The comments made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 1 November 2022.
No Home Secretary serious about public safety or national security would use the language Suella Braverman did the day after a petrol bomb attack on a Dover centre.
But that’s the point. She isn’t serious about any of those things
Ramps up rhetoric because has no answers.
The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Yesterday’s petrol bomb attack on the Western Jet Foil Centre was truly appalling. I am sure the whole House will condemn it in the strongest possible terms. I echo the Home Secretary’s tribute to the emergency services and Border Force staff who responded. However, I must ask her: can she tell me whether counter-terror police and counter-extremism units are involved in the investigation? It does not make sense for them not to be, so why are they not?
I turn to the dreadful conditions at Manston. Four thousand people are now on a site designed to accommodation 1,600 people, with some families there for weeks. Conditions there have been described as inhumane, with risks of fire, disorder and infection, there are confirmed diphtheria outbreaks, reports of scabies and MRSA outbreaks, outbreaks of violence and untrained staff. The Home Secretary said nothing about what she was doing to address those immediate public health crises or the issues of untrained staff.
Behind those problems are deeper failures in the Government’s policies on asylum and channel crossings. Decision making has collapsed: the Home Office has taken just 14,000 initial asylum decisions in the past 12 months, compared with 28,000 six years ago. Some 96% of the small boat arrivals last year have still not had a decision and initial decisions alone are taking more than 400 days on this Conservative Government’s watch. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and changes to immigration rules have added further bureaucracy and delays, leading to tens of thousands more people waiting in asylum accommodation and more than £100 million extra on asylum accommodation bills because the Government’s policies are pushing up the use of hotels and the increase in delays?
There has also been a total failure to prevent a huge proliferation of gangs in the channel. Why has the Home Secretary refused our calls for a major new National Crime Agency unit with hundreds of additional specialist officers to work with Europol and others to crack down on the gangs, as well as the urgent work needed with France to get a proper agreement in place?
On the Rwanda plan, can the Home Secretary confirm that she has spent an extra £20 million, on top of the £120 million already spent on a policy that she has herself described as “failing” and that her officials have described as “unenforceable” and having a “high risk of fraud”? Is it not now time to drop that unethical and unworkable scheme and to put the money into tackling the backlogs and the criminal gangs instead?
Let me ask the Home Secretary about her own decisions. There are very serious allegations now being reported that the Home Secretary was warned by officials and other Ministers that she was acting outside the law by failing to provide alternative accommodation. Can she confirm that she turned down contingency plans that she was offered that would have reduced overcrowding, as the reports say? There are also legal obligations, including under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Asylum Support (Amendment) Regulations 2018. Can the Home Secretary confirm that she was advised repeatedly that she was breaking the law by failing to agree to those plans?
One of the meetings on Manston was on 19 October. Can the Home Secretary confirm that she refused those proposals on that date—the same day that she broke sections 2.3 and 1.4 of the ministerial code? Can she tell us whether, in fact, she breached the ministerial code, which provides for Ministers’ abiding by the law, three times in a single day? How is anyone supposed to have confidence in her as a Home Secretary given those serious issues?
The Home Secretary referred in her statement to security checks. Those are very important, but her statement is undermined by her own disregard for security. Her letter today makes it clear that the incident over which she resigned was not a one-off and that, contrary to her previous claims that she reported the breach “rapidly” as soon as she realised, she instead had to be challenged several times by one of her colleagues. She has also not answered the crucial questions about security breaches while she was Attorney General. Can she tell us whether she was involved in a leak to The Daily Telegraph, reported in that paper on 21 January, on information about Attorney General action on a case involving the security service? Has she sent any other Government documents by WhatsApp, Telegram or other social media?
It has been less than a week since the Home Secretary was reappointed and less than a fortnight since she was first forced to resign for breaching the ministerial code, and every day since her reappointment there have been more stories about possible security or ministerial code breaches. How is anybody supposed to have confidence in her, given the serious responsibilities of the Home Secretary to stand up for our national security, for security standards and for public safety?
The Prime Minister promised that this would be a Government of “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. Is the Home Secretary not letting everyone down and failing on all those counts?
Suella Braverman
I will pick up on some of the right hon. Lady’s points, but I will not comment on any details relating to the case in question or to the individual under consideration. There has been clear work afoot with the National Crime Agency and all partners to try to tackle the problem of illegal migration. I am very encouraged by the relationship that we have built with the French, and I am grateful to the French authorities for their real commitment to, and work on, tackling this problem.
As I made clear in my statement, on no occasion did I block hotels or veto advice to procure extra and emergency accommodation. The data and the facts are that, on my watch, since 6 September, over 30 new hotels were agreed, which will bring into use over 4,500 additional hotel bed spaces. Since the start of October, it has been agreed that over 13 new hotels will provide over 1,800 additional hotel bed spaces. Also since 6 September, 9,000 migrants have left Manston, many of them heading towards hotel accommodation. Those are the facts; I encourage the right hon. Lady to stick to the facts, and not fantasy. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Lady raised other points. My letter to the Home Affairs Committee, sent today, transparently and comprehensively addresses all the matters that she has just raised. I have been clear that I made an error of judgment. I apologised for that error; I took responsibility for it; and I resigned. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Does the House want to hear what the Home Secretary has to say?
