ministers on 24 July, again on 25 July, and again on 29 July, and I have had zero responses to any of those letters. Please will the Home Secretary show some respect to my constituents and the people of Spelthorne and reply to their questions and concerns?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will ensure that the hon. Member gets a written response to his questions, but let me also make it clear that all asylum hotels, including the hotel in his constituency, need to close. They need to do so in an orderly manner, and in a way that does not make the problem worse elsewhere or create more chaos, as we have seen in the past. That is the best way for us to reduce the size of the asylum system, to clear all the backlogs, and to ensure that we have an effective system.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

The European convention on human rights is an important bedrock, protecting not only vulnerable people’s rights here in the UK, but also our strong international relationships, which were crucial to securing the returns deal with France, and co-operation with Germany and other European partners on finally clamping down on the scourge of the people smuggling gangs that we inherited. Leaving the ECHR fully cannot be a solution to our problems, but that does not mean that every aspect of it works in the right way, and it is clear that it stands in the way of our taking some actions that we need to take if we are to deal with this issue seriously. I welcome the Home Secretary’s clarification of how we will take forward interpretation of article 8. May I seek confirmation that we will not shy away from further clarification, like the clarification she gave today, where the ECHR is getting in the way of the action that we know we need to take to provide the border security that our country is crying out for?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about international law, and the ECHR being part of the reason why we have been able to get international agreements; other countries know that we will abide by international law. That is how we got the French pilot, which the previous Government were repeatedly unable to do. The way in which the ECHR is interpreted is significant and needs to keep up to date. We have a challenge around article 8 and family cases; far too many cases are being treated as exceptions to the rules that Parliament has set. We think the rules need to change for us to address that, and we need to work through changes to how article 8 in particular is interpreted in our immigration and asylum system. We will set out more details on that in our asylum reform package later this year.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Every time the Home Secretary announces a new policy on illegal migration, illegal migration goes up, so I think a period of silence would be most welcome from her. Does she agree that the only way to stop the pull factor is to detain, deport and never allow illegal migrants to claim asylum in this country?

[Yvette Cooper]

The pilot scheme we have agreed with France involves, for the first time, our being able to detain people on their arrival in Dover—this has not happened before—and return them to France, where the boats set off from. Previous Governments, including the one that the hon. Gentleman supported and was part of, were unable to agree or achieve that. We have also increased returns of failed asylum seekers by nearly 30% since the election alone, because we believe that the rules need to be enforced, and that returns need to be increased. The problem with his party’s approach is that it sounds a lot like the last Tory Government’s grand promises, which totally failed. His party is just rehashing the same chaotic promises, without ever being able to provide the detail of how it would make any of its policies work. The British way is to roll up our sleeves and do things in a practical way, increase returns, and sort the problems out.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary said in her statement that she will never “seek to stir up chaos, division or hate”, yet that is what we have seen this summer. The far right are emboldened, because of racism and demonisation in the media and from politicians. Instead of scapegoating refugees and asylum seekers, perhaps the Home Secretary needs to be thinking about more humane policies, including safe routes, employment and the right to remain. Can she explain whether these policies have been, or will be, considered?

[Yvette Cooper]

The French pilot scheme involves allowing people who apply lawfully and go through proper security checks to come to the UK on a one-for-one basis, as we return those who have arrived on dangerous small boats in the hands of criminal gangs. I also set out in my statement our intention to have a permanent framework under which refugee students can come to the UK, rather than our taking an ad hoc approach, as we currently do to Gaza students. There needs to be a more systematic approach, as well as capped and controlled approaches to other refugee work programmes. That has to come alongside better controls and management of the existing system, which has become chaotic, with long delays and the undermining of our border security by criminal gangs. We have to do these things together, in a way that pulls our country together, rather than seeing division and tension continue.

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

Reform announced in the summer that it would house all asylum seekers on former RAF bases. In my constituency, RAF Linton-on-Ouse was ruled out, on the grounds that its location in a small village made that inappropriate. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she has no plans to reverse the decision to rule out such inappropriate RAF bases?

[Yvette Cooper]

Obviously, we do not want asylum accommodation in inappropriate places. We must reduce the overall size of the asylum system, while ensuring that we can move people, when possible, from hotels to alternative and better sites. Any arrangement that is aimed simply at expanding the asylum system, as happens if there is a freeze on asylum decisions—and some of the policies that Reform is unfortunately pursuing risk increasing the number of people stuck in the asylum system, because Reform has no plans for practical returns—will make the problem worse. We need practical changes to bring the numbers down.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

It has come to my attention that in government, the job of Home Secretary does not always attract the greatest thanks, so I want to thank my right hon. Friend for the response that she and her Department have given to the letter from 100 colleagues about the Gaza students, and for what she said this afternoon about considering a permanent scheme. Will she confirm, however, that the visas, when they are issued, will be the same as any international student visa, in that the scholars will be able to bring their families and dependants with them?

[Yvette Cooper]

As my hon. Friend will know, many student visas do not allow students to bring dependants to the United Kingdom. There will be exceptional circumstances, such as those involving Gaza, but the overall approach—for example, to student visas relating to masters courses—is not to include dependants. We do, however, want to ensure that the refugee route for students is available, recognising that some people will be able to come and be educated at UK universities to develop their incredible talents, but will want to return to their home countries in future to rebuild them. There may be others who are not able to return, because that is the nature of the crisis we face.

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

In her statement, the Home Secretary mentioned that the National Crime Agency had disrupted 347 immigration crime networks. Can she tell us how many gangs were smashed during the same period?

[Yvette Cooper]

Many of those disruptions are exactly about pursuing gangs, and there are more than 40 high-profile and high-value disruptions that the National Crime Agency itself has said are having a significant impact on degrading, undermining and stopping the criminal gangs. Some of the arrests that have been co-ordinated with France and Germany are also preventing criminal gang activity by, for instance, taking out the leaders of some of those gangs.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Is it any wonder that an Opposition Member described the shadow Home Secretary’s asylum policy as “silly”, given that it was a Conservative Government who failed to process claims, filled up hotels, left people in limbo and broke the bank in the process, just as they broke the bank when it came to everything that they touched? Opening asylum hotels did not happen on our watch, and we want to shut them. We want to save the public purse significant sums of money, and we want to get the system right. Will the Home Secretary tell the people of Bournemouth East, whom I represent, how she is speeding up the process of closing asylum hotels in Bournemouth and in Britain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. We need to end asylum hotels across the board, and that means ensuring that we can clear the appeals backlogs through major appeals reform, because that is currently the main obstacle to the faster closure of hotels. It means preventing people from taking up accommodation in the first place when they are not entitled to it, and it means looking for alternative sites that are more appropriate, which will mean working with other Government Departments. It also means, crucially, recognising that carrying on with the system that we inherited—the frozen system, in which the last Government were not returning people and not making asylum decisions—would have left us with tens of thousands more people in asylum hotels. That is the system that Conservative Members want to go back to, but it would be deeply damaging for my hon. Friend’s constituents, and for the country.

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

Providing safer routes for refugees is not going to eradicate the entire problem—none of us is saying that it will—but it is surely part of the solution to stopping trafficking across the channel. Is it not just cruel madness to restrict family reunion, which is one of the few safe routes that currently exist, particularly when we know that 93% of the refugee family reunion visas granted this year were for women and children? Will this not increase the number of people putting themselves at the mercy of evil traffickers, and the number of tragedies in the channel?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that this is an issue in which the hon. Member has taken a very strong interest over a long period of time. Since he and I first started discussing this issue many years ago, the way in which the family reunion system is used has changed. It has gone from people applying one or two years after they have refugee protection here in the UK to people applying in around a month. That means that the people applying have often not left asylum accommodation or asylum hotels. They do not have housing, jobs or ways to support family members whom they seek to bring to the UK, and we have also seen that criminal gangs are using and exploiting the system. That is why we are temporarily pausing the existing refugee family reunion route, and we will consult on the new arrangements that should be brought in. We will aim to bring in some of those arrangements by this spring.

In the interim, refugees will be covered by exactly the same rules as everyone else, and by the same conditions as everyone else, through the appendix FM process. But there is a concern, because there are no conditions on refugee family reunion at the moment. The way in which it is being used has changed, and there is a responsibility on us to not have huge problems with homelessness assistance for local authorities, and to have a managed system that also supports contributions and does not simply end up being exploited by criminal gangs.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I recognise the complexity of the issues that she is facing. I was very struck by Lord Dubs’s description of his personal circumstances on the radio this morning. His father left Prague as soon as the Nazis invaded in 1939. Lord Dubs got Kindertransport—he was one of the last ones out—and his mother followed a few months later. That is not the one or two-year timetable that we have talked about in terms of the parity of the scheme, so perhaps there needs to be an “Alf Dubs test” that would make sure that families facing similar circumstances, where their lives are in jeopardy, would be protected. He also mentioned ensuring that people understand why people flee as refugees. The conflation between economic migrants and refugees is, frankly, very unhelpful.

[Yvette Cooper]

I recognise the important points that my hon. Friend makes and the work that Lord Dubs has done over many years, particularly in championing unaccompanied child refugees. We have recognised that there will need to be dedicated arrangements that recognise the particular plight of unaccompanied child refugees, but this needs to be done in a properly controlled and managed way, which it has not been for a long time. Under the existing systems that will apply to everyone over the next six months while we bring in the new arrangements, there are always provisions for exceptional circumstances, but we need to prevent the current system from pushing significant homelessness pressure on to local authorities, and from being exploited by criminal gangs.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The only effective measure of the Government’s actions is the number of crossings, isn’t it?

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a big problem with the small boats, as we have seen the criminal gangs change their tactics, particularly to exploit the French rules meaning that, up until now, France has not been intervening in French waters. Not just that, but people who have come to the UK lawfully, but are coming to the end of their visas, are claiming asylum when nothing has changed in their country. We need to ensure tighter rules about that, as well as action on border security to prevent dangerous boat crossings, which undermine security and put lives at risk.

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

My constituency, like Britain as a whole, has long been home to people of all faiths and cultures who came here or whose forebears came here from all around the world. Over the summer, we have seen the growth of ugly rhetoric, including the term “indigenous Britons”, which risks a culture of fear in many of our communities. What are the Government doing to address this insidious trend?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Ours is a country that has been strengthened through many generations by people coming to our shores from all over the world to work, reunite with family, be part of communities, set up businesses and be part of our public services, particularly our national health service. They have done so for generation after generation. That is an important part of our country and will continue to be so for the future. We have had long debates about how the immigration system of course needs to be controlled and managed, but we also recognise the need for our country to come together. Whatever their history or family history, people must be able to come together and be proud of the country that Great Britain is, not be divided, pursue hatred or pit people against each other.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Our communities are divided, and they are scared. We—all of us—want to be with our families, and communities are at their strongest when family life is protected and supported. If the Secretary of State lifted the ban on asylum seekers working, she would be giving those who subsequently achieve refugee status a stronger footing to support their families and be ready to join our communities, and they would not need to seek the homelessness relief she mentioned. Instead of keeping children and their families apart, why does she not help families to support themselves?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that the hon. Member will be as concerned as I am about the lives at risk in small boat crossings, and we have to do everything we can to prevent those dangerous boat crossings, including when families are on them. However, part of what the criminal gangs do—it is part of their sell—is to claim that it will be really easy to work, and that is to work illegally, in the UK. It is part of their pitch, and that is one of the reasons why it is so important to tackle illegal working. That promise of being able to work easily and get income is one of the things the criminal gangs exploit to get a lot of people to part with their money and get involved in the criminal gangs’ vile trade.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) about the importance of good and appropriate legal advice for people seeking immigration status in the UK. I recall two cases in which constituents have been very badly let down by their solicitors, and I have brought those two cases to the attention of the Home Office. Given that justice is devolved to the Scottish Government, when changes are made to the regulation of this issue will the Home Secretary commit to discussing this with the Scottish Government and, if necessary, the Law Society of Scotland?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the points my hon. Friend makes about legal advice on migration issues. Immigration is not a devolved issue, and we need to ensure high standards of legal advice right across the country. We obviously have such discussions with all the devolved Administrations, and we will continue to do so as the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill passes through Parliament.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary set out how many migrants will be returned to France over the coming 12 months?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have set out that this is a pilot, and that we want to build and grow it. There is no cap on the overall numbers to go as part of the pilot, and we need to build it as we go. We have also said that we will not set out the kinds of operational details that criminal gangs will simply use and manipulate, but we will provide updates, as each month goes by, on the progress of the scheme. It is important in two ways: first, it is the basis from which we can then expand to actually be able to return people to France and undermine the model of the criminal gangs; and underpinning this is a fairness principle, which is that if you arrive on a dangerous illegal small boat and pay a criminal gang, you should be returned. But we should do our bit, alongside other countries, to help those who apply through a legal route and go through proper security checks.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

This summer, my community has been deeply divided by misinformation about asylum hotels and local crime rates. This has been exploited by parts of the national media and, frankly, Conservative and Reform politicians and local activist groups seeking simply to stoke fear. Like everyone on the Labour Benches, I stood on a manifesto to end hotel use, so can I thank the Home Secretary for getting on with the job of restoring order to our asylum system to address the chaos left by the previous Government? Can she reassure my constituents that we remain committed to tackling the vile organised crime gangs that drive the boats, to clearing the asylum backlog to give those who are seeking asylum the chance to restore their lives here and give them certainty, and to ending hotel use in communities like mine and across the country?

[Yvette Cooper]

As my hon. Friend says, we made clear in our manifesto that we will end asylum hotel use. We need to put an end to asylum hotel use right across the country, and to do so in an orderly way. We also need to ensure that the rules are properly enforced and laws are properly respected. We will strengthen the law. That is why, for example, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill bans sex offenders from the asylum system and strengthens counter-terrorism powers to go after the criminal gangs. It is astonishing, frankly, that the Conservatives and Reform refuse to support it, when we need those laws in place as rapidly as possible. We will do so alongside ensuring that there are proper controlled and managed legal ways to support refugees, as our country has always done, because that is a proud part of our history.

