State Threat Prevention and Investigation Measures: 20 March to 19 December 2024

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Section 55(1) of the National Security Act 2023 (the 2023 Act) requires the Secretary of State (Yvette Cooper) to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their STPIM powers under the Act during that period.

STPIMs were introduced through the 2023 Act and came into force on 20 December 2023. There have been no STPIM cases during the second, third and fourth reporting periods.

[HCWS416]

Southport Attack

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement updating the House on the Government’s response to the Southport murders.

The attack in Southport in July last year was one of the most appalling and barbaric crimes committed in this country. For young children and adults to be attacked in this way, and three young girls killed, is utterly heartbreaking. The Home Secretary and I would like to thank those people who showed great bravery in attempting to stop the attack. For this foul act of violence to happen while children were enjoying themselves at a dance class at the beginning of the school holidays is beyond comprehension. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the three girls, and with all those injured as they continue to live with the trauma of that dark day. No one should have to go through what they have, and we are steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that they get every possible support.

Responsibility for this abhorrent attack lies with the perpetrator. Axel Rudakubana has been sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum of 52 years in prison, and Mr Justice Goose said it is highly likely that he will never be released. When the Home Secretary addressed the House on this case last month, she outlined the multiple interactions that the perpetrator had with state bodies in the years before the attack. Those included police, social services and mental health services. There are serious questions about how various agencies failed to identify and collectively act on the warning signs. All those questions must be answered—we owe that to the families who deserve the truth about what went wrong. That is why the Government are committed to understanding and addressing the failings in this tragic case through a comprehensive public inquiry. It will examine the issues raised in this case, but also wider challenges around rising youth violence. We are moving swiftly to set up the inquiry. We will consult the families to ensure that all critical issues are addressed, while remaining sensitive to the needs of those most affected. We expect to announce further details about the inquiry next month.

Although we do not pre-empt the conclusions of the inquiry, there are areas where action can and must be progressed immediately. Prevent is a vital part of our counter-terrorism system. We must endeavour to identify those susceptible to radicalisation early and before they go on to commit terrorist acts. Prevent receives nearly 7,000 referrals every year, and our hard-working frontline staff have supported nearly 5,000 people away from terrorism since 2015. We must get Prevent right. That is why the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing commissioned a rapid Prevent learning review immediately after the attack. These are usually internal technical reviews intended to identify swift learning and improvement for Prevent. However, the importance of the families needing answers has meant that today, following close engagement with them, we are taking the unusual step of publishing the Prevent learning review.

I can update the House that the perpetrator was referred to Prevent three times between December 2019, when he was aged 13, and April 2021, when he was 14. Those referrals were made by his schools. The first referral reported concerns about him carrying a knife and searching for school shootings on the internet. The second referral was focused on his online activity relating to Libya and Gaddafi. His third referral was for searching for London bombings, the IRA and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

On each of those occasions, the decision at the time was that the perpetrator should not progress to the Channel multi-agency process, but the Prevent learning review found that there was sufficient risk for the perpetrator to have been managed through Prevent. It found that the referral was closed prematurely and that there was sufficient concern to keep the case active while further information was collected.

The review is clear on the concerning behaviours that the perpetrator demonstrated. It highlights his interest in the Manchester Arena attack and that he talked about stabbing people, and it flags that some of the grievances that could have been a motivation were not fully considered. The review also highlights the perpetrator’s clear vulnerabilities and complex needs, which may have made him more susceptible to being drawn into terrorism.

The review concluded that too much focus was placed on the absence of a distinct ideology, to the detriment of considering the perpetrator’s susceptibility, grievances and complex needs. There was an under-exploration of the significance of his repeat referrals and the cumulative risk, including his history of violence. There were potentially incomplete lines of inquiry. At the time, the perpetrator could have fallen into a mixed, unclear or unstable category for Channel, due to his potential interest in mass violence. Indeed, the overall conclusion of the review is that he should have been case-managed through the Channel multi-agency process, rather than closed to Prevent. That would have enabled co-ordinated multi-agency risk management and support.