Suella Braverman
I apologised for the error, I took responsibility, and I resigned for the error, but let us be clear about what is really going on here. The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion on our southern coast, and which party is not. Some 40,000 people have arrived on the south coast this year alone. For many of them, that was facilitated by criminal gangs; some of them are actual members of criminal gangs, so let us stop pretending that they are all refugees in distress. The whole country knows that that is not true. It is only Opposition Members who pretend otherwise.
We need to be straight with the public. The system is broken. [Interruption.] Illegal migration is out of control, and too many people are more interested in playing political parlour games and covering up the truth than solving the problem. I am utterly serious about ending the scourge of illegal migration, and I am determined to do whatever it takes to break the criminal gangs and fix our hopelessly lax asylum system. That is why I am in government, and why there are some people who would prefer to be rid of me. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I can hear who is making the noise, and it will be a long time before they are called to ask a question.
Suella Braverman
Let them try. I know that I speak for the decent, law-abiding, patriotic majority of British people from every background who want safe and secure borders. Labour is running scared of the fact that this party might just deliver them.
The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 26 October 2022.
My questions are about security breaches and the protection of our national security. They are questions to the Home Secretary, who was here just five minutes ago and who then left.
Yesterday the Prime Minister promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”, yet the Government have discarded the ministerial code and reappointed someone who breached core professional standards and has now run away from basic accountability to this House. It is the same old Tory chaos, and it is letting the country down.
I have questions for the Home Secretary that the Government need to answer. The Home Secretary accepted that she had sent an official document via her personal email to someone who was not authorised to see it. Is that the only time she has done that? Has she shared other documents, or other sensitive information? The Home Secretary is responsible for national security, so has the Home Office, the Cabinet Office or the Security Service now undertaken an investigation of her security breaches to establish how many others there have been? If not, may I urge the Minister to ensure that that happens as a matter of urgency?
What security clearance has the Home Secretary been given? Does she still have access to the most sensitive documents and information, and did the Cabinet Secretary warn against her reappointment? She has been Attorney General, she has been a Minister on and off for four years, so she knows the rules about Government documents, yet she sent one to her own private email, to someone outside the Government, and also copied it by accident to someone else entirely. How is anyone supposed to believe that she is such a novice that she did not know exactly what she was doing, and if she really is that much of a novice, why on earth are the rest of us supposed to trust her with our national security? It has been reported that she sent this as an error of judgment because she was tired after going on an early-morning raid. Is the Home Office just supposed to block her phone and email if she has been up half the night because she might do stupid things while she is tired? There are suggestions that the Home Secretary while she was Attorney General was investigated for a leak of information relating to the Security Service; is that true?
The Minister is a former policing Minister; does he think that if police officers breached their code of ethics and were sacked or forced to resign, they should then be reappointed to their jobs six days later because they said sorry, or is it just one rule for the Cabinet and another for everyone else? Everyone knows this was a grubby deal to get a coronation, to put party before country, but national security is too important for this.
Jeremy Quin
The Prime Minister has made it clear that this Government will act with professionalism, integrity and accountability; that is exactly what this Government will be doing. As the right hon. Lady will be aware, I cannot comment on what the Cabinet Secretary may or may not do; that is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary. On the speculation the right hon. Lady raised—I am not going to comment on speculation either; the right hon. Lady would not expect me to do so.
At the end of the day, it is very simple: the Home Secretary made a mistake, and has acknowledged that she made a mistake, but she offered her resignation and stood down. The Prime Minister has looked again, and has decided, as is his right, that she can return to Government. I believe in redemption; I hope the right hon. Lady can as well. The Home Secretary is busy today, doing the job of the Home Secretary: keeping our borders secure and helping the police do their job—and I am sure that the right hon. Lady welcomes, as I do, the fact that we now have over 15,000 additional police officers, delivering day in, day out for the country. That is what this Government can be relied upon to do.
The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 20 October 2022.
I notice that the Home Secretary is not in his place this morning, unless the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), has been appointed Home Secretary in the last few hours. To be honest, nothing would surprise us at the moment, because this is total chaos. We have a third Home Secretary in seven weeks. The Cabinet was appointed only six weeks ago, but the Home Secretary was sacked, the Chancellor was sacked and the Chief Whip was sacked and then unsacked. We then had the unedifying scenes last night of Conservative MPs fighting like rats in a sack. This is a disgrace.
The former Home Secretary circulated a letter, and that seems to contradict what the Minister said. She said that the document was
“a draft Written Ministerial Statement…due for publication imminently”
that had already been briefed to MPs. Is that not true? Will he explain the answer to that? At what time did the former Home Secretary inform the Cabinet Secretary of the breach? Has a check been made of whether she sent other documents through personal emails, putting security at risk? Was there a 90-minute row about policy between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary? Given the huge disagreements we have seen in the last few weeks between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary on drugs policy, Rwanda, the India trade deal, seasonal agriculture, small boats—and with a bit of tofu thrown in over the lettuce for good measure—is anything about home affairs agreed on in the Cabinet?