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

Past waves of refugees who came to this country quite rightly had to identify themselves and come here legally. What percentage, does the Home Secretary think, of people who arrive illegally by small boats do so having torn up their identification documents, and should such people ever be granted asylum?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member will know that there are different identity checks as part of the asylum system. Those are tested through the courts. One of the reasons asylum claims can be turned down is if there is a lack of credibility in the application. That can be a lack of credibility because of concerns about deliberately lost documents, for example, or not having proper identity information. It is important that we do that. It is why we are also increasing the digital ID and biometric checks as part of the ways to prevent illegal working, and linking that back to the biometric asylum system.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

Illegal working not only undermines the integrity of our immigration system, it erodes trust in our communities. In Aldershot, constituents have raised concerns about people continuing to work illegally even after reports have been made to the Home Office. That risks leaving local people feeling that the system is neither fair nor properly enforced. I welcome that Home Office illegal working raids are up 50%, but what action are the Government taking to strengthen enforcement and how is the Home Office ensuring that reports are acted on swiftly, so that trust in our communities can be maintained?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have increased illegal working arrests and raids by 50% and significantly increased the fines for employers engaged in illegal working. Further to that, the organised immigration crime domestic taskforce, which brings together policing here in the UK, is looking at the ways in which organised immigration crime networks are linked to organised crime and the exploitation of illegal workers in the UK, so it is about going after some of those employers operating bogus tactics, alongside the existing raids.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s confirmation in her statement of the expedited visas for students, particularly those from Gaza. I wrote to both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary this summer to appeal for exactly this move, and I know how welcome it will be to those students.

The Home Secretary talks about a capped work scheme. We talk a lot about the pressure on local authorities and the cost to the taxpayer. Does she not agree that if we gave asylum seekers the right to work, pay national insurance and tax and contribute, they would then be carrying their own burden, and they would no longer be a weight on the taxpayer?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the campaigning the hon. Lady has done to support students in Gaza, because the situation we are seeing there is horrendous. The Foreign Secretary will shortly make a statement about the truly abominable situation in Gaza, as well as the work we are doing to get out students who have fully funded places in the UK and provide them with support.

On the hon. Lady’s question, I would say that the criminal smuggling gangs use the potential to work in the UK as a pull factor—as part of their advertising—which is a point the French Government have raised many times. The challenge with the scenario she sets out is that it would make it even easier for the criminal gangs to use that factor as part of their advertising to try to persuade people to part with their money and make an incredibly dangerous journey across the channel.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

The stigmatising and dehumanising of asylum seekers has stirred up race hate in our communities, thankfully by only a small number, and I have been really disturbed to see that racism perpetrated on the streets of York. However, I am even more disturbed to hear that there are planned assaults on asylum hotels across the country, not least in York, where we have children and families staying. What policing operations will be in place to protect those children and families from this hate and ensure their safety over the coming weeks?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the dangers of divisive, dehumanising language towards other human beings and to point to our shared humanity. We can have disagreements with people; we can have different views about the way in which systems should work and rules should be enforced and we can recognise that there will be people who have to be returned because they have no right to be in the UK. However, we can also avoid the kind of demonising language that ends up escalating tensions or promoting hatred and violence—something that we in this country should never do.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has today described the people smugglers as criminals and the boat crossings as illegal. Does she therefore agree that the 29,000 individuals who have entered this country illegally from France this year should be classified as lawbreakers who should at least be deported straightaway or be banned from claiming asylum in the future?

[Yvette Cooper]

The laws on illegal entry go right back to 1972, I think; the issue of illegal entry is long standing. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the policy of the previous Government—his Government—was to claim that everybody was going to be returned to France or sent to Rwanda, but they ran their scheme in Rwanda for two and a half years during which time only four volunteers were sent, so nobody was returned, and they never managed to return anybody to France. We are clear that we believe that people who arrive on dangerous boat crossings or via illegal routes should be returned to France. We have set up the pilot scheme to develop that; we want to build it. It is something the previous Government never managed to do. There is no point in their fantasy claims—we need practical steps, which is what we are doing with France.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

One of the hotels that houses asylum seekers in Kent is the Holiday Inn in Ashford. The decision to house them there was taken by the Conservatives when they were in power. Many people living there are going through an appeal process, so I welcome the decision to speed up the appeals process. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents that this Government will end the use of the Holiday Inn as an asylum hotel as soon as possible?

[Yvette Cooper]

I assure my hon. Friend that we will end the use of asylum hotels, including the hotel in his constituency. Part of the way we will do that is by clearing the appeals backlog. The reason for setting up the new independent appeals commission is so that it can swiftly surge capacity if there are changes in the number of cases going to appeal. It will be able to respond much more quickly and some of the procedures will be changed so that it can fast-track decision making and returns for those who do not have a right to be in the UK.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

After the horrors of the last century, we pledged to protect people fleeing war and persecution. That included parents and their children. Today the asylum system is in chaos, and this serves no one save those who peddle hatred. Border Force staff represented by the Public and Commercial Services Union have produced a “Safe Routes” report outlining how a Ukrainian-style visa system would prevent deaths in the channel and stop the smuggling gangs overnight. Will the Home Secretary listen to officers on the frontline who are seeking to deliver a practical and humane solution to the present chaos?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The principle behind the France pilot, which we want to build and grow, is that people can apply through a legal process and go through proper security checks but that we will return people who come on these dangerous small boats facilitated by criminal gangs. That principle is really important. We want a system that can better return those who are being exploited by criminal gangs and using illegal entry, and we will do that by undermining their business model. Alongside that, we will do what our country has always done throughout history: provide a legal process—controlled and managed—to support those who have fled persecution and conflict. That is what happened as part of the Ukraine scheme, and it is what we now seek to do as part of a refugee approach to students. We need a proper system across the board that both brings control to a chaotic system and is true to our historic values.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I commend her for the way she is working with our neighbouring countries to deal with this problem. The approach of the previous Government was basically to stand on the cliffs of Dover shouting abuse across the channel and to tell them that they should keep all refugees and we would take none. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are going to provide a solution to this problem, it has to come from the sort of co-operation that she has been working on?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend; we saw what happened under the previous Government and the system we inherited. That Government made grand but empty claims about where people were going to be returned to but had none of the agreements and nothing workable in place to actually do it. Instead, they had people stuck—potentially indefinitely—in the asylum system, which would have meant increasing numbers of asylum hotels. In contrast, we have already achieved a 28% increase in returns of failed asylum seekers and put in place the foundations for building a new approach with France and other European countries. I think that most people recognise the complexity of this issue rather than the fantasy promise approach, which ends up undermining trust.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary accept that some of the UK’s adversaries are seeking to weaponise illegal migration, and does she share my concern about the growing nexus between malign state actors and non-state actors, such as the criminal gangs she has mentioned? If she accepts that that collaboration and malevolent co-operation is going on, does she then agree that it is a national security threat and that even though there will be more counter-terrorism powers under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill for the National Crime Agency, which I welcome, there should also be more collaboration between the Security Service and the National Crime Agency?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the points made by the right hon. Member. The Prime Minister said last year that border security is a national security issue; he is right about that. He is also right that we see malign forces attempting to exploit and undermine border security, and he is right to talk about the interaction we see sometimes between malign state-backed threats and organised immigration crime. That is why we already have growing co-operation between the intelligence and security agencies and the National Crime Agency, who are looking at some of those smuggler gang threats and routes; they have pursued further issues there. They are also looking at strengthened checks that we may be able to do at our borders. His points strengthen the argument for international co-operation with other law enforcement and intelligence and security agencies.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

In a previous life, I worked on the Turkey-Greece returns deal, which returned refugees who had crossed in small boats from Turkey to the Greek islands in return for properly registered asylum seekers in Turkey. As we all know, that deal drastically reduced the number of small boats that crossed into Turkey. Does the Home Secretary think that the UK’s deal with France, negotiated just last month, is already having a deterrent effect? Might that be connected to our having seen the smallest number of crossings in August since 2019?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that crossings in August were at their lowest for several years even though there was the same level of crossing days as last summer. He will know that a lot of different factors are involved. We have been seeking with France, through the implementation of its maritime review, to be able to make stronger interventions.

I welcome the point that my hon. Friend made about the Greece-Turkey deal, which did have a significant impact on those crossings. That is why we believe that pursuing this co-operation with France is the right thing to do. I welcome the work that the French Government have done to support the pilot agreement on returns.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

As an Eastbourne boy born and bred, I am a proud Englishman. In Winston Churchill’s St George’s day speech in 1933, he said that his England was one where no one would think of persecuting a man on account of his religion or his race. Does the Home Secretary agree with Winston Churchill that our country and our flag represent unity and tolerance? Does she agree with me that those who attempt to divide our communities in the name of our flag are no patriots of Churchill’s England, no patriots of today’s England and no patriots of our great country?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of patriotism that brings our country together. That is what our flags symbolise and what our values as a country symbolise. Obviously, the Union Jack is in itself as a flag the very embodiment of coming together. For those of us who represent English constituencies, we are proud to fly the St George’s flag and proud to stand up for the shared values that he described—there is patriotism around those English values and British values—about coming together, fairness, decency and respect; that is what we do. That is why we all want an ordered system that criminal gangs cannot exploit—we respect the rule of law—but it is also why we should never discuss any of these issues in a way that promotes hate and division. That is not the kind of country we are.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

At the start of the summer, I welcomed the Government’s decisive action in sanctioning Chinese companies involved in manufacturing and supplying boats used by criminal gangs to facilitate dangerous channel crossings. Disrupting those supply chains is a vital part of smashing the gangs. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what discussions she has had with international counterparts to co-ordinate efforts to target those companies and ensure that the sanctions are enforced globally?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to welcome the Foreign Secretary’s introduction of sanctions for criminal smuggler gangs, and this is the first time that has been done. We also have extensive co-operation through the National Crime Agency. For example, we have massively strengthened the co-operation with Iraq, because we know that Iraqi Kurdish gangs are operating in northern France. We have recently signed a new agreement with Iraq, as well as with Turkey, Bulgaria, Belgium, France and, crucially, with Germany, which is going to change its law to help us go after the criminal gangs and their supply chains. The work that is being done to disrupt supply chains is having an impact. It is significant, too, that we are seeing not only disruptions and arrests internationally as well as in the UK; we are also seeing fewer boats physically crossing, although the criminal gangs are resorting to overcrowding those boats instead.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

I note that the Appeal Court judges in last Thursday’s judgment were using article 8 of the European convention on human rights as a reason for the interim injunction on the Bell hotel to be quashed, yet the Home Secretary has argued in her statement today that she wants to alter the interpretation of that same article 8. Would not a much better, quicker and more effective route be the one proposed by the shadow Home Secretary this afternoon—namely, simply to disapply all immigration matters from the European Court of Human Rights?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is not my understanding of what those on the Opposition Front Bench were arguing for; that was about the Human Rights Act risking there being more issues with the domestic courts being unable to take decisions before things go to the European courts, but I will leave the hon. Gentleman to wrangle with his party about what its position is. We think there needs to be reform of the way article 8 is interpreted. Too many cases around family rules have been treated as exceptions, and that higher level of decision making cannot be exceptional if so many cases are being treated as exceptions. This means that we need to look at the rules themselves, and we also need much greater clarity about the way we believe those rules should be interpreted, and the way family migration should be interpreted in the courts.

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

Much has been said about the role of the European convention on human rights, and it appears that the party of Churchill is seeking to abandon his legacy in its lurch towards the right, just as there is a growing consensus among European nations that we need to modernise it for today’s times. Does the Home Secretary agree that Britain should be part of leading that change, rather than leaving and turning us into Belarus or Russia?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

We have a strong history of leading on international standards and international legal frameworks. Of course, laws and the ways in which they are interpreted need to move with the times and keep up to date with the new challenges, including in a world of mass communications where we face very different kinds of challenges than we did 20 or 50 years ago. My hon. Friend is right to say that the UK has always played that leading role in defining those standards, and in making sure that other countries abide by international laws. We will lose out and not get the kind of international co-operation that we need if we just rip up that international law and co-operation.

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

I am proud that this country helps refugees, and I am intensely proud that I spent years building a charity working with Rwandan refugees from the genocide, but in Horley there have been two serious criminal incidents in the past three months relating to the Four Points hotel. My constituents have legitimate safety concerns, although the police have acted promptly, so what steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the Four Points hotel is closed as an asylum hotel as soon as possible?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes an important point. We want all asylum hotels to close, including in his constituency, and we need to do that in a controlled and orderly manner. We also need to strengthen the arrangements, to ensure that the law and the rules are enforced and that public safety considerations are taken seriously as part of the management of the whole asylum and immigration system. That is why we are developing new partnerships between policing, immigration enforcement, the Home Office and asylum accommodation providers. It is immensely important that there is proper shared information and stronger arrangements to ensure that criminality, wherever is found, it is properly and swiftly tackled.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Home Secretary, the former Immigration Minister, has some brass neck, do we not think? He opened so many hotels that at one stage I thought he might take over from Lenny Henry in fronting Premier Inn. My constituents are so fed up with this, and I am glad that the Home Secretary is taking it so seriously, getting the numbers down. While we do everything we can to get the numbers down, does she agree that everyone involved in the debate, particularly politicians, should not incite or encourage the sort of aggression and, actually, sheer racism that we have seen over the summer, some of which was directed towards our brave police officers?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that the previous Government, including the shadow Home Secretary when he was Immigration Minister, were responsible for a huge increase in asylum hotels and presided over a tenfold increase in small boat crossings. The important thing now is to ensure that we can end asylum hotels and bring back control into the system. But as we do so, we should ensure that we do not have divisive or hateful rhetoric, or anything that promotes violence against police officers or within communities, which is always a disgrace.

