Yvette Cooper speech at RUSI on Labour’s approach to national security

Yvette Cooper MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, setting out Labour’s approach to national security in a speech at the Royal United Services Institute today.

"Thank you.

It is a great pleasure to be here at RUSI, for decades a global leader in the debate on building a safe and secure world.

I received my first briefing from MI5 on the security threats facing our country over a quarter of a century ago.

As a newly appointed member of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

In Government and outside it, I’ve seen through the years some small part of the remarkable work of our intelligence and security agencies, our police, and other public and private sector organisations, to keep our country safe. I am immensely proud of the work they do to protect us, to defend our democracy and our freedoms.

Today I want to talk about how the risks to both our security and democracy are changing and becoming more complex.

David Lammy and John Healey have spoken about our global security and our foreign and defence response, our support for NATO and for the Ukraine. Rachel Reeves has spoken about securonomics and our economic resilience. And Angela Rayner has set out the need to strengthen resilience through the Cabinet Office, with a dedicated Minister for Resilience.

Today I want to set out why I am concerned that our domestic security response is not keeping up with Britain’s fast-changing landscape, and to describe the new leadership and partnerships we need to keep our country safe.

The approach that a Labour Government and a Labour Home Office will take to defending our homeland security if we are given the mandate to serve.

Security is at the heart of what Labour stands for.

Security is the bedrock on which opportunities and social justice are built.

Keir Starmer has described the task of a Labour Government as being “to face down the age of insecurity” championing “security at home, in the workplace, on the streets and from those who would do us harm”.

Families can’t prosper if they struggle with anxiety, instability and dislocation. 

A community cannot be cohesive if it is divided by fear. A nation cannot thrive if it is under attack.

Labour’s approach to security is anchored in our values. 

Our fierce defence of democracy and the rule of law, at home and around the globe.

Our belief in individual freedom, respect for each other, and in strong communities coming together to support each other And our commitment to fairness and social justice for all.

Keir Starmer and I both made clear the importance of national security.

When Britain faced an attack on our soil in Salisbury in 2018, we made clear at the time I thought that Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader was wrong to prevaricate over Russia’s responsibility.

I was also appalled by the carelessness and contempt for national security that former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson showed while Foreign Secretary at the height of the Skripal crisis, meeting alone with an ex-KBG officer, on the way back

from a NATO summit on Russia, failing to even properly report it and claiming he could not even remember whether Government business had been discussed. 

As the risks and challenges to our national security become ever more complex, our country cannot afford that kind of cavalier approach from its government.

In recent decades, all of us have seen the geopolitical kaleidoscope shaken and transformed, as the nature of terrorism has changed and the threats to our nation have evolved.

I grew up during the Cold War and at the time of the Northern Ireland Troubles – before the Berlin Wall came down and the Good Friday Agreement was signed.

9/11 changed our world. Four years later on 7/7, I left Kings Cross on a Ministerial visit just fifteen minutes before the first bomb went off underground. I recall from Government the years of immense work to build a strong counter terror response.

As the update to the Government’s Integrated Review warned in March, “the transition into a multipolar, fragmented and contested world has happened more quickly and definitively than anticipated” and “we are now in a period of heightened risk and volatility”. 

The UK faces continued challenges from Islamist and far right extremists, radicalised online, in prison or in the community. Instability in Afghanistan, Syria and East Africa means groups affiliated to AQ and ISIS are operating with greater freedom again. The murder of Lyra McKee, and the attack on DCI Caldwell in Omagh are a sharp reminder of the resurgent challenges in Northern Ireland.  

Meanwhile we have seen a steep rise in state-sponsored threats, stretching far beyond conventional espionage. From Russia’s attempted assassination of the Skripals and the killing of Dawn Sturgess. To the beating of Hong Kong protestors outside the

Chinese consulate in Manchester. And the persecution of Iranian journalists by the IRGC – including 15 threats to kidnap or kill on British soil.

We are seeing an increasingly complex network of actors posing a risk to our national security - from private military companies like Wagner, to huge organised crime syndicates and kleptocrats, to legal groups that sell technology like Pegasus spyware. New threats including cyberattacks, ransomware and attempts to undermine our democracy.

At the same time, as the recent Intelligence and Security Committee report warns, the rise of China poses as different kind of challenge; “much of the impact which China has on the UK’s national security is overt… China’s size, ambition and capability have enabled it to successfully penetrate every sector of the UK’s economy,” including critical and strategic infrastructure and technology that creates new vulnerabilities for us in the future.

And as the Integrated Review makes clear “Covid-19 and the invasion of Ukraine have shown… the severe disruption that crises originating beyond our borders can have here in the UK,” – including challenges ranging from the mass movement of people to climate change.

Faced with those shifting sands we need to change and adapt our approach. 

But the Government’s domestic security response to those fast changing concerns is too disjointed, disorganised and delayed.

The sense of leadership and purpose established in the Home Office nearly twenty years ago in response to a newly dominant terrorist threat just isn’t there for the varied landscape of threats we face today. 