What we know is that the former Home Secretary has been running her ongoing leadership campaign while the current one is too busy to come to the House because he is doing his spreadsheets on the numbers for whoever he is backing to come next. But who is taking decisions on our national security? It is not the Prime Minister, nor the past or current Home Secretaries. Borders, security and policing are too important for that instability, just as people’s livelihoods are too important for the economic instability that the Conservative party has created. It is not fair on people. To quote the former Home Secretary, this is indeed a total “coalition of chaos”. Why should the country have to put up with this for a single extra day?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I am sure that the right hon. Member is aware that breaches of the ministerial code are a matter for the Cabinet Office, not the Home Office, and that is why I, not the Home Secretary, am here to answer the urgent question. The Prime Minister took advice from the Cabinet Secretary, as we saw from her letter, and she is clear that it is important that the ministerial code is upheld and Cabinet responsibility is respected. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to uphold the highest standards. We have seen her act consistently in that regard.
These were breaches of the code. The Prime Minister expects her Ministers to uphold the ministerial code, as the public also rightly expect, and she took the requisite advice from the Cabinet Secretary before taking the decision.
I am mindful that it is not usual policy to comment in detail on such matters, but, if some background would be helpful—I appreciate that much of this is already in the public domain—the documents in question contained draft Government policy, which remained subject to Cabinet Committee agreement. Having such documents on a personal email account and sharing them outside of Government constituted clear breaches of the code—under sections 2.14 and 2.3, if that is helpful to look at. The Prime Minister is clear that the security of Government business is paramount, as is Cabinet responsibility, and Ministers must be held to the highest standards.
The comments made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, on Twitter on 20 October 2022.
Cabinet appointed six weeks ago:
Home Secretary sacked
Chancellor sacked
Chief Whip out then back
Tory MPs fighting like rats in a sack
Security, policing and borders are too important for this total chaos. Why should the country have to put up with this for a single day more?
The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 13 October 2022.
Let me first join in the tributes paid earlier by Members on both sides of the House to Sir David Amess. His parliamentary office was just above mine, and I know that we all remember him very fondly.
I rise to support the Bill’s Second Reading, and also to welcome the Home Secretary to her first full debate in the Chamber in her new post. It has been—what?—about five weeks since she was appointed, and I must say that she has been busy.
We have seen a series of major public disagreements between the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister: on restoring a net migration target, and then not; on leaving the European convention on human rights, and then not; on reclassifying drugs, and then not; on seasonal agricultural workers, still unresolved; on the claim that the Prime Minister did not see small boats as a priority and did not want her to talk about Rwanda; on some kind of row with the Business Secretary about florists, which nobody could follow; and on the Indian trade deal, which is something the Prime Minister had been working on for years, and which the Home Secretary seems to have single-handedly scuppered with a passing remark during an interview with The Spectator. Furthermore, according to the latest story this morning, the Home Secretary is not actually involved in immigration policy decisions at all, although they are at the heart of her Department.
We have to wonder whether there is anything that the new Home Secretary and the new Prime Minister agree on—although, to be fair to the Home Secretary, it is not clear that the Prime Minister agrees with herself from one day to the next. There have been so many U-turns that the Cabinet is spinning in circles. I have seen 11 Home Secretaries come and go, but I have never seen anything like the chaos and confusion that we are seeing now. There are disagreements from time to time, of course, but the scale of this is actually dangerous, because the Home Office is too important.
On issues of national security, crime and migration, we need the sense that there is some stability: that the people at the top are capable of self-discipline, that there is collective Cabinet responsibility, and that, at least on home affairs, they are making statements in the interests of the country, rather than behaving as if they were still in the process of a leadership campaign—although I guess that is exactly what is going on. If they are not capable of getting their act together and being a Government who are focused on those matters, they should get out of the way, and give way to someone else who can.
Suella Braverman rose—
Yvette Cooper
If the Home Secretary wants to respond to any of those points, I shall welcome her doing so.
Suella Braverman
I am not sure whether it has dawned on the right hon. Lady that we are here to talk about the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is an important measure to tackle fraud and support victims of this heinous crime. I am not sure whether she is really focusing on that. I thank her for the party political broadcast, but let us get on with the job in hand.
Yvette Cooper
There are plenty of aspects of the Bill that we can discuss, but I note that the Home Secretary chose not to deny any of the chaotic things that she has been saying in the papers. This is not stuff that we have made up; these are things that the new Home Secretary has been saying, which undermine her ability, and indeed the country’s ability, to deal with issues relating to national security, economic crime, fraud and migration—all the serious challenges that the country faces.
This Bill, which is long overdue, should constitute an area in which the whole country can come together and in which, across the House, there is broad agreement in the national interest. I welcome the Bill, but I am concerned that it does not go far enough. The Home Secretary will have heard the points made by Members in all parts of the House: extremely detailed work has been done by many Members with great expertise in respect of areas in which the Government need to go further. I hope that the Government will listen and will be able to go further, because the whole House will agree that action on economic crime in the UK is urgently needed.