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

The Home Secretary is right to talk about tackling the push and pull factors—something we worked towards tackling when we were in government, despite challenges with bringing forward the use of third countries. That is because we need both a deterrent and a place to send people whose country of origin we either do not know or we do not have a returns agreement with. It is no surprise to me that arrivals have increased since that scheme was scrapped. I understand that a period of reset is happening in Downing Street, so how long before we can expect her to come to the Dispatch Box to introduce a third-country scheme?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government have managed to get the agreement with France in place—that pilot agreement that we seek to build. France, obviously, is not the country where most of the people passing through started from, so it is effectively a third-country agreement that we have already put in place and are now working to implement on a pilot basis. We are also working with other European countries to explore returns hubs. But what we do not think is the right thing to do is have an incredibly expensive programme that sent just four volunteers and, during the two years-plus that it was in operation, ended up costing £700 million while 84,000 people arrived in the UK.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Peterborough is a proud and generous place and has welcomed many people through its doors over generations. I pay tribute to the churches, mosques and community groups that are welcoming people and looking after them. But people are getting fed up with a system that is broken, and it was broken before my right hon. Friend became Home Secretary. Many of my constituents will welcome the record deportations and the focus on article 8 and making efficiencies in driving forward the system. But to be honest, the biggest issue in my constituency remains the hotel that was opened by Serco with no consultation with the police or the council beforehand. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will ensure that there is no single bureaucratic block and no stone left unturned in getting the Dragonfly hotel closed as soon as possible, as part of fixing this rotten, broken system?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have made it clear that we need to end all asylum hotels, including the hotel in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is because we believe in the UK’s long history of helping those fleeing persecution and conflict in an ordered way that we also need to get control and fix the chaos that we inherited, including ending asylum hotels, which are undermining confidence in the whole system and were introduced exactly because the previous Government lost control of the system. That is what now needs to be turned around, and those are the foundations we are putting in place.

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

The Home Secretary has touched on it a couple of times, but I am yet to hear from her about the scope of the Government’s asylum accommodation programme, which is currently rated “amber”. Despite the fact that 29,003 asylum seekers have arrived by small boat so far this year, the scope of the programme, following its strategic refresh, will mean the creation of only 5,000 bed spaces by the end of 2026, spread across three accommodation pilots. Where will those three pilots be, how many bed spaces will each have, and at what stage is each one?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are developing alternative approaches to asylum accommodation, including work with local councils that have come forward and with other Departments. We will provide an update as we make progress. Two things need to happen together: the shift to alternative sites must follow value-for-money tests—not having the proper assessments in place was a mistake that often happened in the past, as the Public Accounts Committee identified—and we must reduce the number of people in the asylum accommodation system overall. If we do not reduce the numbers in the system but simply move the problem around from place to place, we will not solve it and get it back under control.

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

Ensuring that we have a humane and functioning asylum and immigration system requires competence, credibility and compassion. I welcome the credible plan that the Government have put in place. Our approach must also be holistic, part of which means tackling the root causes of displacement, conflict and persecution. The Home Secretary has touched on how we are working with other countries, but will she also talk about how she is working across Government to address those drivers of displacement?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. She is absolutely right to say that any comprehensive and effective approach—internationally, not just here in the UK—must consider the causes and drivers of mass migration: people fleeing persecution and conflict, and the economic migration issues that have caused significant challenges. The Foreign Secretary and I have set up a joint migration team to work closely on some of those issues, and he has also made issues around migration a key priority for the Foreign Office. This is clearly an important cross-Government issue on which we are working together.

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

When Labour was in opposition, it attacked the Conservatives on the small number of asylum seekers who had been removed to Rwanda as part of the Tory deterrent. Now that the Conservatives are in opposition, they are attacking Labour for the small number of asylum seekers who will be removed to France as part of the Labour deterrent. Does the Home Secretary accept that, in order for a deterrent to work, people considering that dangerous crossing need to know that it may be in vain?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have established the agreement with France as a pilot agreement, and we want to develop and expand it. It allows us to detain people immediately on arrival at Western Jet Foil in Dover in order then to be returned. The first cases have been referred to France, and we expect the first returns to start during the course of this month. As well as the impact of undermining the criminal business model of the gangs—the deterrence that the hon. Gentleman talks about—there is the important principle that people arriving illegally on dangerous boats having paid criminal gangs should be returned, but the UK should do its bit, in a controlled and managed way alongside other countries, for those who apply through legal routes and go through proper security checks.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and strongly welcome the enforcement action taken recently by UK Border Force, Cumbria police and local trading standards to crack down on illegal trading and illegal retail work in my Carlisle constituency. Will she reassure my constituents that there will be no let-up in that enforcement activity, and that the same rigour will be applied to migrant workers employed as delivery riders?

[Yvette Cooper]

I, too, welcome the law enforcement work in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have set up a domestic organised immigration crime taskforce to work across different police forces on the networks that are exploiting illegal working, which often have networks into all kinds of other organised crime, undermine communities and town centres, and exploit individuals and border security. We are strengthening that domestic work, which had never before been done, as a result of the report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services.

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

On the watch of this Home Secretary, 2025 has been the worst year on record for small boat crossings. The Government claim that they want to end the use of asylum hotels, but the right hon. Lady is not telling us when they will do that. I would like reassurance that we will not see an increase in houses in multiple occupation, local houses or flats being rented for those individuals, or any increase in costs for local councils.

[Yvette Cooper]

Unfortunately, the Conservative Front Benchers want us to go back to the position that we inherited from the previous Government. Their freeze on asylum decisions would have left us with tens of thousands more people in asylum hotels. We will end asylum hotels over the course of this Parliament, not simply by moving people to different kinds of accommodation—that is an important point—but by reducing the overall size of the asylum system. The previous Government’s policies were doing the opposite and increasing it. If we do not reduce the overall size of the asylum system, we will never solve the problem, or rebuild the confidence of people across the UK.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

In the east end of London, we have a proud history of welcoming refugees and migrants, many of them fleeing war and persecution, but over recent years and months, the political and media establishment has been complicit in the normalisation of Islamophobia and anti-migrant rhetoric. Over the summer, there have been campaigns to target asylum seekers outside hotels, and people have resorted to violent aggression, including yesterday in my constituency. That is putting all of us at risk. What exactly will the Home Secretary do to ensure that asylum seekers, refugees, migrants and all those who live in my constituency are safe from attempts—including those organised by the far right—to create fear and division in our area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Everyone has a right to be safe, and to respect. The pursuit of division, hatred and violence is never acceptable, in the immigration and asylum system or more widely across our country. It is hugely important that alongside all the reforms that we introduce—we do need reform to the system—we have clear recognition of our shared humanity and the need to prevent any kind of violence and hatred, or the tensions and problems that my hon. Friend describes.

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

With the number of crossings up more than 40% this year alone, at some 30,000, clearly the Government’s policies are acting as a magnet, not a deterrent. When will the Home Secretary realise that the only effective deterrent is to detain and deport everyone who comes here illegally, and that to do that, we must leave the European convention on human rights?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government have, since the election, increased the number of returns of those who have no right to be here. There has been a 28% increase in returns of failed asylum seekers. We are strengthening enforcement and bringing in new counter-terrorism powers that allow us to go after the criminal gangs. Incomprehensibly, the hon. Gentleman’s party voted against those counter-terrorism powers. It seems to oppose the action that we need to take to go after the criminal gangs. If he and the Conservatives were to support the new powers, we could bring them in swiftly, in the course of a few months, and give our law enforcement the power to take stronger action against the criminal gangs. I hope that he supports the agreement with France, which provides for the immediate detention of people arriving in the UK, and their return to France. The trouble with his party’s policies is that they sound an awful lot like the previous Conservative Government’s policies, which totally failed. The Conservative Government were chaos; his party seems to be chaos on steroids. His party is not trying to solve the problem. All it is trying to do is exploit it. We need a properly controlled and managed system that goes after the criminal gangs, who should not be able to get away with their vile trade.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Gloucester has a proud history as a welcoming and diverse city. Just last week, I was pleased to attend the Ukrainian independence day celebrations in my constituency with some of those who have sought refuge in our city. However, many constituents have written to me, particularly those who live next door to the asylum hotel that was opened by the last Conservative Government, with legitimate concerns about the future of that site, and the impact on them of things like protests on their front doorstep. Will the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that the policy that she has announced today will speed up the end of the use of that hotel for asylum seekers? Will she meet me to discuss the impact of such sites on local residents in Gloucester?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we will end the use of asylum hotels. We will close the asylum hotels that the previous Government opened, including in his constituency; it is hugely important that we do. He is right to talk about our long history of people from across the country supporting refugees. They include the more than 100,000 families who came forward to offer homes to Ukrainians at the beginning of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That spirit and those values are immensely important, but people need to know that the system is being properly controlled and managed, and that misuse is being tackled. That is why it is so important to end the use of asylum hotels.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is clear that the Government have lost control. The Government are going against their own election manifesto by taking the issue through the courts. I have asked this question before but not had an answer, so I ask it again: can the Home Secretary give me a date when the hotel in my constituency of Broxbourne will close to illegal asylum seekers?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been clear that we will end the use of the asylum hotels that were opened by the previous Government; we will close those asylum hotels. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support our reforms to the appeals system, so that we can speed them through Parliament and clear the backlog. I hope that he supports the increase in decision making that we had to introduce after his party froze decision making, creating a soaring backlog that would have increased the number of people in hotels. I also hope that he will support the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is passing through the other place and will bring in stronger counter-terrorism powers, enabling us to go after the criminal gangs who are organising the small boats; sadly, his party is still opposing the Bill.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

We must stop criminal gangs launching illegal crossings from the French coast. Will the Home Secretary update us on her conversations with the French authorities to ensure that their tactics include intervening in shallow waters, so that they stop as many of these boats as possible at source?

[Yvette Cooper]

The French Government have been undertaking a maritime review, and the Interior Minister has been strongly pursuing the issue to ensure that there can be intervention in French waters. Criminal gangs operate taxi-boat tactics to load people on to the boats in shallow waters, resulting in some of the disgraceful scenes that we have seen, so the maritime review is looking at ways to intervene in shallow waters to prevent the boat crossings in the first place. Alongside that, there is the extension of the Compagnie de Marche and the additional patrols along French beaches that have been agreed, as well as the new judicial prosecution unit in Dunkirk, which is now working closely with the Border Security Command. These are part of the important foundations for strengthening law enforcement.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Whatever the promised tinkering with article 8, the reality is that this Government, or any Government, will only get a grip on out-of-control illegal immigration by quitting the ECHR. I agree that article 8 is a problem, but the answer is article 58, which allows the Government to serve notice that they are leaving the ECHR. Unless and until they do that, we are not going to solve this problem. How does the Home Secretary hope to sort out this mess while her every action is subject to the foreign stipulations and, ultimately, the foreign Court that is diligently applying the ECHR to which she clings? Does that not mean that we go round endlessly in a circle? Will the appeal panels be subject to judicial review, during which, again, the ECHR can be relied on?

[Yvette Cooper]

Having international law and abiding by it has helped us to get new agreements to return people who arrive by small boats. It is also helping us to work with other European countries on returns hubs, so that we can increase returns. I think there is a problem with the way that article 8 is being interpreted in the courts; that is why I have been clear that reforms are needed. We will bring those forward in a major package of reforms to the asylum system before the end of this year.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The Conservatives and Reform appear to be engaged in competitive populism, and one of the consequences of that is opportunism. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is surprising that they pose as the parties who are on the side of local democracy when it comes to asylum hotels? Can she confirm that not only did the current shadow Home Secretary decide in March 2020 to suspend the practice of consulting local authorities before opening asylum hotels in their area, but that the practice remained suspended for the rest of the time that the Conservatives were in government, even after the emergency of the pandemic ended?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. The shadow Home Secretary not only lifted the responsibility to consult local authorities, but voted against amendments put forward by the Labour Opposition at the time to strengthen the work with local authorities. This Government are strengthening that work with local authorities instead. All the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Justice Secretary seem to do is chase each other’s tails to try to get to the next photo opportunity first, or chase the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). It is just more chaos from the Opposition parties.

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

It is not populist to want safe and secure communities, but we are going round in circles. The only way we are going to solve this crisis is by withdrawing from outdated refugee conventions, rescinding the insidious ECHR from our laws, and using British military assets to prevent incursion into British waters. Will the Home Secretary commit to doing that today?

[Yvette Cooper]

I point out to the hon. Member that his party was in power during eight years in which criminal gangs were able to take hold along the borders and undermine our border security. It should be Governments, not gangs, who decide who enters our country. We need the counter-terrorism powers to go after those criminal gangs, and the hon. Gentleman and his party are still voting against them. Shameful!

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It cannot be denied that we have inherited a very difficult position, and that there has recently been a real increase in the rhetoric on this issue, which is causing serious worry, upset, anger and mistrust in our communities. Many vital measures to tackle this organised crime, such as counter-terror-style powers against gangs, a new offence on endangerment at sea, banning sex offenders from the asylum system and powers to search phones, are stuck in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Tories and Reform were really serious about these changes, they would stop voting and organising against the Bill, put their constituents and my constituents at the heart of this matter, and let us put the Bill into force?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Tories and Reform could start working with us tomorrow to speed up the passage of this crucial legislation, which would give our law enforcement counter-terrorism powers to go after smuggler gangs. These new offences would mean that they could download and search the mobile phones of people arriving on small boats and, crucially, ban sex offenders from the asylum system altogether. You would think that the Opposition parties would support that; instead, they have been blocking the Bill. That is shameful.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

Our country should be proud of the fact that in the 1930s we welcomed 10,000 Jewish children from Europe on the Kindertransport. Alas, our predecessors would not countenance bringing across those children’s parents, and we know that the cost of that decision was the massacre of those parents in the Holocaust. There has always been vocal opposition to migration in this country, but I remind the Government that responsibility lies with them. Across our country today, thousands of vulnerable refugees are afraid; they are afraid of the rise in right-wing activity and in right-wing rhetoric—rhetoric that this Government have flirted with. I invite the Government not to follow the Conservative party or Reform UK into the abyss and to treat this issue with the compassion it deserves.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member refers to the Kindertransport and the important support for children it provided. The UK also took orphaned Jewish children from concentration camps and provided them with a home and a future in the UK. We have a long history of supporting those who have fled persecution and conflict, and that is exactly why it is so important that the system is properly managed and controlled and that we tackle the chaos we have inherited and strengthen our border security, in order to restore confidence in the very system and values that the hon. Member describes. This Government will never pursue the violence-promoting rhetoric that can cause such division. We will always be responsible and serious about the practical steps that need to be taken to deal with the chaos we inherited.

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

I warmly welcome the content of the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly the UK-France migrant deal, which provides a safe and legal route for all those families who are genuinely fleeing persecution and who play by the rules and want to enter the country legally. The deal balances that with the need to remove from this country and send back to France those who try to jump the queue in small boats.