Four principles guide Labour’s approach to these fast changing threats:

First, we need breadth of resilience not just depth of expertise. New and diverse sectors need to be resilient to multifaceted risks. 

Second, we need new active partnerships to keep pace. Fast response and adaptation requires  new partnerships at home and with allies across the globe. We cannot tackle terrorist money laundering without buy-in from banks and regulators. We can’t tackle online radicalisation without stronger action from social media companies. We can’t strengthen border security without working with France.

Third, we need to rebuild trust and consensus. When democracy itself is the target, the resilience of our communities and public confidence in our institutions are part of defending ourselves and should never be  carelessly undermined for the sake of party interests.

And fourthly, leadership. None of these things will happen without clear Government leadership. Restoring purpose and direction on security in the Home Office is long-overdue and my personal mission as Home Secretary.

This approach demands a new overarching homeland security framework, one which puts state threats on the same long-term, strategic footing as counter-terror.

And it requires stronger, joined-up action in key areas of changing security risks: including on the economy, on technology, at our borders and in our democracy itself.

On homeland security, the driving framework for nearly 20 years has been the UK Counter Terrorism strategy CONTEST, which we expect to be updated this week.

Under the last Labour Government, in the aftermath of 9/11, CONTEST established new strong partnerships between counter terrorism police and the intelligence agencies, involving the wider emergency services, local councils, schools, prisons, faith groups and community organisations, and with a strong driving role for the Home Office and the Government, later strengthened by the establishment of the Office of Security and Counter Terrorism.

That work remains critical – preventing and pursuing those who seek to harm, maim and kill in the interests of vile ideologies.

We will review and respond to the Government’s plans to update CONTEST when it publishes them later this week, but it is essential that it includes a strategy to tackle hateful extremism, that it recognises the importance of neighbourhood policing to counter-terrorism work, that it puts forward a strategy to deal with the anticipated imminent release of terrorist prisoners, and that it will cover Martyn’s Law and the lessons from the Manchester attack, and develops a more sensitive and supportive response for survivors of terror who pay a terrible personal price for the attacks on us all.

But whilst the debate on counter terror is on how to update and modernise a comprehensive strategy, we don’t yet have the robust and long-lasting equivalent of the CONTEST strategy for dealing with hostile states.

That is why Labour in Government will move swiftly to develop and implement a new CONTEST for State Threats – a parallel strategy to counter terrorism. 

To drive progress, David Lammy and I are committed to establishing a new ‘joint cell’ between the Home Office and Foreign Office to speed up decision-making, share intelligence and expertise, and remove traditional barriers and turf-wars between departments.

As part of this strategy, Labour will amend terror legislation to allow Government to ban hostile state-sponsored organisations who are undermining our national security.

Instead of trying and failing to use counter terror legislation to proscribe groups like Wagner or IRGC, we’ll introduce a bespoke proscribing mechanism to address state sponsored threats.

We will work with the public and private sector, businesses, universities, and partners here and abroad, to ensure this strategy is comprehensive, collaborative and fit for the scale of the challenges we face.

Modernising our response both to terror threats and state challenges means that both strategies also need to take account of the very different forms those threats and challenges can take. And I want to highlight key areas where that means more specific action is needed – in our economy, in fast changing technology, at our borders and in our democracy.

There are those who wish to damage our economy as a means of damaging our wellbeing and way of life. And those who use our economy to raise and launder the money they need to finance their attacks on our security here and abroad.

As a host of reports from RUSI, Chatham House, and others have shown, London is home to some of the worst money-laundering scandals of the modern age – including on behalf of terror groups, organised criminals and individuals connected to foreign state threats. It should not have taken the illegal invasion of Ukraine for the Government to wake up to the level of Russian dirty money washing through our capital city. It is deeply corrosive to the health of our economy, our democracy, our international standing and our security.

The long overdue Economic Crime Bill has made progress, but enforcement against malicious and dangerous actors is still too weak.

The rise of China creates other economic challenges.

As Sir Jeremy Fleming, former director of GCHQ, said last year the Chinese leadership is using its financial and scientific muscle in a bid to dominate strategically important technologies - from digital currencies to satellite technology.

US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has warned about ignoring economic dependencies “from energy uncertainty in Europe to supply-chain vulnerabilities in medical equipment, semiconductors and critical minerals… that could be exploited for economic or geopolitical advantage.”

Yet here in the UK, we have been far too slow to identify where those risks lie and where and how we need to safeguard critical national infrastructure.

That is why Angela Rayner has been arguing for a much broader approach to resilience including in public procurement.

And why if we are elected to Government, Rachel Reeves and I will set up a new joint Home Office-Treasury Taskforce to drive the work on how Government should respond to the short term and long term economic threats to the UK’s homeland security.

Much more also needs to be done to address the fast changing national security challenges that arise from new technologies.