This is a rough estimate, but the National Crime Agency says that £100 billion of dirty money flows through the UK every year, and that fraud is causing £190 billion-worth of damage. Economic crime is growing. According to the latest PwC global survey, 64% of businesses have experienced fraud, corruption or other economic or financial crime within the past two years, up from 50% just four years ago. Last year, 4.5 million frauds were perpetrated against people across the country, a 25% increase in the last few years. This is hugely damaging to families and communities, to our economy and businesses, to our international reputation, and also to our security.
The organised crime that is facilitated by weak financial systems has a deeply pernicious impact on our communities and our children, drawing young people into crime, gangs and exploitation, and fuelling the most appalling violence on our streets. It undermines our economy. It undermines legitimate businesses and financial organisations, and the thousands of people who work in them, who are standing up for high standards, are also undermined by this kind of crime and exploitation.
As I have said, economic crime is deeply damaging to our international reputation. London’s reputation as the money-laundering capital of the world is a source of national shame. Ours is a country that has long prided itself on the rule of law and on strong economic institutions, which is what traditionally made it a good place in which to invest, but that is being undermined by economic crime. United States allies have expressed frustration at the UK’s failure to tackle fully the problem of the flow of illicit Russian funds through what they have called Londongrad, and exposure to corrupt oligarchs and networks of kleptocracy means that that undermines our national security too.
Catherine West
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that it is also necessary for the courts in London to accept that there are limits to how many cases can be held involving libellous action against good authors such as Catherine Belton, who wrote “Putin’s People” with the aim of educating the general population? Are not these false claims which keep coming up in court a complete waste of the courts’ time?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend has made an important point which I hope can be explored further in Committee. There is clearly a problem when those with the deepest pockets, who effectively have endless wealth that they can draw upon, can use and abuse the court system in order to silence people. That issue needs to be addressed further.
We know that this problem has a wide impact on the state of our economy and our national security. We supported the last economic crime Bill and we support this one, although there are deep concerns about how long this process has taken, and also about the gaps. We welcome, in particular, the overhaul of Companies House, which Labour has supported and has pressed the Government to get on with, and which I know has been championed by Members on both sides of the House. It is right to give Companies House powers to check and challenge basic information. When we try to explain this to people, most of them are shocked to learn that it did not already have powers to check the identities of people trying to set up shell companies.
We welcome the measures on cryptoassets. The new technology is outpacing action against economic crime and organised crime. The power to freeze and seize criminal assets cannot just be an analogue one in a digital age. We welcome the measures to encourage information sharing to help spot fraud and money laundering, and we welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has referred to about the ability for the SRA to increase fines.
There are sensible measures in the Bill, but the delays in getting this far have caused a problem, and so do the gaps in the Bill. We are still playing catch-up rather than looking forward, and it should not have taken a war for us to get this far. Transparency International warned about serious problems back in 2015. For years, the National Crime Agency has called internally on the Home Office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury to do much more. We were promised action in 2016, in 2018 and in 2019, but as of August, fewer than half the recommendations in the Government’s 2019 economic crime plan had been enacted. The shadow Attorney General called for action on serious corporate fraud nine years ago. As shadow Home Secretary, I called 10 years ago for stronger laws and action on economic crime and fraud.
We are very clear about the importance of the matter. The Labour party believes in stronger action to defend our national interest, our economy and our national security from the organised criminals, fraudsters, corrupt oligarchs and kleptocrats. We know that that depends on having robust powers and procedures in place to defend our economy and our financial and economic institutions from fraud and abuse.
Chris Bryant
In fact, we tabled some of the measures in the Bill as amendments in 2018, and all that lot voted against them. One of my anxieties is about what happens with oligarchs’ assets that are frozen by the UK. There is a legitimate question about whether it is right for the state to seize assets that belong to private individuals. On the whole, that is not a good thing—that is what authoritarian regimes do—but we need some clarity on how we proceed in a time of war, which is effectively where we are at the moment. I note that Abramovich’s Chelsea was sold, and the money is still sitting in his bank account because the Foreign Office still has not put in place a means of transferring it to Ukraine. This is months in, and it is absolutely bonkers.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I pay tribute to the work he has done over very many years, long before other people were talking about these issues and highlighting the risks. I also pay tribute to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). We really need to get the detail right and go further.
I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has raised. Safeguards must be in place, but in an extreme time of war, when oligarchs have supported and enabled Putin’s regime and his illegal war for so long, there is a strong case for using their assets to support Ukraine. I do hope that the Government will look further at that. Canada and other countries have changed their laws in the most serious of circumstances, and we are keen to talk to the Government about taking forward something similar.
We want to explore with the Government going further on other measures, such as provisions to enable Companies House to publish and verify up-to-date information on shareholders, and provisions on third-party enablers of organised crime and kleptocracy. The Home Secretary will know that there have long been concerns about those who help organised criminals and kleptocrats hide their money, and who cover up for crime. The regime for preventing that and for effectively regulating high-risk sectors is still too weak. She will be aware that the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision has said that 81% of professional supervisors on money laundering do not have an effective risk-based approach. I hope that we can look further at that in Committee and work with the Government on stronger measures.