The shadow Home Secretary suggested that the potential figure of 50 returns a week under this pilot scheme is not enough. Under the last Government, 128,000 people crossed the channel; can the Home Secretary remind the House how many of those people were returned to France? It was not 50 a week or 100 a week—it was zero a week, every week for six and a half years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The previous Government made a whole series of grand but empty claims. They returned no one to France who had arrived on a small boat—they had no agreement in place to do so—and they also sent no one to Rwanda, other than four volunteers who were paid to go. Again and again, all the previous Government did was escalate the rhetoric and the chaos, rather than take the practical steps necessary to get the returns we need.

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

In her statement, the Home Secretary set out that the Government would establish an independent body to process asylum appeals. That will work only if it is delivered at pace, resourced and well-staffed, so can she set out when that independent body will start recruiting arbitrators and support staff and when it will be operating at full pelt? Will it operate seven days a week? If in a year’s time we come back from next summer’s recess with immigration rates higher than this year’s, will the Home Secretary take personal responsibility for that?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are seeking accelerated legislation to bring in the new independent appeals commission. The hon. Gentleman will know that once that legislation begins its passage through the House, it will be possible to start implementation and make sure we can invest in getting the trained adjudicators in place. We will provide an update before the end of this year, both on the timetable and on the further details of how that appeals system will work. Obviously, it has to be fully independent of the Home Office and of the Government, but it needs to be able to surge and respond swiftly in order to prevent the growth of huge backlogs. I really hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will be able to support that legislation, because if they do so, we will be able to move it through much more quickly and implement the new body much more quickly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Dr Scott Arthur.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had forgotten how much I enjoyed bobbing.

We all want to be proud of the UK’s asylum system, but because of the mess we inherited from the previous Government, none of us are there right now; that is just a fact. I thank the Home Secretary for the methodical work that she is doing to get a grip of the situation and get the system back on track. It really pains me, though, that some of the people who are behind this mess are now sitting on the Opposition Benches and seeking to weaponise it, rather than apologising to the country. Does the Home Secretary share my hope that extending the Ukrainian visa scheme and the refugee student scheme, bringing Gaza students here and supporting injured Gazan children will provide a chance to show the UK immigration system at its best?

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope the Conservatives will support Gazan students being able to take up their places and scholarships in the UK, just as I hope they will also support the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which they are still opposing.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Government appear to be conflating the terms “illegal immigrant” and “asylum seeker.” The UK has rightly in the past taken in asylum seekers, including Ukrainians fleeing persecution, but they are different from those who are crossing the channel illegally, the vast majority of whom are men aged 20 to 30 who appear to have no children or families crossing with them. I have three questions for the Home Secretary: does she agree with the Prime Minister’s comments that the UK has plenty of housing to accommodate illegal immigrants; will she rule out the use of houses of multiple occupation; and will she rule out the use of social housing for illegal immigrants?

[Yvette Cooper]

Given what the hon. Member said about crossings, I hope he will support the French pilot agreement, which means we can return to France people who make these dangerous or illegal journeys and in exchange have a legal process for people who apply properly, follow the rules and go through security checks. We have been clear that the way to tackle the chaos in the asylum system is to end asylum hotels, but to do so by reducing the overall number of people in the asylum accommodation system, and that includes sorting out the appeals chaos we inherited from the hon. Member’s party.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary was right to emphasise that respect for each other and respect for the rule of law are fundamental British values, and they are underpinned by our robust human rights framework, which underscores and protects individual liberties. Winston Churchill knew that, which is why he was such a supporter of the European convention on human rights after world war two. Will the Home Secretary do all she can to protect our human rights framework from those on the Opposition Benches who would tear it up for a cheap headline, by campaigning as hard as she can to make sure that the ECHR is fit for the 21st century, restoring public confidence?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that we need reforms, but we also need to recognise that international law can help to underpin international co-operation. The criminal gangs operate across borders and exploit the fact that too often Governments and law enforcement agencies do not operate across borders in order to go after them. That is why we need that international co-operation in place, underpinned by a legal framework.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

The national conversation on immigration and asylum is being dominated loudly by colleagues in this place who have a sorry track record of stirring up division and dehumanising people seeking sanctuary from some of the world’s harshest regimes and conflicts. Many of my constituents have raised their fears with me this summer. Given that immigration has soared since we left the European Union, does the Home Secretary agree that the architects of the damaging Brexit campaign are probably the people least likely to have the answer to the small boat crossings, and that we must do all we can to emphasise the benefits and value that migrants bring to the UK, as they have done for centuries?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Conservative party in government managed to create chaos in the asylum system and let criminal gangs take over along our borders while illegal migration quadrupled in the space of just four years. Immigration has always been an important part of our history, and that is why it needs to be properly controlled and managed in a fair and sensible way, which has not happened too often in the past. It needs to be serious and respectful to other people, to make sure that we as a country come together at the same time as making sure there are proper controls in the system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she accept that the frustration many feel about illegal immigration must never be confused with opinions about those who come and add to our society in the NHS, in agriculture and in many other jobs where we rely on help from foreign nationals? Does the Home Secretary not accept that the route to the UK from the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland is feeding that frenzy? Will she finally rightfully close the current loopholes and block the back-door access to the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right that people have long supported those coming to work in our NHS through legal routes. Those routes have to be controlled and managed, however, and migration quadrupling under the previous Government was a serious problem. That is why we are bringing legal migration down; that is why we put that in the immigration White Paper. The hon. Gentleman is also right that some of the most serious concerns are about dangerous and illegal boat crossings that are underpinned and facilitated by criminal gangs. He raises a separate issue about Ireland and Northern Ireland, but he will know that the common travel area is a long-standing part of our history and arrangements. We have close security co-operation with the Irish Government and Irish law enforcement for exactly that reason, and it is an important part of the arrangements and the close relationship between our countries.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That concludes the statement. I thank the Home Secretary and Members for their time. The Home Secretary has been on her feet for around two and a half hours and we have had over 80 Back-Bench contributions. I will now give the House a few moments to settle and for the Front-Bench teams to swap over.

Events at Orgreave

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Written Statements

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

The violent scenes that took place at Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984 were a pivotal moment in the nationwide miners’ strike of 1984-85. In total, 95 picketers were arrested and charged with riot and violent disorder, but all charges were later dropped after evidence was discredited. The events of that day have had a lasting impact on those present and on their families and communities, as well as on the relationship between policing and coalfield communities at that time.

While there have been significant changes in the oversight of policing since 1984, and to the way that public order is now policed, questions about the specific events of Orgreave have remained unanswered for too long. More than 40 years on, it is time that every individual affected by the events of that day received the answers they deserve.

This Government made a commitment in its manifesto to ensure, through an investigation or inquiry, that the truth about events at Orgreave comes to light. Today, consistent with that promise, I am announcing the Government’s decision to establish an inquiry into the events at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984.

The right Rev. Dr Pete Wilcox, the Bishop of Sheffield, has agreed to chair the inquiry. He will be supported by a small panel of independent experts who will be appointed in due course.

The purpose of the inquiry will be to aid public understanding of how the violent clashes and injuries caused at Orgreave on 18 June 1984, and the events immediately after, came to pass. It will be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, with the appropriate powers to compel the provision of information where necessary.

It will be key for the inquiry to have access to all information which it deems relevant. For that reason, I have recently written to all police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing, and all Government Departments, to ask that all material they hold relating to the events of Orgreave be retained, in order that it can be provided in a timely manner to the inquiry if requested.

Recognising the need for an inquiry to deliver swiftly while avoiding any undue impact on individuals’ wellbeing, I hope the inquiry will look to previous examples of good practice—such as the Hillsborough Independent Panel—to inform its method of delivery.

I am currently in the process of consulting the right Rev. Dr Pete Wilcox on proposed terms of reference, and I have asked him to engage with key stakeholders as part of that process. I will place a final copy of the terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses at the earliest opportunity thereafter.

In line with the Inquiries Act 2005, the direction of the inquiry’s investigations will be a matter for the Chair.

[HCWS855]

Prevent Programme: Lessons

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Written Statements

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

Following the horrific attack in Southport in July 2024, I announced that a new, dedicated permanent oversight function for Prevent would be created. This would provide continual independent scrutiny of Prevent legislation, policy, and delivery, to assess Prevent’s effectiveness and to ensure proper standards are met.

Lord Anderson KC was appointed as interim Prevent commissioner to provide that independent scrutiny. He was tasked specifically with scrutinising the Southport attack and the murder of Sir David Amess, examining whether Prevent had failed to intervene effectively in those two cases. Lord Anderson was also asked to consider the improvements that have been made since the perpetrators were referred to Prevent, and to identify areas for further reform. Today he has published his findings, and a copy of the report will be placed in the Library in both Houses. The report will also be available on gov.uk.

I would like to express my gratitude to Lord Anderson and his team for the progress they have made in a short space of time. The report clearly highlights the failings of Prevent in both the Southport case and that of Sir David Amess, while also recognising the energy and urgency that has been shown in making changes to strengthen Prevent.

Lord Anderson’s findings

On the tragic murder of Sir David Amess, Lord Anderson has upheld the conclusions of the Prevent learning review—PLR—that was published on 12 February 2025. He explains that once the case was adopted into Channel in 2014, several failures took place, including poor communication with the intervention provider and the lack of a six-month review.

With regards to the perpetrator of the Southport attack, Lord Anderson agreed with the findings of the PLR that was published on 5 February 2025. The first referral should have been passed to the local authority Channel co-ordinator for information gathering—the process in place at the time. He comments that

“it is hard to see how the test of ‘reasonable grounds to believe that there are no Prevent concerns’ could have been satisfied on the known facts of the case”.

Lord Anderson also agreed with the PLR finding that there were sufficient concerns to warrant progression to Channel.

Lord Anderson concludes that in both cases their schools referred the individuals to Prevent

“for the best of reasons—but Prevent failed to provide what might have helped them. Whether different decisions might have spared their victims will never be known: both attacks came years later, and many imponderables intervened. But wrong decisions were taken; more should have been done; and from these failures, lessons must continue to be learned”.

Lord Anderson also outlined the importance of having a prevention programme like Prevent in place for tackling radicalisation. While Prevent cannot stop every attack, we must continue to drive reform where it is found lacking.

Lord Anderson made a series of recommendations on how Prevent can be further strengthened or areas that require further exploration. These include:

Prevent should remain open to individuals falling within the existing category of “fascination with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks”. Alongside this, consistent efforts should be made to improve the quality of referrals and encourage those that are appropriate, including by providing clear and consistent messaging to potential referrers and to Prevent practitioners.

A task force should be established to lead exploratory work into the possibility of formally connecting Prevent to a broader safeguarding and violence prevention system.

Compliance with respective agency mandates to share information should be more closely monitored by their regulators and inspectorates. Consideration should be given to introducing a duty to co-operate with speed and candour in reviews after adverse incidents.

Public transparency about the structures and systems of Prevent should be the default position. The Home Office and CT Policing should adopt a proactive approach to the release of such information and be ready to publicise the successes of Prevent.

All feasible and rights-compliant avenues should be explored as a matter of priority to enable evidence of online activity to be more effectively used:

to gauge risk factors, assess risk, identify clusters and escalation and activate and manage responses;

to assist in the identification of potential subjects for Prevent; and

to evaluate and address the risk factors attaching to individuals referred to Prevent.

The Government welcome the findings of this rigorous review and will immediately act on its findings. We will:

Clarify Prevent thresholds in guidance and training to ensure that frontline public sector workers subject to the Prevent duty understand that those “fascinated with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks” should be referred to Prevent. We will complete this work by the end of September.

Improve transparency and information sharing, including by upskilling and training Prevent practitioners, frontline workers, and civil society organisations. We will complete this work before the end of the year.

We will take steps to strengthen our approach to tackling online radicalisation, through work with tech companies, like-minded international partners, and considering new approaches to identifying and supporting susceptible people online. This includes developing new capabilities to better equip Prevent to manage online radicalisation risks.

Continue exploratory work on how Prevent connects into wider safeguarding and violence prevention pathways to ensure no one can fall between the cracks.

While we must look immediately at how Prevent works alongside wider safeguarding mechanisms to stop further missed opportunities, we also look forward to the outcome of the first phase of the Southport public inquiry, led by Sir Adrian Fulford, which will publish its findings later this year. Where Lord Anderson’s review has identified the need to explore broader and long-term reforms to safeguarding and violence prevention, we will consider this alongside the inquiry’s recommendations. The inquiry will comprehensively examine all aspects of the events that led to the Southport attack, and identify where further changes should be made.

Alongside the work we will take forward in response to this report, swift progress has already been made on the reforms to strengthen Prevent that I announced in December 2024:

Prevent has launched new guidance which is designed to ensure that repeat referrals to Prevent get the multi-agency consideration they require;

The end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds has concluded. Its recommendations will strengthen our approach to the assessment and management of Prevent referrals. It will ensure that clear and unambiguous policy, guidance, and training is in place, so that Prevent can offer the right interventions to the right people. It includes specific action to improve our approach on Islamist extremism and for those individuals who are being radicalised into extreme violence;

The first stage of the strategic policy review into how Prevent manages people with mental ill health or who are neurodivergent has also concluded. Action is under way to implement those findings;

Pilots are now running across the country to ensure that where people do not meet Prevent thresholds, they receive the support they need from wider services; and

From 1 August, we will pilot new practical mentoring interventions for people at risk of radicalisation in Channel, to enable Channel panels to better support individuals without a clear ideology.

Prevent training is being rolled out at pace to educate frontline professionals about the ideologies, such as Islamist extremism, that drive terrorism.

In addition, to enable the vital independent oversight of Prevent to continue while a recruitment process is under way for the permanent commissioner, I am delighted that Lord Anderson has agreed to extend his tenure as interim commissioner until the end of the year.

My Department remains steadfast in its commitment to keeping the public safe and safeguarding people at risk of radicalisation.

The victims, their families and those who survived the Southport attack but continue to live with the physical and emotional pain, and Sir David Amess’s family remain in our hearts and prayers.

[HCWS831]

Operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2023: Independent Reviewer’s Report

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Written Statements

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

Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has prepared a report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts in 2023. In accordance with section 36(5) of the Terrorism Act 2006, I am today laying this report before the House, and copies will be available in the Vote Office. It will also be published on gov.uk.

I am grateful to Mr Hall KC for his report. I will carefully consider its contents and the recommendations he makes and will respond formally in due course.