The Prevent learning review made 14 recommendations for improvements to Prevent. We have accepted those findings and rapid action has been taken to implement the recommendations. Counter-terrorism policing has conducted in-depth assurance visits to every region to determine whether the issues identified in this case have been resolved by operational improvements made since 2021. Urgent work is underway to address the findings.

The Prevent assessment framework was launched in September and is now in place across all regions. It was developed by experts and is being used to triage and risk-assess all Prevent referrals. It will improve decision making at all stages of the Prevent system. Roll-out of this tool has been accompanied by rigorous mandatory training. We have begun an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds to ensure that Prevent can deal with the full range of threats we see today, from Islamist extremism, which is the most significant terrorist threat the UK faces, through to the fascination with mass violence we saw in the Southport case. This internal review will complete in April and further strengthen the approach to repeat referrals and ensure that clear policy, guidance and training are in place.

We have completed the first stage of a policy review into how Prevent supports referrals who have mental ill-health or are neurodivergent. Actions for improving the operational approach have been identified and will be implemented swiftly, with oversight from the new Prevent commissioner. We are also strengthening our approach to the oversight of referrals that do not meet Prevent thresholds to make sure that people receive the right support. Next week, a pilot starts in several local areas to test new approaches to cases that are transferred to other services.

The Government have appointed Lord Anderson as interim Prevent commissioner. This is the first time in its history that Prevent will have dedicated independent oversight. That will help ensure that Prevent is always held to the highest standards. Lord Anderson’s first task is to review the perpetrator’s Prevent history, drawing on the Prevent learning review. That will identify whether there is further learning, examine improvements made to Prevent since 2021 and identify any remaining gaps that require further improvement. He will complete the review within his term as interim commissioner, which will end with the appointment of a permanent commissioner this summer.

However, it is simply not enough to focus only on this case. We need to take an even more robust approach to identifying learning swiftly and driving that learning through the Prevent system. The Prevent commissioner will be tasked with overseeing a new approach to Prevent learning reviews that enables rapid debriefing and urgent action after incidents, but also that provides a clear framework that binds other agencies into the joint learning process. Transparency and enabling public scrutiny are also fundamental. That is why we will take steps to publish the findings of other independent Prevent learning reviews where there has been an incident of national significance. Next week, we will publish the Prevent learning review into the appalling attack on Sir David Amess, to enable further public scrutiny of this important programme.

The first duty of Government is to ensure the security of our country and the safety of our people, because nothing matters more. While we can never undo the hurt and pain caused by this unthinkably wretched attack, we can, we must and we will do everything in our power to prevent further atrocities. As the Prime Minister said, Southport must be

“a line in the sand”

for our country. If that means asking difficult questions about shortcomings or failures, so be it. If it means holding institutions and processes to account, we will do so without fear or favour. If changes are required to protect the public and combat the threats we face, this Government will not hesitate to act. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Security Minister for providing a copy of the statement so early, and for providing a copy of the rapid learning review. I am grateful to him for his courtesy and consideration.

Let us keep in mind the three young innocent victims of this savage attack: Bebe King, just six years old; Elsie Dot Stancombe, who was seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, who was nine. Their lives were cruelly cut short at a Taylor Swift dance class. These young girls had their whole lives in front of them—lives they will now never lead. Their parents and families will suffer forever from the unimaginable grief caused by their loss. I know that they will be in the thoughts and prayers of every single Member of this House.

As the Minister said, it is vital to learn the lessons. I welcome and support the inquiry announced by the Home Secretary a couple of weeks ago. The Security Minister described it a moment ago as a public inquiry. Will he confirm that it will be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005? It is important that it has powers to compel witnesses to attend, take evidence under oath and obtain documents. It is vital that we get to the truth about the opportunities that may have existed to stop Rudakubana committing these sickening murders.

I am pleased that the Security Minister said that Prevent thresholds are being reviewed. Page 35 of the lessons learned review highlights a number of areas for further investigation. The first of those is mental health interventions, which he referred to. Will he confirm that the inquiry will consider what mental health interventions may have taken place, and whether powers should have been used to section and detain the perpetrator in this case? That is particularly relevant because just today we saw the NHS report into the psychotic triple murderer Valdo Calocane, which raised similar mental health detention issues. Both Rudakubana and Calocane could have been sectioned and detained under the Mental Health Act. If that had happened, perhaps these murders could have been avoided.