We have already raised with the Home Secretary concerns about enforcement, and I will keep pushing her on the question of funding for the National Crime Agency. We know that it was asked to draw up proposals for 20% staffing cuts. I think that is irresponsible at a time when we face economic crime; when the NCA’s work can benefit the Exchequer and the economy by taking strong action, including on criminal asset seizures; and when the NCA needs to deal with wider issues around organised crime, people smuggling and trafficking. I will keep pressing the Home Secretary, because she did not rule out the 20% staffing cuts, and we want to know that they have been abandoned.
There have been wider questions about training for law enforcement in things such as cryptocurrencies.
Chris Bryant
One issue that is quite difficult for UK agencies concerns moneys that come from British companies straight into sanctioned accounts in the United States. British paper manufacturer Mondi, for instance, is selling off its arm in Russia, but it has just sold it to one of Putin’s closest allies. In other words, millions of British pounds have gone into Russian pockets and will end up funding the war in Ukraine. How do we make sure that we have the resources to track down these problems and bring these people to book?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. Our law enforcement needs a level of agility to keep up with the scale and pace at which organised criminals and corrupt oligarchs work and the resources that they have at their disposal.
Hon. Members have raised concerns about the huge gap in the Bill when it comes to tackling fraud, particularly serious corporate fraud—many Members have raised concerns about the proposed legislation in that regard—but fraud more widely, too. It has become the single most common crime that we face, not just the most common economic crime. There were 4.5 million fraud offences—40% of total crimes—last year, and, shockingly, only 0.01% of them were charged. Charges for fraud have dropped. In 2015, 9,000 fraud charges were brought, but last year there were fewer than 5,000. That is a 47% drop in fraudsters being taken to court. Serious Fraud Office prosecutions plummeted by 60%, and SFO convictions were down from 10 in 2016 to just three last year. That is not justice, and it is not keeping people safe. It is as though the Government have shrugged their shoulders and said that criminals and fraudsters can have free rein. We must have proper enforcement in place and take action on serious crimes.
Kate Green
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I want to return to the question of resources for Companies House, and its new enforcement powers. Rightly, it will put most of its effort into dealing with serious organised crime and matters of national security. Does she share my concern that without adequate resourcing, the day-to-day frauds that affect so many of our constituents simply will not receive the attention they deserve?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point, because enforcement in these areas saves money—for the economy overall, and often also for public sector organisations. We need a proper enforcement plan from the Government.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Does the shadow Home Secretary agree that strengthening our enforcement and plugging the enforcement gap is not just about resourcing for public bodies; it is also about having a much more effective whistleblowing regime? That can turbocharge what public bodies can do. It dramatically improves their ability to spot financial crimes —particularly fraud—and to intervene effectively and prosecute.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes a very important point. There are issues around both whistleblowing and safeguards for whistleblowers, and around information sharing. Information sharing is rightly included in the Bill, but many hon. Members will be aware that RUSI has pointed out that if we are looking to the future, as well as some of the issues around whistleblowing, there ought to be the potential to use artificial intelligence, for example, to spot patterns of fraud and corruption. As the hon. Member says, we need ways to detect potential fraud; we need routes—be it through whistle- blowing, information sharing or spotting things that happen—through which to identify it and then for speedy enforcement action to be taken.
Let me press the Home Secretary on the need to tackle corporate criminal liability. The shadow Attorney General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), originally called for action on that nine years ago, and the Treasury Committee and the Law Commission have both called for action. Corporate fraudsters should not be able to get away with sequestering millions because the law just is not strong enough. I urge the Home Secretary to look at this urgently. It will have crossed her desk while she was Attorney General, and we need rapid action.
Labour will support the Bill on Second Reading, but we have to be honest that it does not yet go far enough. We should not stand for dirty money, fraudsters, organised criminals, and the deep and serious crimes that they facilitate. We must stand up for our national security; for our economy; for good businesses and professional services that are being undermined; for our law enforcement bodies, which need support and backing to deliver; and, most of all, for those who become the victims—those who are exploited here and across the world. Britain should be leading the way. The Bill is welcome, but it is not yet good enough. We hope that, with concerted cross- party action, we can all get our act together and make it better.
The speech made by Yvette Cooper on 27 September 2022.
It is great to be back. Back here in the brilliant city of Liverpool here on this beautiful waterfront.
But we are in a city that has been grieving.
Just five weeks ago, just five miles down the road, a nine-year-old girl was killed.
Olivia Pratt-Korbel was at home, getting ready for bed, when her future was stolen in the most unthinkable way.
Devastating for her family, for a community.
And in the words of Liverpool Echo, for schoolchildren weeping in a classroom with an empty chair.
On Saturday Keir and I met and thanked some of the police officers and family liaison officers working on Olivia’s case.
And last week I met community groups here and saw the huge support the whole city and civic leaders including Steve Rotherham and Emily Spurrell are showing to the family, the community and the police.
We thank them and show our solidarity with them in the fight to get justice for Olivia now.
Serious violence isn’t just affecting big cities like Liverpool.
This summer we’ve seen an 87-year-old pensioner killed in Greenford, another 9- year-old girl in Lincolnshire, a 15-year-old boy just last week in Huddersfield.
Across our towns and cities – gun crime up, knife crime up.