[HCWS820]

UK-France Migration: Co-operation

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement to update the House on new joint action between the UK and France to tackle dangerous small boat crossings—crossings that undermine both UK and French border security, put lives at risk in the channel, fuel organised crime, and cause disorder and damage, both here in the UK and in France.

The new agreement reached at the summit last week means stronger partnership working with source and transit countries to prevent illegal migration; stronger law enforcement action against criminal smuggler and trafficking gangs who profit from this trade in human lives; action to strengthen the border itself along the French coast and in the channel; a groundbreaking new returns arrangement so, for the first time, people arriving on small boats can be sent back to France; and stronger action here in the UK to stop illegal working and to tackle the long-term system failures that are exploited by criminal gangs to encourage people to travel to the UK. I hope that the whole House will welcome each of those important steps.

Global instability continues to drive irregular and illegal migration towards Europe and towards the UK, and it is exploited and encouraged by criminal gangs who seek to make maximum profit from human misery and insecurity. France faces challenges too, with over 150,000 people claiming asylum there in 2024. The most serious aspect that we face is the dangerous small boat crossings that undermine our border security and put lives at risk. Before 2018, we barely saw anyone trying to cross by boat, but in the years that followed a major criminal industry was allowed to grow and take deep hold along our border. In the space of just five years, the number of small boat crossings increased by more than a hundredfold, from less than 400 in 2018 to over 40,000 by 2023, weakening border security and badly damaging public trust in the state’s ability to manage border control.

For too long, Britain’s response has been underpowered and ineffective, and so too has the co-operation across Europe, letting criminal gangs get away with it and leaving the asylum system in chaos. The co-ordinated work across Europe has been far too weak for far too long, and so too has the work between the UK and our nearest neighbours. As we have set out before, smuggler and trafficking gangs make their money by operating across borders, so Governments need to co-operate across borders to take them down. That had not happened for years in the system we inherited.

Securing UK borders is a fundamental part of the Prime Minister’s plan for change. That is why we are building the foundations of a new international approach, working with countries across Europe and beyond to strengthen and secure our borders, to prevent dangerous and illegal boat crossings and to stop criminal gangs, who are putting lives at risk. Let me take each of the five areas of co-operation in turn.

The first area is upstream co-operation. Much stronger joint action is needed with source and transit countries to prevent dangerous journeys in the first place. We have strengthened the key partnerships with the G7 and the Calais Group, and have established a new joint upstream working group with France—chaired by the Border Security Commander and the Minister of the Interior’s special representative on migration—to target action with source and transit countries, including on prevention campaigns, law enforcement and returns. For example, we are working jointly with the Government of Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government to tackle the Iraqi Kurdish smuggler gangs that stretch their operations between Iraq, northern France and the UK.

Secondly, we are extending stronger law enforcement action against the criminal gangs. We have already introduced the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to introduce counter-terrorism-style powers on people smuggling. We have established the Border Security Command to mobilise UK agencies and funded extra specialist National Crime Agency intelligence and investigations officers, including staff stationed across Europe and in Europol. We also brought together representatives from more than 50 countries and international organisations at the border security summit earlier this year.

In comparison with the year before, we have increased disruptions against more high-end, high-harm targets by nearly a quarter; closed twice as many social media accounts—18,000 social media accounts used by smugglers to sell boat crossings are now down; and increased the cost to gangs of boat and engine packages being delivered to northern France, hitting their business model. That is all work done by the National Crime Agency this year. We are now going further, with additional recruitment of NCA officers and, crucially, a new specialist intelligence and judicial police unit in Dunkirk to speed up the arrest and prosecution of smugglers in France.

Thirdly, we are strengthening the border itself. French actions have prevented 496 boat crossings this year, but 385 boats have crossed. Criminal gangs are operating new tactics, increasing the overcrowding of boats so that more people arrive, loading them in shallow waters and exploiting the French rules that mean authorities have not been able to intervene in the water. Those tactics have driven appalling scenes, with people clambering on to crowded boats in shallow waters, disgraceful violence from gang members towards the French police and migrants, and people being crushed to death in the middle of overcrowded boats. We cannot stand for this.

That is why the new action agreed with France includes establishing a new French Compagnie de Marche of specialist enforcement officers, with stronger public order powers to address increases in violence on French beaches and prevent boat launches before they reach the water. It also includes providing training for additional drone pilots to intercept those launches and, crucially, supporting the new maritime review instigated by the French Minister of the Interior so that they can intervene more effectively, pursuing what last week’s declaration describes as

“novel and innovative approaches to intercept boats, and enhanced Maritime co-operation, to ensure we adapt as the criminal gangs change their approach”.

Meanwhile, we are changing our domestic law through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to criminalise those who endanger people’s lives at sea, so that we can more easily prosecute those who crowd on to overcrowded boats and put other people’s lives at risk. Action will be taken in both French and UK waters.

Fourthly, we are taking new, innovative approaches to returns. Since the election, we have already increased international returns for those with no right to be in the UK, but until now we have not been able to return people who have made these dangerous and illegal boat crossings to other safe countries they have travelled through. Previous Governments tried to achieve this—indeed, they even promised it—but they never secured an agreement to do so. Under the groundbreaking agreement announced by the Prime Minister and President Macron last week, for the first time individuals who arrive in the UK by small boat can be readmitted to France. That is the right thing to do, and is also an important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime groups that are behind these crossings.

We have agreed to establish a safe, reciprocal exchange mechanism for individuals in France who apply with appropriate documentation to be transferred to the UK, subject to clear eligibility criteria and stringent security checks. Transfers to the UK under the new route will match the number readmitted to France on a one-for-one basis. Further details of the scheme will be set out in the immigration rules once final arrangements are in place. This innovative agreement means that people who undertake illegal, dangerous journeys to the UK—putting their own and other people’s lives at risk and paying money to fuel an entire criminal industry—will be returned to France, where the boats set off from. In return, we will take people who apply lawfully and pass security checks, with priority given to those who have a connection with the UK, who are most likely to be refugees, or who are most vulnerable to smuggler gangs.

This is the right thing to do. It establishes the principle that, while the UK will always be ready to play its part alongside other countries in helping those fleeing persecution and conflict, we believe this should be done in a controlled and managed legal way, not through dangerous, illegal, uncontrolled or criminal routes. It is also the first step towards undermining the promises made by criminal gangs when they tell people that if they travel to the UK, they cannot be returned to the continent—now, they can be. We will develop the pilot step by step and will trial different approaches as part of it, varying the numbers and seeking the most effective ways to undermine the gangs, reduce boat crossings and help France to deal with the problems it faces in the Calais region. The Prime Minister and French President have set out their expectation that that pilot will be operationalised in the coming weeks.

Fifthly, we will take stronger action on illegal working and asylum failures here in the UK. For far too long, it has been too easy for people to work illegally in the UK and for employers to exploit them, undercutting responsible businesses. Since the election, we have already increased illegal working raids and arrests by 50%, and have more than tripled the value of employer penalties issued to over £89 million. We have also launched a new surge in enforcement linked to the gig economy, and the borders Bill contains changes to the law to compel companies to conduct proper checks on the right to work. We will also bring forward further reforms to the asylum system to prevent its operation being exploited—either by gangs to encourage travel to the UK, or by people who are here illegally to find unfair ways to stay.

We need to be part of the global response to irregular and illegal migration, not separate from it—working in partnership, not just shouting and pointing at the sea. Everyone knows that there is no single silver bullet to tackle illegal migration and dangerous boat crossings, and that it takes time to unpick the deep roots that gangs have put down and to build the foundations of a new cross-border approach, but that is what we are determined to do. We are committed to stronger borders, to stronger law enforcement in France and in the UK, to increasing returns, and to building the foundations of a new long-term approach where countries co-operate to prevent illegal migration and ensure there is sanctuary for genuine refugees. No one should be making these dangerous boat journeys, which undermine our border security and put lives at risk. That is why this co-operation between the UK and France is so important.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She comes to the Chamber today sounding rather pleased with herself, but I am afraid she has no reason to. A year ago, she promised to smash the gangs—she said again and again that that was her plan. Indeed, it was her only plan, yet today there is no mention of what was once her favourite catchphrase. That is because her claim to smash the gangs has become a joke—an embarrassment to her and to the Government. We warned that law enforcement alone would not be enough, as did the National Crime Agency, but she did not listen, and what then happened?

The 12 months following 5 July last year have been the worst such period in history, with small boat crossings at 44,359—up 40% year on year. The first 13 days of July have also been the worst in history, with 2,510 in less than two weeks—up 213% year on year. This calendar year so far has been the worst in history as well—up 57% on last year. The Home Secretary is setting records, just all the wrong ones. These boat crossings are now the worst ever. Does the Home Secretary accept that she has lost control of our borders and is failing in her most basic duty to protect the United Kingdom?

The Home Secretary says she has a new deal with France, yet President Macron says it needs EU agreement. Is that true? If so, has the EU provided it? A deal must of course involve an agreed number, yet when the Home Secretary is asked, she is unable to say what numbers are involved. Will she now come clean and tell Parliament what number, if any, has been agreed? If there is no agreement with the EU, and no agreed number as part of the deal, then there is no deal at all, only vacuous spin. The only number we have seen reported is just 50 illegal immigrants a week. That number was put to the Prime Minister last Thursday, and he did not deny it. Fifty a week represents only 6% of illegal arrivals, meaning 94% could stay. Does the Home Secretary seriously think that allowing 94% of illegal immigrants to stay will be any kind of deterrent? Her claim to smash the gangs was a gimmick and so is her 6% returns deal.

The truth is this: the only way to fix this is to remove, without judicial process, every single illegal arrival as soon as they get here, either to their country of origin or to a third country. That would be a real deterrent. We saw that approach work in Australia about 10 years ago and such a scheme—[Interruption.] I am glad hon. Members mention Rwanda. Such a scheme for the UK was ready to start in July last year. The previous Government had done all the legal and logistical work needed. All the Home Secretary had to do was press go, but she and the Prime Minister cancelled the scheme just days before it was due to start, and as a result we now see record numbers crossing. Will she now admit that she made a terrible mistake, and will she now start a proper 100% removals deterrent?

The damage done by illegal immigration at this scale is immense. Far from closing asylum hotels as the Government promised, there are now nearly 3,000 more people in asylum hotels than at the time of the last election. I have personally witnessed rampant illegal working from the very hotels that the Home Secretary runs. I saw Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat bikes in the compound of an asylum hotel whose residents have no right to work. Will she at least commit today to ending illegal working from the very hotels that she runs?

We also see reports of migrants based in hotels being charged with serious crimes, including rape and sexual assaults on women and children. Louise Casey has warned that a significant proportion of sexual offences are committed by those seeking asylum—cases like that of 29-year-old Afghan, Sadeq Nikzad, convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl. His defence counsel claimed that he did not understand that was wrong due to cultural differences.

This madness has to stop. The Home Secretary cancelled a proper deterrent plan just days before it was due to start. Her claim to smash the gangs lies in tatters. She has presided over the highest number of illegal small boat crossings in history. Will she now apologise to the House and to the country for her appalling failure?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Home Secretary just wants to pretend that the last eight years never happened. He knows that this crisis—this small boats chaos—went on for 340 weeks under the Tories. During that period, when he was in charge as Immigration Minister, overall migration nearly trebled and the number of small boat crossings increased tenfold. During those 340 weeks when the Tories were in charge, 128,000 people crossed the channel, and how many were returned to France? Zero. How many were sent to Rwanda? He said himself it was zero, because he did not even want to count the four volunteers. He keeps saying that somehow it was ready to start, but if it had been ready to start, the Conservatives would not have called the election. They would have introduced the scheme which had, in fact, been running for more than two years, at a cost of £700 million and with just four volunteers sent.

I can also tell the shadow Home Secretary that since the election this Government have returned more than 35,000 people who have no right to be here. That is a 24% increase in the number of enforced returns compared to the last year in which his party was in charge. It is a 28% increase in the number of failed asylum returns compared to the last year in which his party was in charge.

As for the agreement with France, which he does not seem to want to talk about very much, I asked him about exactly that back in 2020, when I was Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and he was Immigration Minister. I specifically asked:

“what chance do you put on being able to get a bilateral agreement, say with France, for them to take back people who have arrived here from France…?”

He said—this was five years ago—that that was what he was working on. Indeed, he told the Committee:

“one of our priorities will be to reach those agreements and…it is, I think, strongly in the French national interest to agree such a returns agreement… That gives me significant cause for optimism.”

Well, it turns out that he should have been optimistic—about the return of a Labour Government, reaching an agreement where he had failed.

He also said at the time:

“We intend to return as many illegal migrants who have arrived—

by small boats—

as possible… we have flights planned in the coming days to return these individuals back to France and we will be looking to ramp up this activity.”

Well, that was five years ago. The flights never went, and the activity was never ramped up. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), tried to return people to France. The shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), tried to return people to France, and even called for the UK

“to take one asylum seeker”

from France

“in return for one illegal migrant that we return to them. Or indeed more than one.”

As for interception in shallow waters, the right hon. Gentleman said, when he was Immigration Minister:

“Some boats that are just 250 yards away from the French coast have not been stopped by the authorities. This must change.”

I agree, but that was five years ago, and he did not change a thing. The Conservatives never understood that it is not possible to change things simply by jumping up and down and shouting about them. It needs partnership working and hard graft, and that is what this Government have done.

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary on succeeding in agreeing a deal with France. It just shows that treating people with respect can result in positive action, and treating them with contempt, as the Conservatives did throughout this issue, was never going to provide a solution. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that each of those four volunteers whom the Conservative Government paid to be sent to Rwanda was paid, by the British taxpayer, £150,000 to provide free housing, a free university education and free private healthcare? Who approved that funding in the Department?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can confirm that the deal that the previous Government did with Rwanda involved paying £150,000 for every single individual, to cover food, accommodation and healthcare for five years. Those bills continue. A concern was raised by the accounting officer, so a direction had to be given, on the basis that Ministers had been advised that it was not value for money but they continued regardless.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

We all want to stop these dangerous channel crossings, which first ballooned under the former Conservative Government. Cross-border co-operation will be key to achieving that, and clearly a lot of work is needed after the Conservatives ripped up the returns agreement that allowed us to send irregular migrants back to Europe. I was very interested to hear the shadow Home Secretary quote President Macron, but he was a little selective in doing so—he did not mention the section of President Macron’s remarks that attributed the problem to the Brexit deal that the last Conservative Government cooked up.