The Government announced the new mental health Bill in the King’s Speech. Pages 83 to 85 of the accompanying notes state that the Government have plans to increase the threshold for detention under the Mental Health Act—that is to say, make it harder to detain people. It goes on to note concerns about black people being more likely to be detained under mental health powers. Does the Security Minister share my worry, especially following these six murders committed by Rudakubana and Calocane, that making it harder to detain dangerous people under the Mental Health Act because of racial sensitivities is not the right thing to do? Will he raise that point with his colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that dangerous people such as Calocane and Rudakubana can be sectioned and detained when that is needed to protect the public? I am sure that he would share my view that misplaced political correctness about racial quotas cannot be allowed to endanger the public.

Let me say a word about wider concerns regarding Prevent. Does the Security Minister agree with William Shawcross that we cannot lose focus on the main threats that we face, besides the important threats that he discussed in his statement, with which I generally agree? Since 1999, 94% of terrorist-caused deaths have been caused by Islamists, yet only 13% of referrals to Prevent relate to Islamist extremists. Does the Security Minister share my concern about this disparity? What steps will he take to make sure that those at risk of committing acts of Islamist terrorism are properly identified and handled?

Let me turn to the question of openness and transparency. In the aftermath of the murders, basic information about Rudakubana’s identity and the fact that he was found in possession of ricin and an al-Qaeda terrorist manual were not made public, even though in other cases such information has been made public. Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said that it should have been made public. The information about the ricin and the terror manual was made public in October, well before the trial and without risk of prejudice, and Merseyside Police has subsequently said that it wanted to release more information but could not do so. That created an information vacuum that was filled by untrue rumour, which arguably fuelled the subsequent riots.

Will the Minister confirm that the inquiry into the Southport tragedy will cover communications to the public afterwards, and whether more should have been disclosed more quickly? That is a vital aspect of this case and the inquiry must cover it. I would be grateful if the Security Minister confirmed that it will.

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his questions. He is absolutely right to focus our thoughts on the victims and the unimaginable pain that their families will continue to suffer. I am grateful for his support for the public inquiry. Let me confirm that it will begin on a non-statutory footing. That is deliberate, in order to get it up and moving as quickly as possible, but I can assure him that it will then be moved to a statutory footing.

The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about mental health interventions, which will have been on the minds of hon. Members across the House. The inquiry’s precise terms of reference are still being agreed, because we need to agree and discuss that with the family members, but I understand why he has made that point and why he referenced the terrible attacks that took place in Nottingham. He may know that this Government are supporting an inquiry into those attacks. More generally, I assure him that we will always do what is necessary and right to safeguard the security and protection of the public.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned William Shawcross; as I have said from this Dispatch Box previously, we have now implemented 33 of the 34 recommendations of the Shawcross review. He also asked me about the review of Prevent thresholds, which the Home Secretary has referenced on a number of occasions. We are reviewing the thresholds—in short, because we think that they have been too low in previous times. That is why we are looking very carefully at them again.

I understand why the right hon. Gentleman sought to make the point about transparency. The Home Secretary, myself, and all the Ministers in the Department and across Government, followed very carefully the guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. I know that he will understand, as a former Minister in the Home Office, that our absolute priority was delivering justice for the victims. We could not have got ourselves into a situation where we put ourselves in contempt of court, which would have undermined the judicial process. Rightly, we would never have been forgiven for that. We were incredibly careful to ensure that we did not do that, while at the same time respecting the obvious requirement for transparency.

The inability to answer certain questions in the aftermath of the attack did give rise to the questions asked at the time, and they require careful consideration. We will shortly confirm arrangements for independent expert analysis of these particular issues, because I understand why he raises them. I assure him that the one thing that we did not want to do was prejudice ongoing legal proceedings.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and his Department for the sensitive way in which the families were consulted prior to its publication; I have spoken with several of the people most intimately impacted over the last few days, and I know full well how much it is appreciated.