Driven by county lines and a wave of organised crime that thrives by drawing vulnerable teenagers in.
Last year the number of children exploited by gangs hit a record high.
The next Labour Government will bring in a new law to crackdown on criminals who lure young people into violence – we will outlaw the exploitation of children for crime.
Labour is also setting out a new plan – with mental health professionals, safer schools officers and mentors to support young people at risk.
Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
That’s who we are.
We’ll do what it takes to protect our children from violent crime.
Who better to lead our party in doing that than someone who has prosecuted criminals and terrorists to keep our country safe.
Who has seen off one Tory Prime Minister and let us back him now to see off another.
Our next Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer.
The Tories 12-year-record is grim:
• 6000 fewer neighbourhood officers
• 8000 fewer PCSOs
• arrests halved
• less crime solved
• more victims let down
• border security failures
• more smuggler gangs
• more dangerous boat crossings
• passport delays
• visa delays
• Windrush compensation delays
So, what’s the Tories’ response?
They say they’ve delivered more police.
They cut 20,000.
Former Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson proudly announced – “We are the party of law and order”
What he meant was – he’d had a party, broken the law and created disorder.
Then he announced it was Government Crime Week.
The police announced 120 fines for lawbreaking in Government – including the Prime Minister and Chancellor.
It was definitely Government Crime Week.
For once Boris Johnson was telling the truth.
But we’ve got a new Prime Minister now.
And Liz Truss has a big idea to turn it all round. She says she’s going to tell the police they need to investigate more crime.
Genius!
If only all the other Tory Prime Ministers had thought of that.
But I don’t think the Conservatives have any idea how tough things are starting to feel for many people.
Communities that are that bit more fragile as the cost of living bites.
People increasingly fearful that public services won’t be there for them when things go wrong.
Police officers already picking up the pieces as other services break.
Sitting for hours with mental health patients or taking defibrillators to heart attacks because the ambulance can’t come.
And they are too overstretched themselves.
Shop owners report thefts and no one comes.
Parents worried about drug dealers by the school gate but no one comes.
Families are burgled but no one comes.
And it’s a perfect storm.
Because lack of proper action to root out racism, serious misconduct or misogyny means that for some communities trust in the police isn’t there. Even if someone comes, too often nothing happens.
The charge rate has dropped by two-thirds in six years.
In 94% of crimes now no one is charged. Time and again no one pays the price. There are no consequences. There is no justice.
The Conservatives want us to think none of this is their fault.
Yet it was their policy to slash the police, courts and youth services, to show no leadership on standards, and to divide communities.
A laissez-faire approach that isn’t an accident, it’s Tory ideology.
Labour believes in community solidarity – we know strong communities are safe communities.
We believe in public services, valuing public servants, and setting high standards.
That is why, to the firefighters who spent this summer battling wildfires, to the police officers and staff who made it possible for millions to show respect for the Queen, and to all our Emergency Service workers who show great bravery and keep us safe, we say thank you.
Labour knows that you don’t get social justice if you don’t have justice or feel safe.
Inequality and poverty corrode people’s security.
And security is the foundation on which all other opportunities are built.
Labour will always stand up for the security of our nation, our borders, and our communities.
Labour will take action to rebuild neighbourhood policing. I can announce today a fully-funded £360m programme to put 13,000 additional police and PCSOs into community teams – so people can be confident someone will be there to help keep them safe.
Labour will strengthen police standards – overhauling training, vetting and misconduct procedures. And new mandatory rules and safeguards on the strip searching of children so that an awful case like that of Child Q, a black teenage girl in East London can never happen again.
Labour will act on the epidemic of violence against women and girls.
Today across our country more than 300 women will be raped.
Of those, around 190 rapes will be reported.
Of those, only three rapists will see the inside of a court room, never mind a prison cell.
The rest will be free to hurt, abuse and rape again.
We cannot stand for this.
Labour will deliver specialist support for victims –putting domestic abuse experts into 999 control rooms and rape investigation units in every force to get justice for women because everyone has the right to live in freedom from fear.
We will always be ready to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work that is needed.
We’ll make sure the immigration system is fair, firm and properly managed.
And unlike the Tories, we will work with France to prevent dangerous small boats crossing the channel and putting lives at risk, with a new cross-border police unit to crack down on the criminal gangs who make millions from trading in people – paid for by cancelling the deeply damaging, extortionately expensive, unworkable and unethical Rwanda plan.
The first Labour Conference Speech I made was a quarter of a century ago in 1997.
I’ve spoken through the years on amazing Labour Government policies.
And I am sick and tired of watching the Tories run our country down.
And that’s why I’m back standing here.
It’s the same reason why every one of us are here.
Because we love our country.
We know the amazing things Labour can do.
And we are ready to fight for that better, fairer future with a Labour Government again.
The tribute made by Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleton, in the House of Commons on 10 September 2022.
This morning, the Accession Council met to proclaim the new sovereign, His Majesty King Charles III. It was an immense honour to bear witness to that historic proclamation for the Privy Council and for my constituents in Normanton, Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley. For us in Pontefract, it is particularly important to mark the arrival of the new King, who as Prince was a great supporter of the Prince of Wales Hospice in Pontefract—a considerably more positive association than our last constituency connection with the accession of a monarch, which involved Pontefract castle, Richard II and a rather unfortunate end.