This deal is a step in the right direction, and I sincerely hope that it works, but people will understandably be sceptical that such a small scheme will act as an effective deterrent at this stage. Questions still need to be answered about how and when the UK and French Governments will decide to scale up the pilot, so I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary.

Of course, deals like this are only part of the solution. The Home Secretary mentioned placing officers within Europol, but will she commit to negotiating a stronger leadership role for the UK in Europol, to make it easier to crack down on the trafficking gangs behind these crossings? Does she acknowledge that we will not be able to fully take the power out of the hands of the gangs until we provide regulated entry to the UK for genuine refugees?

One of the best deterrents to put people off the idea of coming here in the first place is for all asylum applications to be processed quickly, so that those who are granted refugee status can integrate and contribute to our community, and for those with no right to be here to be sent back swiftly. Can the Home Secretary update the House on the average time it takes to process an asylum application after arrival on British shores, and how has that changed over the past year? Until the Government act on these points, I fear that they risk repeating the Conservatives’ mistakes and failing to get to grips with the problem, which is something we all want them to do.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Prime Minister and the French President set out their expectation that we will be able to operationalise this agreement and begin the pilot in the coming weeks. The numbers will vary, and it is a pilot that will need to be developed. We will need to trial different approaches as part of it, and that is the right and sensible approach.

The principle underpinning the agreement is the right one: we should return people who have paid money to criminal gangs in order to come on this dangerous journey in small boats—which puts other people’s lives at risk, as well as their own, and undermines our border security—in exchange for taking people who apply legally, who are more likely to be genuine refugees and who have been through security checks, and prioritising people who have a connection to the UK. It is also a way to help undermine the business model of the criminal gangs, who tell people that there is no way to be returned to France or any other country if they get into one of these dangerous small boats. They use that as part of their advertising, which we should seek to undermine.

The hon. Lady is right to say that we also need stronger law enforcement. We have already been building stronger co-operation, including by setting up the new prosecution and investigation unit in Dunkirk, which will work with our National Crime Agency and our Border Security Command, and we are significantly speeding up asylum decision making to bring the backlog down. We also need action to speed up the appeals process, because there are delays as a result of the broken system that we inherited.

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

As the Home Secretary points out, we did not have small boat crossings 10 years ago, but we left the EU without incorporating a returns agreement into the withdrawal agreement. On a point of clarification, can the Home Secretary confirm that it is completely unprecedented for an EU country to allow returns from outwith the EU’s external borders? I note that it comes on the back of a highly successful state visit by President Macron. We have come a long way from having a Prime Minister question whether France is friend or foe—Macron is our friend, and our foes are the people smugglers. On the pilot, what are the Home Secretary’s parameters for success, how does she envisage it scaling up, and how does she envisage the UK-EU relationship will have to adapt in the future to accommodate it, if successful?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we will want to develop this over time, and we will do so in partnership with France. He is right that we will secure this co-operation together and have an impact together, just as successive Governments over the years have strengthened security co-operation with France—through juxtaposed controls, different border security arrangements, and checks for lorries and clandestine journeys—and that co-operation strengthened our border security. That had just not been done on small boats, and that is what this agreement is all about. It is about building the security co-operation we have had in the past, but not on small boats, and that is now so important. We will build that co-operation, because we will best strengthen our border security by working with countries on the other side of our borders who face exactly the same challenges, and that is far better than just standing on the shoreline and shouting at the sea.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I always try to avoid rhetoric in this matter, and I fully concede—this bit is agreed—that my party lost a significant number of MPs because of our failure to deliver on a number of issues prior to the election. I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Lady said about stronger partnerships, stronger law enforcement action and groundbreaking returns agreement, but does she not recognise that the scale of the problem, as evidenced by the numbers since the general election, and the scale of public concern require a much bigger solution than what is proposed? Without a significant deterrent on a much bigger scale much sooner, she is not going to fix this problem to public satisfaction.

[Yvette Cooper]

No one should be making these dangerous boat crossings, which undermine border security and put lives at risk. We have seen a change in the way the criminal gangs have been operating over the past six months. First, they have increased overcrowding with a substantial increase in the number of people on the boats, which is putting more lives at risk. Secondly, they have exploited the French rules about not intervening in French waters by loading the boats in French waters, which is why we have seen the disgraceful scenes of people crowding on to boats from the water. We have to tackle those issues, which is why the UK is changing our law so we can prosecute people who are endangering other people’s lives by climbing on to overcrowded boats, and it is also why France has instigated a French maritime review so that it can intervene in French waters.

The French Interior Minister and I have been working on these developments over several months, and I think it is right that we build that co-operation. It is also right to say that there is no single silver bullet. We need comprehensive action on every single aspect of this, to make a difference, strengthen our border security and save lives.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure that the Home Secretary shares my frustration that we could have been much further along with a returns agreement, because the shadow Home Secretary—the former Immigration Minister—apparently admitted to a Conservative party members meeting in May that, before we left the European Union, his Government had worked out that we would not be able to return people under the hard Brexit deal they were providing.

Given the progress we have made by getting a returns agreement, could the Home Secretary outline for us what this will mean for somebody applying from France? This is going to be a safe route, and it is therefore very welcome movement for those of us who recognise the horrors in Calais and the limbo we leave people in. It is important to use this to dissuade people from getting on to a dangerous boat, because there is a legal mechanism they can use to be reunited with their families.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend’s question is an important one. Once the final arrangements are ready to operationalise, we will set out in the immigration rules the precise detail of the way in which people will be able to apply from France. They will need to have proper identification and to go through security checks. Once people have applied, we will set prioritisation decisions, including on whether people have connections to the UK, and on the countries from which people are most likely to be refugees or to be targeted by smuggler and trafficking gangs. We will set out that detail in due course. Part of the reason for the one-for-one arrangement is that it has to go alongside returns to France for people who get on illegal boat crossings and end up paying huge amounts of money to fuel the criminal smuggler industry, which will make sure that we simultaneously strengthen our border security and save lives.

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

This is a grubby, grotesque little deal, which in itself trades in lives with the selection of who qualifies for this one in, one out basis. This gimmick means we will now have different classes of the wretched, and it does nothing to address the crisis that compels so many people to make these dangerous journeys in the first place. It is a gimmick doomed to fail and it simply will not work. But there is one thing that could smash the gangs in one simple blow: establish the safe and legal routes, which have worked so perfectly in the past, for people to come to this country.

[Yvette Cooper]

The small boat crossings are dangerous and put lives at risk. We have seen people drown and people crushed to death on overcrowded boats. That is being driven and organised by criminal gangs who will do anything they can to profit from these dangerous journeys. The whole point of having the one-for-one approach with France is that we have an agreement that means we will return people who come on those dangerous boat crossings, who pay money to the criminal gangs, and who, frankly, should be returned or should be part of the returns arrangements. In return, we will take those who apply lawfully through the application process and who have had security checks. I think that principle is the right one. The UK, as we have shown through the Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes, will always do its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict. However, we also think there should be much stronger enforcement, and we should not have the illegal migration that undermines border security and puts lives at risk in the channel.

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

Under the Tories, we had Liz Truss question whether France was actually an ally, so it was nice to hear in President Macron’s words last week that Britain has friends once again. In the 340 weeks that the Conservative party was in charge of the small boats crisis, it sent no one back to France and just four people to Rwanda with cash stuffed in their pockets. Does the Home Secretary agree that the way we get results is by working with international partners, not berating them?

[Yvette Cooper]

I do think we should be working with international partners; that is how we will get co-operation. If criminal gangs operate across borders, then of course we need Governments and law enforcement to co-operate across borders to take those gangs down and to get returns in place. The Conservatives claimed that they were going to get bilateral returns agreements in place: that is what they claimed in 2020; that is what they claimed in 2021; that is what they claimed for years; and that is what they claimed they would seek to do again in 2023. But they failed to do it year after year, because all they did was shout at France and other countries, instead of doing the hard graft to get agreements in place.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

This is about principle and practice. The principle is that every country has the right and indeed the duty to secure its borders, and in practice ours have become porous. I agree with the Home Secretary that global instability continues to drive illegal migration, I agree with her that we need co-operation upstream and I agree with her that previous Governments have done far too little, but the scale of the problem requires more than she is offering today. The trend is up. If it continues, 85,000 people will cross, each one knowing that they are coming here illegally. This requires much more emphatic action. Everyone who comes should be incarcerated and all those who can be returned should be. We must recognise that the asylum system is being gamed on an industrial scale. Will she answer this very straightforward question: what evidence does she have that hostile states and organised criminals are using this as a route to get people to this country to do still more harm?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let us be clear: we need action right across the board, from strengthening prevention—working in partnership with countries like Iraq—right through to law enforcement and increased action on the criminal gangs. We are taking action on border security itself, with action along the French coast and in the channel in French waters, and strengthening the returns arrangements. We are also taking action here in the UK, whether on illegal working or on reforms to the asylum system. We need to be clear that there must be strong standards on issues of criminality: anybody who comes to the UK through whatever route needs to abide by our laws, and that must be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have put in place new measures to strengthen the criminality checks in the asylum system and to have much stronger action as part of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I hope he will support that legislation rather than voting against it.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that we have a Home Secretary who is willing to do what it takes to stop the small boats. The French claim that the ability to work illegally in the UK is what motivates those who are willing to take the dangerous journey across the channel. Does the Home Secretary agree, and will she outline the actions she is taking to crack down on illegal working and destroy those incentives?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. It has been way too easy to work illegally in this country for far too long. That is why, since the election, we have already increased illegal working raids by 50%, increased arrests for illegal working by 50%, and increased the penalties for employers that exploit illegal migration, which undercuts responsible and respectable businesses, by a third. However, we have to go further. We know in particular that illegal migration is being exploited in the gig economy, where there are not proper checks in place. We will therefore bring in new legislation to crack down on illegal working in the gig economy, alongside a surge of immigration enforcement activity and biometric checks that will enable us to use fingerprints to check who people are on the spot. We must have stronger enforcement and stronger rules in place. It is a real shame that the Opposition parties—the Conservatives and Reform—voted against those illegal working rules.

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

Does the Home Secretary agree with President Macron’s analysis last week that the reason people want to come here is that the UK is perceived as being attractive to illegal migrants—what President Macron referred to as “pull factors”, with one of his MPs referring to Britain as “El Dorado”? If the Home Secretary does agree with the French President, what is she doing to reduce those pull factors?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I just set out in the previous answer, I think that it has frankly been too easy to work illegally in this country for too long. We know that the criminal gangs tell people it will be easy to get a job here; they even give people discounts if they will work for those same criminal gangs operating in the UK. We know that that is part of the way the criminal gangs try to advertise and promote their dangerous and illegal business. That is why we cannot stand for illegal working. It is why we are increasing not only the raids but the arrests, which are up by 50% just in the space of this year compared with the previous year, when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. We are also strengthening the law. I really hope he will urge his party to support our Bill, rather than continually voting against it.

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

I welcome the work the Government and the Home Secretary have done to get this arrangement with France and on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which introduces anti-terror-style powers to tackle the crossings. As the Home Secretary has outlined, it is critical that we deal with the delivery companies that continue to hire people who arrive on the boats. She has said that she will introduce legislation to do that and to make that illegal. Can she confirm that that will be robustly implemented? It is these delivery companies—we all know who they are—that are incentivising the boat crossings and, ultimately, threatening our national security.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. We know that although some delivery companies have said that they will do stronger checks, in practice it is just not happening. There are too many cases of our immigration enforcement teams doing raids and finding that the rules are being broken and that people are working who have no right to do so and who are here illegally. That is why we are increasing raids and arrests, and it is why we must change the law so that whether it be delivery companies or other organisations in the gig economy, they have to take responsibility and do not just find that they are making a profit from exploiting illegal migration, which in the end fuels the work of criminal gangs.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

War, persecution and climate change mean that more and more people are fleeing their homes for their own safety. The Home Secretary talks of the need for comprehensive action on every single aspect of this, yet her Government have cut international aid by £6 billion, while the US Government have cut their aid budget so drastically that it could result in 14 million preventable deaths by 2030. Does the Home Secretary not agree that without adequate international aid and co-operation to tackle such factors at their source, we are simply setting ourselves up for more humanitarian crises and more migration pressures?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member will know that we had to take a difficult decision on overseas aid to ensure that we can increase our defence investment, which we need to keep our country safe. She is right that we need to work internationally to prevent dangerous journeys and to make sure that people can get sanctuary and support so that they do not have to make those dangerous journeys in the first place. It is that kind of international co-operation that matters, whether through resettlement schemes such as the one we ran for Ukraine or much more targeted work closer to home.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s action today. She is taking this problem seriously and is producing serious solutions and a serious strategy. It is now 80 days since the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) told the world on social media that,

“The Reform UK policy unit has drafted a comprehensive strategy for the deportation of illegal migrants.”

Has the Home Secretary seen that strategy yet, or indeed any detail of Reform’s plans? The Frenchman Jules Verne wrote that Phileas Fogg travelled the world in 80 days. Does she think that the leader of Reform has perhaps been too busy travelling the world, flogging gold and selling Cameos to produce any such strategy at all?

[Yvette Cooper]

Certainly, the hon. Member for Clacton has been travelling around the world, and sadly he is once again not here in Parliament when we are discussing these issues. If Reform Members are serious about taking action against the criminal gangs, why on earth did they vote against the counter-terrorism powers to go after them in the first place? Sadly, their one in, one out approach seems to simply be about their parliamentary party.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I have been a bit taken aback by the lack of humility shown by the Home Secretary in the face of what has been a catastrophic first 12 months in terms of crossing numbers. It might have been better for her to acknowledge that “smash the gangs”, which she was always told was going to be a complete failure, has indeed been so. I suppose we should be grateful that she has finally reached for the briefing notes left in the Home Office and No. 10—not about a returns agreement but about a swaps agreement. I suppose I offer her congratulations on getting that deal over the line with the French. However, I disagree with her about it not being a silver bullet; I think this has always been the only solution. But she will know that it will be effective only if we can get to a very high percentage of returns to France.