Some of the details in the review beggar belief. I will mention just one. There were spelling mistakes in the Prevent database. Each time Rudakubana was referred to Prevent, his name was recorded with a different spelling. The review states that it is possible that previous referrals did not show up in searches. Can this House have confidence that, where such issues and training needs are identified, the recommendations of the review will be implemented rapidly to make sure that the failures of the Prevent programme between 2019 and 2024 are not repeated?

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank my hon. Friend for the exceptional job that he has done representing his constituents and constituency through the darkest of days. I can give him the assurances that he seeks. The public inquiry will seek to get to the heart of the issues that he raised, but I can say to him and to the House that we will not hesitate to act in the meantime. It is vital that our response is joined up locally and nationally. The measures that the Home Secretary has announced and that I have reiterated today should ensure that that is the case, but we will not hesitate to act further if that is required.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The events in Southport were horrifying—a brutal, senseless act of violence—and my thoughts, like those of others, remain with the families of Alice, Bebe and Elsie, whose lives were taken. We owe it to these three girls and to their families, friends and communities to ensure that an act of such hideous brutality is not allowed to be repeated.

We should all be deeply troubled that warning signs were missed in the lead-up to the attack. The Liberal Democrats have long raised concerns about the failures of Prevent. We welcome the publishing of the Prevent learning review, and indeed the introduction of a dedicated Prevent commissioner to give an independent view, but would welcome any details from the Minister on the powers the commissioner will have to enforce improvements on the Prevent system—will the role be on a statutory footing, for example?

More broadly, we must ensure that our national security strategy accounts for a wide range of threats. As this case has made clear, perpetrators may be motivated by a fascination with violence, but not a particular ideology, which may allow them to slip through the net. How will the Minister ensure that future strategies, both counter-terrorism and otherwise, are watertight to prevent such awful acts from happening again?

Protecting communities must be at the centre of this approach, so what is being done to reassure the public that they remain safe from these threats? What will be done to ensure that incidents of this type are not exploited by extremist groups? The Minister is right to say this must be a line in the sand, but it must also be a turning point. We owe it to the victims and their families to ensure that the failures that led to this tragedy are not repeated.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive tone of her remarks. She asked about the independent Prevent commissioner. We have appointed Lord Anderson on an interim basis, ahead of a permanent appointment this summer, and we will work closely with him to establish the role. He has unique experience and is hugely respected across this House and in the other place, and I am confident that he will do what needs to be done to provide the assurances that hon. Members are looking for.

The hon. Lady made an interesting point about seeking to ensure that the national security apparatus that keeps the public safe is watertight. The assurance that I can give her—I hope this also provides some reassurance to the public, which was her next point—is that we are fortunate in this country to have extraordinary men and women serving in our national security agencies, operational partners, police and across Government who work tirelessly to keep the public safe. I hope that she, and the whole House, can find some reassurance in the commitment of this Government and all those who work tirelessly to keep the public safe. It is our No. 1 priority, and we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. It makes me deeply angry to listen to the litany of errors by different agencies across the public sector, not just in failing to realise the level of threat that Rudakubana posed in each instance of encountering him, but in failing to join the dots and realise the common pattern they were all seeing—not least because in 2020, my constituents Jan and Gary Furlong lost their wonderful son, James, in the Forbury Gardens attack. As in the Southport attack, there were systematic failings in the system. The perpetrator had four Prevent referrals and was known to mental health services, and nobody joined the dots.

Will the Security Minister ensure that whatever else the inquiry into these tragic and preventable deaths examines, it looks closely at how the agencies talk to each other and assess threats together? Agencies and Departments can no longer be allowed to work in silos. Given the Minister’s statement that the Government will take steps to publish the findings of other independent Prevent learning reviews where there has been an incident of national significance, may I ask whether that will be extended to the Forbury Gardens attack?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend has been a tireless champion for her constituents. It was humbling to meet Gary and Jan Furlong recently with her; they are incredible people whose decency is inspiring. As she knows, the terrible Forbury Gardens incident occurred before the formalisation of the learning review process. However, thorough scrutiny was given to the Prevent case management of the perpetrator through the coronial process.