It is an honour to speak in the second day of tributes to Her late Majesty, a truly remarkable Queen. Everyone has their memories. For one of my constituents, it was the parcels that the young Princess Elizabeth sent in 1947, sharing wedding gifts across the country. She says:
“I have always remembered it…There was a pineapple in it and we didn’t even know what it was.”
For those of us who were children in the 1970s, it was the silver jubilee. For us, the Queen meant street parties; everyone made such a big fuss about it being 25 years that frankly we thought she had already been Queen forever. That is what she was for us and subsequent generations: our forever Queen, a constant who would serve our country for another 45 years.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) have all described how the Queen invited them to tea when they became Privy Counsellors and when they left office. The remarkable thing is that she did that for dozens of us—for every departing Cabinet Minister or party leader.
I was invited after the 2010 election. We drank tea, and the Queen asked me how we had managed being Cabinet Ministers with kids. “Chaotically,” I said. We talked about housing as well. Others have described the kindness that she showed in those meetings, but I think it was much more than that. She did not invite us when we were on the way up; she did not invite us when we were playing a constitutional role; she invited us only when it was all over and the cameras had gone home. Most of us do not like to talk about our downfall. I said, “It was very kind of you to do this.” She said that it was to recognise and say thank you for public service. That said much more about her than it did about the service that any of her Cabinet Ministers had shown; it showed how, privately even more than publicly, she believed in selfless duty and valuing public service to our country.
And yes, the Queen showed that sense of mischief. I do not think anyone has yet told the story that John Prescott—Lord Prescott—tells of his first Privy Council meeting with Clare Short, who was International Development Secretary at the time. According to John, she had arrived late with a large handbag and pile of papers. As they stood to hear the Privy Council business being read out, suddenly Clare’s phone started to ring. Clare rummaged fast but was unable to find it in her handbag before the noise eventually subsided and the call remained unanswered. The Queen simply said, “Oh dear! I do hope that wasn’t anyone important.”
Many hon. Members rightly paid tribute yesterday to the address that the Queen gave just two weeks into the first lockdown. Thousands of people had already died and thousands more were being rushed to hospital, unable to breathe. Schools were closed, families were split up and churches, mosques and synagogues were all shut. Parliament had closed and the Prime Minister was very ill. All the institutions that we relied on and took for granted were either closed or under strain—except the Queen. Only the Queen, our forever Queen who had been a constant through ups and downs, could give us that message.
It was not just about the Queen’s authority in invoking those wartime sacrifices. She captured the yearning of a country to come together just as we needed to stay apart. She invoked British values, saying that
“the attributes of self-discipline, of quiet good-humoured resolve and of fellow-feeling still characterise this country”—
words she used to describe us, but that so many of us have used to describe her. That is why she was so important to us: because she embodied the values that we still want to see as British—the resilience, the strength, the kindness, the fairness, the common decency, the determined optimism that things will get better because we will make them so, and that selfless duty and commitment to public service. She held up a mirror to our nation of what we want to be. She may not be the forever Queen that I still believed in at the silver jubilee, but those values that she stood up for were forever values, and those are her legacy now.
The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2022.
This is a shambles; it is shameful, and the Home Secretary has no one but herself to blame. This is not, and never has been, a serious policy, and she knew that when she chartered the plane. She knew that among the people she was planning to send to Rwanda on that plane were torture and trafficking victims, that she did not have a proper screening process in place and that some of them might be children. Can she confirm that the Home Office itself withdrew a whole series of those cases on Friday and yesterday because it knew that there was a problem with them, and that even without the European Court of Human Rights judgment, she was planning to send a plane with just seven people on board, because she had had to withdraw most of the cases at the last minute?
The Home Secretary knows that there is a lack of proper asylum capacity in Rwanda to make fair decisions and that as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says, Rwanda normally deals with only a few hundred cases a year and has only one eligibility officer who prepares the cases. There is also a lack of interpreters and legal advisers to ensure fair decisions. The Home Secretary promised that there would be extra payments to Rwanda for each person transferred, presumably to pay for the extra caseworkers and support, but she has refused to tell us how much. What is she hiding? Will she tell us now how much she promised Rwanda for each of the people she was planning to send yesterday, and how many Rwandan refugees she promised to take in return?
The Home Secretary knows that serious concerns have been raised about Rwandan restrictions on political freedom, the treatment of LGBT people, the fact that 12 refugees were shot by the authorities in 2018 for protesting against food cuts, and the fact that Afghan and Syrian asylum seekers have been returned by Rwanda. She knows that none of those concerns has been addressed.
The Home Secretary also knows that the policy will not work. We need action to tackle dangerous criminal gangs who are putting lives at risk, and she knows that her policies will not achieve that. That is not their objective. If it was, she would not have asked the National Crime Agency, whose job it is to target the criminal gangs, to draw up 20% staff cuts—that is potentially 1,000 people being cut from the organisation that works to tackle the gangs. Can she confirm whether she has asked the NCA to draw up plans for staff cuts?