I have two questions. First, what further incentive could she offer to the French to go beyond this relatively small pilot? Given that we are offering swaps and the theory is that no one will then cross, would she be willing to go for a two-for-one swap? Secondly, as she pointed out, the gangs will react, so does she plan to cut a similar deal with the Belgians?

[Yvette Cooper]

I disagree with the right hon. Member about the criminal gangs. Whatever we do, we must have much stronger enforcement on the criminal gangs; otherwise, if they are given free rein to do whatever they want, they will find other ways around any arrangement and other ways to make money. It is crucial that stronger enforcement is part of any action we take against them. The National Crime Agency has delivered a 36% increase in high-impact disruptions in the last 12 months compared with the year before, and has been building that partnership with other European countries to be able to go further.

The right hon. Member has argued previously, when others were not doing so, for one-for-one returns, as well as for innovative approaches. I agree with him, and we want to develop that, but we need to start with a pilot arrangement that allows both the UK and France to trial things that we have never done before. The previous Government always made grand claims that somehow everything would be solved in the next three days, and repeatedly failed because they did not build up the credibility, the plans or a systematic approach, working in partnership. That is what we need to do.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

I applaud the shadow Home Secretary for his valiant attempt to sound outraged. Is not the truth that while the Conservatives picked fights on the world stage, the Government have rebuilt relationships and delivered a groundbreaking returns agreement that they would have given their eye teeth for? Does the Secretary of State agree that while sound and fury may make Conservative Members feel better, it is the Government who are systematically getting on with the job of stopping the boats?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government tried at different stages to do the kinds of things that we are setting out, but they allowed the relationship with France to deteriorate to the point of diplomacy by tweets and social media, which did not get practical agreements in place. The work that we have done provides practical arrangements that we can build on, and we can trial different approaches. That is the best way to strengthen our border security, and it is what successive Governments had done until recent years.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I have never heard such pathetic drivel in all my life as I have from the Home Secretary and her Back Benchers. It is not the people smugglers bringing illegal migrants over the channel but the French warships who transport them halfway and give them to British border security, who bring them to our shores, put them in buses and take them to hotels. The real people smugglers are the French and British authorities. Does the Home Secretary agree that the British Border Force should take these illegal migrants straight back to France?

[Yvette Cooper]

No one should be making these dangerous boat crossings; they undermine border security and put lives at risk. If the hon. Member really cares about stopping boats and stopping the criminals who organise them, why have he and his party repeatedly voted against bringing in counter-terrorism powers to go after the gangs? Why have they repeatedly voted against the new laws on illegal working to clamp down on people in the gig economy? Why has he repeatedly voted against laws to have stronger and higher standards against criminality in our asylum system? Time and again, they vote against because they want not to solve the problem but just to moan about it. They do not actually want to change anything with France—to work to get France to intervene in French waters as the Government have been doing. Instead, all they want to do is shout at the sea.

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

On Friday, the BBC interviewed an Egyptian economic migrant in Calais who said that he had tried and failed four times to cross the channel but, since the Prime Minister’s agreement with President Macron, he was giving up:

“I don’t want to go to Britain any more, because they are making it much harder for us. Every time we try, they deflate our boats and remove the engine. If they make it even harder, I’ll stop trying.”

Does that not prove that this new deal to send migrants back to France can be a genuine deterrent, unlike the last Government’s pathetic attempt to claim credit?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. What we need is action on the boats in shallow waters as well as action against the criminal gangs and to prevent people reaching the French coast in the first place. We also need the ability to return people to France—as part of this new agreement—and stronger action to stop people working illegally in the UK. We need action in each of those areas at every stage. That is hard graft—it is not about gimmicks—but that is how we will strengthen our border security and save lives.

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

The Home Secretary is an intelligent woman, and she must realise that this UK-France migration co-operation is a drop in the ocean, given that since it was announced, another 1,375 people have made that dangerous and illegal crossing. She might not like Rwanda, but can she confirm that one of the other things she is working on is finding another safe third country where 100% of people who cross the channel illegally can be processed?

[Yvette Cooper]

The agreement that we have reached is a fundamentally different approach; it is groundbreaking. It is something that I have discussed with the Interior Minister in France for many months. It is also something that UK Governments have been working to try to do for around five years but without achieving it. This is a first step, but it is an important one in terms of establishing the principles around returns and around stronger law enforcement co-operation. We have also said that we will work with other European countries on looking at different approaches, including returns hubs and other innovative and novel approaches. There are other European countries who are interested in working with us on similar and different kinds of approaches, and we will continue to do that.

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

In her earlier remarks, the Home Secretary referenced the memo that the shadow Justice Secretary wrote in March 2023, proposing exactly the kind of one in, one out deal that this Government have now secured. I was struck by the assertion in that memo that that kind of scheme would

“quickly break the business model of the smugglers”.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the Conservatives look utterly partisan, petty and two-faced as they now decide to oppose in public exactly the kind of deal that they were arguing for in private when in government?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There are things that the Conservatives tried and failed to deliver when they were in government that they now suddenly want to oppose. In the end, that is the hole they have got themselves into. Instead of wanting to be practical and serious about measures that can make a difference, taken step by step, they just want to oppose everything. They fail to solve the problem, and just moan about it instead.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I welcome these important first steps announced by the Home Secretary, as well as her commitment to working with wider European partners, but what safeguards have been put in place to ensure that international law is respected and that the rights of genuine asylum seekers are protected?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Member will be aware, France is a country that abides by international law and with which we have a long history of co-operation in a whole series of areas around security and different policy issues over very many years; all of them are compliant with international law and we will continue to ensure that that is the case.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I applaud the Home Secretary for the months of hard work and serious negotiation that have resulted in this deal. We now have the real deterrent that the Conservatives failed for many years to secure for my constituents and others across the country. These deals make it more important that we keep pushing the strength of our domestic response to the smuggling gangs and illegal working, so I have two questions. First off, can the Home Secretary confirm to my constituents that the Metropole hotel in my constituency will be closed as an asylum hotel by this Government before the next election? Also, can she confirm when she expects the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to become law, and would it help if the Conservatives and Reform supported the Bill so that we can get the job done?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are committed to ending asylum hotels over the course of this Parliament. We will also continue to roll out this pilot programme so that it can be developed to tackle both returns and dangerous boat crossings. As for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, it is really important. It contains a whole series of really important measures, and we would be able to get it through Parliament much, much faster if the Conservatives decided to support it.

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

I fear it is another week, another fig leaf from this Government on small boat crossings, which are up 40% under Labour. I hope this French deal works, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) says, the numbers of returns need to be very substantial, not just a modest pilot. We are also now waiting to hear from the EU about whether it will approve this very modest UK-French migration deal. We know from experience that the EU tends not to give such approval without extracting a heavy price, so can the Home Secretary guarantee that the UK will not sign up to any element of the EU pact on migration and asylum, when it launches next year, that could see us accepting much larger asylum transfers from the continent?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been working with the EU Commission, as has France, and we have shared details on these proposals over many months as we have been developing them. The EU Commission has been very supportive. Indeed, that is why the UK-EU reset explicitly says that the EU Commission—the EU—will support action to tackle the dangerous boat crossings in the channel and to prevent illegal migration. This is something that we have worked on for some considerable time. We will continue to develop those partnerships with France and to ensure that we work closely with other countries, because the same challenges with criminal gangs operating are shared across Europe. That is why we need to act together.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. It was a real pleasure to hear President Macron’s address last week with Members from across this House and the other place. Does she agree that it does not take Jules Maigret to realise that to tackle this issue effectively and humanely, we must work with our French allies? I think back to the terrible image of that boy dead on that beach. We should not forget the human cost of these small boat crossings.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the stories that still haunts me is of a little girl who was crushed to death in one of the small boats because of the scale of overcrowding and the way these boats are, frankly, dangerous. As well as the risk of drowning, we have seen people crushed as a result of overcrowding. That is why we must do everything we can to prevent these dangerous crossings and ensure that across the world there are systems of sanctuary for those who have fled persecution. The criminal gangs exploit people’s desperation and they should not be allowed to do so.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Will the Secretary of State explain to us what happens if one in, one out works? If the goal is to stop small boat crossings and it is successful, the outside of the equation drops to zero, which means the inside of the equation also needs to drop to zero and the UK will have got rid of the small sliver of a safe and regulated route scheme that it has just created. Does the Secretary of State not think that, if we did that, it would be more likely to push people back to the small boats and people smugglers?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am not fully sure about the logic of the hon. Member’s argument. She seems to be arguing that if the scheme works, it will not work.

[Carla Denyer]

indicated assent.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is what she seems to be arguing.

Look, I think we should be doing everything to prevent these dangerous boat crossings. We will continue, as we have done through the Ukraine scheme and through the support for Hong Kong, to ensure that the UK does its bit to help those fleeing persecution. For example, we made reference in the immigration White Paper to refugee study opportunities at our universities. These dangerous boat crossings are so damaging; they really undermine our border security and the credibility of the whole system, so we must ensure we take action to prevent them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon. I shall allow a few moments for the Front Benchers to swap over.

UK-France Migration Co-operation

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Friday 11th July 2025 Written Statements

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

Yesterday, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the French Republic announced a first-of-its-kind agreement, which will be operationalised in the coming weeks, between the UK and France to return people who have arrived on small boats as part of a new one-for-one pilot agreement to prevent small boat crossings.

The initiative will help undermine the organised criminal gangs business model. This pilot will enable the readmission of small boat arrivals from the UK to France and, in return, an equal number of people will be able to come to the UK from France through a new legal route. These will need to be fully documented, subject to strict security checks and only those who have not attempted illegal entry to the UK will be eligible.

This controlled and managed pilot will be reviewed and refined over the course of the pilot.

This groundbreaking initiative is a pivotal moment in a new phase of UK-France co-operation and comes alongside the French maritime review on operations in French waters.

The UK and France recognise there is no single silver bullet to tackle illegal migration and dangerous boat crossings and this pilot forms part of a multi-step strategy—starting with our upstream co-operation, our two countries are working together through the new joint upstream working group, chaired by the Border Security Commander and the Minister of Interior’s special representative on migration. We will scale up operations, enhance intelligence sharing, and explore how we can strengthen our returns procedures. We are targeting from source to transit countries to deter people from making these perilous journeys. We are strengthening our law enforcement partnership to disrupt the criminal gangs and enhancing our joint maritime effort.

Law enforcement will be bolstered to be at the heart of our activities in France, this includes a new specialist unit—Compagnie de Marche; a new specialist judicial and police unit in Dunkirk and Lille—the Groupe d’Appui Operationnel to speed up arrests and prosecutions; and increased capacity in Police Nationale.

As part of this transformed approach, we have also been working closely with France on enhancing maritime co-operation and supporting their review through resources, equipment and expertise. The ongoing maritime review is a big step, and this shift will make it increasingly difficult for smugglers to launch boats and put lives at risk.

No one should be making these dangerous boat crossings which undermine our border security and put lives at risk.

This new co-operation with France goes to show how this Government are taking action to secure our borders and deliver our plan for change.

[HCWS811]

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

10. What recent progress her Department has made on improving neighbourhood policing.

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

I join you, Mr Speaker, in remembering the 52 people who never came home on that terrible day, as we remember the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 London terrorist attacks, and remember too all those whose lives were changed that day. I will say more on this matter during topicals.

The Government are rebuilding neighbourhood policing after it was decimated under the previous Government. This year we are putting 3,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on the beat, backed by £200 million of additional funding and detailed plans drawn up by police forces for increased patrols in town centres this summer.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Special constables play a vital role in visible community policing, but the number of specials dropped by over 700 between 2023 and 2024, and we lost one in four in the same period in my constituency of Chichester, which is represented by Sussex police. Will the Home Secretary consider practical incentives such as council tax relief or free local travel, like those that the Met police currently have, to support recruitment and retention of those specials?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Member’s point about specials. They play an extremely important role and the drop in the number of specials across the country in the years before the ones to which she refers was even steeper. I am pleased that Sussex police are getting not just 43 additional neighbourhood police officers, but a further 21 specials into neighbourhood teams this year. We will continue to look at what more we can do to increase support for specials and get more on the beat.

[Chris Webb]

Last week I joined Blackpool police and our police and crime commissioner, Clive Grunshaw, under the iconic Blackpool tower to launch the safer streets summer initiative in Blackpool. This has coincided with delivering the guarantee that every community in Blackpool will now have a named police officer and PCSO, which has been welcomed across the community. Can the Home Secretary confirm that my constituents will soon see more visible policing and regular foot patrols in our town centre, and, crucially, start to feel safer and more confident on the streets of Blackpool?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, and he and I have talked to shop managers in his constituency about the importance of tackling town centre crime. It is why Lancashire police are getting an additional 83 police officers and PCSOs into neighbourhood teams this year. I strongly welcome the work they are doing as part of the Government’s safer streets summer initiative to tackle shop theft and street assaults; doing so can make so much difference to keeping people safe.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

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

May I associate myself and my Committee with your words earlier, Mr Speaker, regarding the 20th anniversary that we are marking today?

Live facial recognition technology is an effective tool in community and neighbourhood policing. We know that is being used effectively by the Metropolitan police, but other police forces are nervous because they do not believe that the statutory underpinning is in place. Can the Home Secretary provide some reassurance about what the Government will do to make sure this technology can be used effectively?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Committee Chair is right that live facial recognition can play a role in keeping communities safe. As a result, the Minister for Policing has been meeting not just police forces but other organisations to ensure that we can draw up a new framework to give all police forces the confidence to use facial recognition in the best way in order to keep communities safe.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

We need good community policing, but we also need good senior leadership teams in our forces. A recent review of Warwickshire police showed the leadership and the force management need improvement, and that its response times were inadequate. Would the Home Secretary look into Warwickshire police?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to see standards raised across policing and across all police forces. That is why the police reform White Paper will set out new measures to improve performance management across all police forces. Warwickshire is getting an additional 22 police officers, PCSOs and specials on to the streets.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in marking the anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings? Our thoughts are with the victims and families, and all who did all they could to help those in need.

Yesterday, Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley called the spending review “disappointing”, highlighting that he is being forced to cut 1,700 officers and staff. Policing may not be a priority for this Labour Government, but the last Government put a record number of police on our streets. Will the Home Secretary commit to keeping total number of police officers above 147,746, as it was under the last Government—yes or no?