For several generations, as a country and through the Five Eyes partnership, the awesome  skills, expertise and technological advances by our intelligence agencies have helped to defend our freedom and our democracy. And our National Cyber Security Centre is world leading.

But whilst technology creates new opportunities for Britain, including for law enforcement, it also presents significant new threats and risks. 

Cyber and ransomware attacks – like those used to cripple a new Government in Costa Rica or to target the Irish healthcare system closer to home. And the escalating risks of radicalisation online.

Hateful extremist online forums and chat groups, and algorithms that prey on vulnerable people.

Generative AI takes that to a new level.

Jaswant Singh Chail, who entered the grounds of Windsor Castle intent on assassinating the Queen on Christmas Day 2021, was spurred on by conversations generated by his ‘AI girlfriend’.

And there have been more disturbing cases where 4Chan users appropriated a Meta large language model, deliberately creating extreme right-wing chatbots to promote radicalisation.

Lucy Powell is leading work to respond to the wider opportunities and risks from AI.

But we face specific security challenges, where Jonathan Hall, the Counter Terrorism Reviewer has warned that our current legal framework on terrorism is not adequate.

That is why Labour will criminalise those who purposely train chatbots to spout terrorist material, and we will work with the intelligence community and law enforcement on ways to stop radicalising chatbots that are inciting violence or amplifying extremist views.

Stronger action – including new leadership and partnerships – are also needed to tackle the growing challenge to our border security.

Gun seizures and knife seizures are down. Small boat crossings have soared.

I have set out separately Labour’s five point plan for tackling Channel crossings. But the security issue is an important one.

Criminal gangs have taken hold along the channel – their profits rising from a couple of million pounds four years ago to nearer £200m today – as they put lives at risk and undermine our border security. Yet far too little is being done to tackle those organised gang networks either in the UK or across Europe.

Meanwhile the Borders Inspectorate has warned that basic security checks aren’t always done on new arrivals. And important criminal security information held by our European counterparts is no longer shared.

That is why Labour will set up a new Cross Border Police Unit to lead clear action not just along the Channel, but in partnership with Europe to smash the gangs here and abroad, disrupting their activities, arresting, and locking up their leaders, preventing them from profiting from this shameful trade in human misery. 

Perhaps the most unnerving new challenges are those to our democracy itself.

Terrorists and extremists have always sought to undermine our democratic values and freedoms, to pit groups against one another, to undermine the rule of law, to create fear and threaten our very way of life.

They have never succeeded. In the face of such threats, our communities have come together, local and national leaders have worked to prevent tension and division.

We have also seen malicious targeting of our democratic institutions including our Parliament and our political parties by other states.

The Intelligence and Security Committee, warned about political party donations from both Russian and Chinese elites. And covert attempts to build influence.

The National Security Bill is a step forward. But it is deeply regrettable that the Government resisted basic proposals to increase transparency of party funding to foreign donations.

Our democracy faces new threats – from organised groups and state sponsored actors using misinformation, fake news, deep fakes and conspiracy theories online. Charting a course through those troubled waters, especially with elections due in the

UK and US next year, is going to be challenging and our democratic resilience will be tested.

Trust and confidence in our democratic, legal, law enforcement and security institutions will matter more than ever.

That is why currently high levels of trust in our intelligence and security agencies must be maintained.

And why their oversight mechanisms – the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Counter terror reviewer and the Intelligence Commissioner are so important. Strong powers require strong oversight.

It is also why it is essential that trust and confidence in policing are rebuilt – something Keir Starmer has made part of Labour’s mission on crime.

It is why political leaders have a responsibility to pull our communities together in the face of extremist threats and agitation, not to promote further division for the sake of party political advantage. You can’t launch a culture war over national security – the stakes are too high and the risks are too great. You don’t ramp up rhetoric on “invasions” the day after a far right attack on a Dover processing centre, as the Home Secretary did. In the face of threats, we need to pull the country together.

Remembering that as Jo Cox said “we have more in common than that which divides us” is also what builds resilience when others try to bring us down.

And it is why we should worry about the damage in recent years to our democratic institutions.

The culture of disrespect from the heart of government itself towards Parliamentary standards or the rule of law.

Trust and truth are our strongest defences against those who try to use webs of lies against us. We dismiss them at our peril.

A technological revolution, a climate crisis, pandemics, wars in Europe, economic turmoil– all of these things have made us less secure, more anxious, and led us to question our sense of self as a nation, and our place in the world.

But we also know that our country has great strengths. We have world leading expertise on national security. We have deep and resilient democratic traditions. We have strong and cohesive communities ready to reject extremism and pull together even in the face of the most complex of threats.

To tackle this turbulence we will need determination, leadership, partnership and trust.

Those are the principles that underpin Labour’s approach. That is how we will keep national security at the heart of what a future Labour Government does. And security at home, on our streets, in our jobs, our communities, and in our borders as our mission.

And I look forward to working with all of those who share our mission to keep Britain safe and strong.

Thank you."

Ends