If the Home Secretary was serious, she would be taking seriously the fact that the Israel-Rwanda deal ended up increasing criminal people trafficking and smuggling and that her plan risks making things worse. If she was serious, she would be working night and day to get a better joint plan with France to crack down on the gangs and to stop the boats being put into the water in the first place, but she is not, because her relationship with French Ministers has totally broken down.
If the Home Secretary was serious about tackling illegal economic migration or cutting the bills from people in hotels, she would speed up Home Office decision making so that refugees can get support and those who are not can be returned home. Instead, the number of decisions has totally collapsed from 28,000 to just 14,000 a year—fewer than Belgium and the Netherlands, never mind Germany and France. She is so badly failing to take those basic decisions that she is trying to pay a country thousands of miles away to take them for us instead. How shameful does that make us look around the world if our Home Office cannot take those basic decisions?
The Home Secretary knew about problem after problem with her policy. She knew that it was unworkable and unethical and that it will not stop the criminal gangs, but she still went ahead and spent half a million pounds chartering a plane that she never expected to fly, and she still wrote a £120 million cheque to Rwanda with a promise of more to come, because all she really cares about is picking fights and finding someone else to blame.
This is not a long-term plan; it is a short-term stunt. Everyone can see that it is not serious policy; it is shameless posturing and the Home Secretary knows it. It is not building consensus; it is just pursuing division. It is government by gimmick. It is not in the public interest; it is just in the Government’s political interest, and along the way they are prepared to trash people’s lives, our basic British values of fairness, decency and common sense, and the reputation of our nation.
Our country is better than this. We have a long tradition of hard work and stepping up to tackle problems—not offloading them—to tackle the criminal gangs who put lives at risk, and to do right by refugees. That is what the Home Secretary should be doing now, not this shambles that is putting our country to shame.
The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 13 June 2022.
The Home Office chaos over the last few days has shown why this scheme is completely unworkable, deeply unethical and extortionately expensive, and why it risks increasing criminal people trafficking and smuggling rather than solving the problem.
Let us look at what has emerged in the past few days. The Home Office has admitted it has been trying to send victims of torture to Rwanda; is the Minister happy with that shameful policy? We have learned that Rwanda does not have the capacity, caseworkers, translators or lawyers to deal with cases; it often only has one official in charge of putting cases together. The Home Office has ignored UNHCR warnings on Rwanda’s record, including the shooting dead of 12 refugees. We have learned, too, that costs are shooting up as the UK taxpayer will have to fund ever more support in Rwanda; can the Minister tell us if that has been agreed and whether we have a final figure on top of the £120 million? The chief inspector says there has been no impact on deterrence on boats and gangs, and there is evidence instead that the Rwanda and Israel refugee relocation deal led to more trafficking and smuggling, not less.
The Home Office is failing to do the practical things we need: instead of strengthening the National Crime Agency work with France to crack down on criminal gangs, the Home Office has asked the agency to draw up plans for 20% cuts. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? Instead of speeding up asylum decisions, it is only making half as many decisions as five years ago and, because it is failing to take decisions, offloading responsibility.
There is lots of noise from the Minister: never taking responsibility, blaming everyone else. This plan is not just unworkable, unethical and expensive; it is also profoundly un-British, ignoring our British values of decency and common sense. It is time to think again.
Tom Pursglove
I have to say that I think it would be helpful if the shadow Home Secretary were to think in the first place, because we have not had a credible Opposition policy to tackle this issue. I have said many times that I would be delighted to hear a credible policy from those on the Benches opposite, and I think the British people deserve to hear such a policy, but I think we will be waiting for a long time to get that, if at all.
The right hon. Lady raised a number of points. First, she claimed the policy is both unworkable and extortionate; it is difficult to comprehend it being possible for it to be both of those things at once. [Interruption.] Well, I am convinced that this policy is going to work and will make a difference, shutting down the evil criminal gangs that take people’s money, put their lives at risk and have no regard for whether they get here, while also providing resettlement opportunities that are properly supported—support around skills, around jobs, around opportunity—in Rwanda.
Our approach to this is a world first. This is not comparable to the sorts of proposals perhaps developed elsewhere; it is a different approach. The right hon. Lady will also recognise that other countries are looking at similar arrangements.
I repeat that we will live up to our international obligations under both the refugee convention and the ECHR at all times. The fact is that the UNHCR places refugees in Rwanda, so I again make the point that it clearly believes people will be properly supported and cared for and that they will be safe. I think that judgment is significant in all this.
On cost, as we have clearly set out to the House previously, we will be supporting ongoing running costs around this policy that are equivalent to the sums we spend on processing cases in the asylum system here in the UK.
On French co-operation, we of course already do that, but there is no one single solution that will resolve this issue of itself. We want to go further; we want to deepen that co-operation with our friends and neighbours to tackle this issue as it is a global problem that needs global solutions, and through the new partnership we are of course taking that co-operation further.
Finally, I will again just pose this question and ponder it for a moment: we have asked before whether the Opposition would cancel the Rwanda plan in the unfortunate event that they were in government. We have not yet heard an answer to that; perhaps at some point today we might have one.