[Yvette Cooper]

Unfortunately, the trouble is that actually the Conservatives did not put police on the streets. They may have tried to reverse the massive cuts that they had made to policing after 2010, but they did not put police on the streets. Neighbourhood policing was slashed under the Conservatives and some areas saw neighbourhood policing halve as a result. I am glad to say that this year the Metropolitan police will put 470 additional neighbourhood police on the streets, as a result of the support that they have been given.

[Matt Vickers]

I think that was a failure to commit to that total number. During the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill, we asked the Government to stop our police having to investigate playground squabbles and hurty words online as non-crime hate incidents, and now senior police officers are joining that call. Merseyside chief constable, Serena Kennedy, has said:

“Non-crime hate incidents are having a disproportionate impact on trust and confidence in policing”.

I realise that U-turns are quite fashionable for the Government, so will the Home Secretary now finally scrap non-crime hate incidents and save 60,000 hours of police time?

[Yvette Cooper]

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that police forces are following the guidance that the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), drew up on this issue. We have a review that is happening under the College of Policing at the moment, but the shadow Minister refers to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is introducing new measures on stalking, spiking, respect orders, e-bikes, off-road bikes and a whole serious of different issues, and which sadly the Conservatives voted against—so much for caring about tackling crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The best community policing is embedded within communities, responding to their needs. Whether it is attacks on Jewish-owned businesses or hateful chants at music festivals, there are too many sobering reminders of the reality of the antisemitism that too many within the Jewish community across the UK are facing right now. Home Office figures have shown that religious hate crimes are at record highs, and that the number of hate crimes specifically targeting Jewish people has more than doubled. Everyone deserves to feel safe in our society, and that must include British Jewish communities, so what steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that police have the training and resources needed to effectively tackle antisemitic hate crimes, while supporting survivors?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the appalling increase in antisemitism, antisemitic hate crime and assaults that took place after the events in the middle east. She will know that, in order to tackle antisemitism, we and the police work very closely with the Community Security Trust and we are introducing new measures to deal with intimidating protests outside synagogues.

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

3. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of integrating community policing and neighbourhood health teams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What recent progress her Department has made on improving neighbourhood policing in Leigh and Atherton constituency.

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

The Government are introducing a neighbourhood policing guarantee, which means that all communities will have named and contactable officers from the end of this month, and we are expanding neighbourhood policing, including by delivering 176 new neighbourhood officers this year for the Greater Manchester police force, which covers the Leigh and Atherton constituency.

[Jo Platt]

As a proud Co-op Member, I commend the long-standing campaign for better protections for retail workers. USDAW’s National Retail Workers’ Day, which took place this weekend, highlights the essential role that retail plays in all our communities. Will the Minister join me in thanking retail workers in Leigh and Atherton and across the UK? Will she commit to strong, visible neighbourhood policing in our towns, which is crucial to protecting them from abuse, to ensure that workers can work safely on the frontline?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking shop workers in her constituency and right across the country, who were often on the frontline during the covid pandemic. Sadly, during that period and since then, they have seen a disgraceful increase in assaults and abuse. We cannot stand for that, which is why we are not only introducing stronger neighbourhood policing—particularly in town centres—but bringing in the new law on assaults against shop workers as part of the Crime and Policing Bill. What a shame the Conservative party voted against it.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

14. Whether she has had discussions with the Scottish Government on the national inquiry into grooming gangs.

--- Later in debate ---

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

16. What steps her Department is taking to stop small boat crossings.

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

Small boat crossings undermine border security and put lives at risk. The criminal gangs have adapted their tactics to exploit French rules that prevent the authorities from intervening in French waters. The French Minister of the Interior and I agree that this needs to change. He has instigated a major maritime review to change tactics and operations, and we want to see these changes in place as soon as possible.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I agree with the Home Secretary that that would be a major step forward. Does she agree with me that, on average, well over 1,000 people have been crossing the channel each week this year, and that there is no way any form of court procedures can keep pace with that? Does she therefore agree that nothing other than prevention, as she has described, interception or, as a last resort, detention and return can possibly be successful?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the right hon. Member that we need stronger action to prevent the boat crossings in the first place, which is why we are working closely with France both on strengthening law enforcement, with a new law enforcement and investigations unit in Dunkirk, and on the issues of maritime tactics, because we need those interventions in French waters.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The small boats crisis is one of the single biggest issues that my constituents raise with me, and although the Government have made progress on returns, crossings are still happening. What assurances can the Home Secretary give my constituents that these gangs will be dismantled and that the crossings will stop?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to refer both to returns—we have increased returns of failed asylum seekers by more than 20% since the election—and to the action against the criminal gangs. We know that there are Iraqi Kurdish gangs in particular operating in northern France, so we have a new agreement in place with the French Government, the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government, to pursue those gangs.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

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

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

On 7 July 2005, terrorists attacked London’s transport network at King’s Cross, Russell Square, Edgware Road, Aldgate and Tavistock Square. Fifty-two people, who were travelling by tube and bus across the capital, never came home. We remember them and the loved ones they left behind, and all those who faced terrible injuries and endured the trauma of that day, and we remember the incredible bravery and courage of those who responded—the emergency service workers and the fellow passengers who saved lives that day. In the words of the King, this was an act of senseless evil, but he also reminds us that we must

“remember the countless stories of extraordinary courage and compassion”

as

“the very best of humanity in the face of the very worst.”

I want to thank not just those who responded that day but those who have continued to work tirelessly in the two decades since against Islamist extremist terrorism, against other increasingly complex terror and national security threats, in counter-terror policing, in the security and intelligence agencies, and on prevention. Most importantly of all, this is about all of us, as we remember how our capital and our country came together across communities and across faiths to ensure that we never let hatred win.

[Liz Jarvis]

I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s remarks. Eastleigh police station was closed in 2019 after 95 years of service. In 2023, the Hampshire police and crime commissioner promised that a new station would be opening within 12 months, but we still do not have one. Does the Secretary of State agree that my constituents deserve a new police station?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Member will know, decisions about where police stations are located are for the local force, the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner. She will welcome the news that Hampshire is getting 65 additional neighbourhood police officers, who will be out on the beat this year as a result of the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

T2.   I join colleagues in paying tribute to all those affected by the 7/7 attacks. In Huddersfield, new neighbourhood policing teams are making a difference in restoring safety to our town centres, with 12 additional officers for the team. I welcome the 6.8% funding uplift received by West Yorkshire police this year, but given the persistent challenges that town centres face—including violent and knife crime, which we have seen in Huddersfield—will the Secretary of State update the House on how the Government will continue to support neighbourhood policing and ensure that forces such as West Yorkshire have the long-term resources that they need to keep communities safe?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that we need the additional neighbourhood policing in West Yorkshire. I welcome the 12 additional officers in her constituency, the 100 additional neighbourhood police officers across West Yorkshire and, of course, the additional police officers in Pontefract and Castleford town centres. We have made it clear to police forces across the country that the focus this summer needs to be on tackling town centre crime.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s remarks about the terrorist atrocities perpetrated on 7/7. The 52 victims and their families of course remain in our prayers. The whole House will want to send thanks to the emergency services for what they did on that day and what they do every day.

It is now clear that the Home Secretary has lost control of our borders. So far, 2025 has been the worst year in history when it comes to illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Her claim to be smashing the gangs is clearly laughable. The French are having almost no effect, despite spending hundreds of millions of pounds, and the press report that not much will change in the negotiations this week. Returns of small boat arrivals are down, representing only 5% of overall arrivals, so will—

[Chris Philp]

I am, Mr Speaker. Will the Home Secretary finally admit that the only way to fix this situation is for there to be a removals deterrent whereby every single illegal immigrant is immediately removed?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Home Secretary seems to have forgotten that in the short period for which he was immigration Minister, net migration near-trebled and the number of small boats went up tenfold. Not only that, but the funding for France that he has referred to was agreed by his Government when he was at the Home Office. If he really wanted to see serious action against small boats, why did he vote against counter-terror powers for smuggler gangs, against clamping down on illegal working in the gig economy, and against stronger action to stop those dangerous crossings?

[Chris Philp]

The Home Secretary talks about stopping those dangerous crossings, but there have been record numbers on her watch as Home Secretary.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the so-called “Police Anti-Racism Commitment”, which is itself flagrantly racist? It says that the racial equity commitment means

“not…treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”.

It says that the police should treat people differently in order to artificially engineer equality of policing outcomes. Does she agree that that is itself flagrantly racist? The police should treat everyone the same. Will she call on the National Police Chiefs’ Council to cancel the commitment? If it will not, will she legislate to give herself the powers?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the shadow Home Secretary knows, the police’s oath makes it clear that they have to police without fear or favour, and that is what they do right across the country. It is a shame that he will not support the police in the difficult job that they do, just as the Conservatives voted against cracking down on off-road bikes, against new spiking and stalking laws, and against respect orders. They are against supporting our police.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T3. Does the Home Secretary agree with Labour police and crime commissioners that the money allocated by the Chancellor at the spending review is insufficient to deliver the Government’s policing priorities?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have provided an additional £200 million for neighbourhood policing as part of more than £1 billion of additional funding for police forces across the country. That is how we are putting an additional 3,000 neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers on our streets this year, after the decimation of neighbourhood policing under the Conservatives.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

T5.   I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s comments on 7/7. Recently, the town of Prudhoe was shocked when Islamophobic graffiti was found on a building. Such graffiti has no place in Prudhoe, my constituency, Northumberland or this country. Can the Home Secretary assure me that upholding the safety and security of everyone in rural communities, no matter where they are from or what their background, is of the utmost importance to this Government?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. That sort of graffiti and serious hate crime divides communities and needs to be taken seriously by police across the country. It is one of the reasons we are strengthening the law to give the police stronger powers to prevent intimidating protests around not just synagogues but mosques.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

T7.   My thoughts are with the family of Jayesh Pitrola. Hertfordshire’s policing budget already faces a £7 million shortfall, and the recent spending review contained no direct funding from the Home Office to address that. Will the Home Secretary reassure my constituents, as well as our police and crime commissioner Jonathan Ash-Edwards, that Hertfordshire will benefit from more police officers without further local tax rises being required?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The number of small boat crossings is driving people mad and eroding support for the Labour Government, just as it eroded support for the Conservatives. I worry for the Labour Government; I want them to do better on this, for all our sakes. Have not our French friends got a point about this country being uniquely attractive to illegal asylum seekers? We do not have identity cards, and we do not do what the Belgians do, which is to refuse to put them in reception centres. Can we make a study of what every other member of the Council of Europe is doing, and replicate the strongest actions, so that this is not the most attractive country for illegal asylum seekers?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the right hon. Member that we need to take action on a whole range of things. That includes action in France, further action on the network of criminal gangs, action on the water, and action to tackle illegal working and reform the asylum system in the UK. We inherited a system in which there was not enough action on illegal working; that is why we have ensured a 50% increase in raids and arrests. We will also bring forward more reforms on asylum.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T10. To what extent does the Minister agree that reform of the European convention on human rights, which can block us from deporting some foreign criminals, including paedophiles, should be a priority for the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Over the past 14 years, police forces have faced significant cuts to personnel and resources. While many areas are returning to 2010 staffing levels, the west midlands still has 540 fewer officers. I support the efforts of the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster. How can we address the funding gap caused by an outdated national formula that has disadvantaged my Dudley constituents?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for policing in her constituency. I hope she will welcome the increase for the west midlands of over 300 neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs. It comes at a time when we are putting 3,000 more neighbourhood police on the beat. We are also bringing in: new laws on off-road bikes and town centre crime; a ban on machetes, zombie knives and ninja swords; domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms; and new protections against terrorism for venues. That is action across the board to keep our communities safe.

Security Service: Evidence

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Written Statements

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

The purpose of this statement is to provide an update to the House on MI5’s correction of previously incorrect evidence that it provided to the High Court, the special advocates, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in relation to the case of agent X. I first notified the House about this matter in my written ministerial statement [Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 19WS.].

The High Court yesterday made its judgment regarding MI5’s provision of incorrect evidence, in which it had wrongly told the Court that MI5 had never previously confirmed that agent X was a covert human intelligence source. In fact, it had done so on more than one occasion.

The Court has concluded that the High Court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the associated special advocates were misled by MI5. It criticised MI5 for providing evidence in “a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way” and it also concluded that—once it had been determined that the evidence given to the Court was incorrect—the subsequent investigations carried out suffered from serious procedural deficiencies.

In February, the director general of MI5 publicly apologised to the courts for MI5’s submission of incorrect evidence, and this unreserved apology by MI5 was made again during the court proceedings and has rightly been repeated again yesterday.

I remain deeply concerned that inaccurate evidence was provided to the High Court and Investigatory Powers Tribunal. This was a serious failing by MI5.

The Government accept the High Court’s conclusion that a “further, robust and independent investigation” should take place. I will provide further details to the House in due course.

I have also asked the Attorney General to conduct an internal review of how evidence from MI5 should be prepared and presented in future, to respond to the Court’s specific findings on witness statements in this regard. Alongside this I have asked my officials to review the wider issues raised by this case.

The vital work MI5 does every day keeps our country safe and saves lives in the face of myriad threats. We owe them a debt of gratitude for the work they do. But that is also why it is essential that they always maintain the highest of standards and rigour, including in responding to the courts.

Internal processes at MI5 must improve, starting with the implementation of all recommendations made so far in relation to this case. Director general Sir Ken McCallum has initiated a wide-ranging learning and response programme within MI5, including professional culture to ensure that all its staff—who go above and beyond every day to protect the UK and its citizens—are receptive and thoughtful in response to challenge, and fully understand and value their responsibilities towards oversight bodies. This work will be assured by an external reviewer reporting directly to me.

MI5’s provision of incorrect evidence also arose in the context of legal proceedings in front of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal relating to accusations that agent X committed acts of domestic abuse against their partner, known as “Beth”. Given those proceedings are still ongoing, I am unable to comment on them. However, as I set out in my previous statement, the Government are clear that all organisations must have robust safeguarding policies under continuous review and must take any allegation of domestic abuse extremely seriously. Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for this Government and we will use every tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence. The public and Parliament must have the highest confidence in the processes in place to protect the most vulnerable and protect those most at risk in society

[HCWS775]

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.