The Government are committed to learning from these previous failings and from the experience of Gary and Jan Furlong. The Home Secretary has written to the Furlongs and the other families of the victims of the terrible Forbury Gardens attack, and I know she will want to meet with them soon; I recommend that Lord Anderson does so too, so that collectively, as a Government, we can learn everything possible from that terrible attack.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I press the Minister further on the issue of transparency? He says that Ministers did not wish to prejudice the trial, but the murderer’s possession of the ricin and the terror manual was revealed before the trial. There is a suspicion that this information was not released within days because there was a feeling in Government that it might inflame racial tensions, but this lack of transparency unfortunately simply fed conspiracy theories. Will the Minister confirm whether Ministers took a conscious decision not to reveal that information, and have they learned the lesson so that in future, should such an outrage occur—which we all hope will never happen again—we can be completely transparent?

[Dan Jarvis]

I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that Ministers did everything mindful of the absolute need to avoid contempt of court and interfering with ongoing legal proceedings. He specifically mentions the issue of ricin. The Home Secretary and I were close to this investigation throughout, and the Home Secretary was informed of that fact on 2 August. Police investigations are fast moving, and it is important that facts are established as they relate to the prosecution of an individual; it is not for Ministers to provide a running commentary on any or every aspect of an investigation. I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that we take these matters incredibly seriously. We are thinking about how these terrible incidents can be managed in the future with regard to the passage of information, but I can give him the assurance that we acted in the best interests of securing justice for the victims throughout.

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

I thank the Minister for his important update. As an aside, I hope that he will keep the definition of extremism under review.

Turning to the case today, I am sure the Minister will agree that we have a collective responsibility to ensure that young people do not develop a world view that leads them to a life of violent extremism. We know that a lot of the grooming of young people starts online, and that the perpetrator in this case viewed harmful content online, which stayed online for months on end. What conversations has the Minister had with the social media companies, which have to take some responsibility over the content that is generated and then amplified on their platforms?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government are crystal clear that content which is illegal must be taken down by the tech companies. We have the power to compel companies that fail to co-operate on such content. I think it is not a controversial thing to say that the tech companies have an absolute responsibility, both legal and moral, to keep their users safe, and that particularly applies in the context of younger people. As I think she will know, from March, under the Online Safety Act 2023, they will be required to identify and remove terrorist content swiftly and prevent users from encountering it. The Government have again been clear: should that not prove to be sufficient, we will consider all mechanisms, including legislative ones, to go further.

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

Will the Minister consider making available to interested colleagues on both sides of the House a presentation of what actually happens on Prevent and Channel courses? In the absence of that, may I ask him, from his personal knowledge of what happens on those courses, am I right in thinking that they are primarily therapeutic? Would he therefore accept that there are some people, not primarily motivated by ideology but psychotic, extremely narcissist and possibly using or abusing mind-altering drugs, who, no matter how much therapy they had, would still go on to commit atrocities; in which case, what powers exist, in mental health legislation and anti-terrorist legislation, to prevent them from committing such acts?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always am, for his very sensible and reasonable question. I am very happy to arrange a presentation in the way that he has described, if he and other right hon. and hon. Members think that that would be useful. I think it would be and I think it is a helpful suggestion. The truth of the matter is that, in the context of the Prevent programme, we will be dealing with a wide range of different threats. We have spoken previously about our increasing concern with regard to the number of young people who are presenting for a variety of different reasons, but those reasons do include very significant concerns that relate to mental health, autism and neurodivergence. We are looking at those things incredibly carefully. As I know that he will understand, the public inquiry will of course look at them as well. I referenced earlier on in my remarks some pilot trials that we will be launching next week. They are about looking at how we can manage data in a more effective way and how we can ensure that those people who currently do not meet the thresholds for referral into the Prevent programme can be guaranteed the support that they obviously require in order to mitigate the risks that they are exposed to. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s approach. I will think on it further and come back to him with thoughts about a presentation.

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

It is right that the Prevent system is reviewed in detail to ensure that any failings can never happen again, and I thank the Security Minister for his important and constructive statement. Our judicial system and the rule of law are at the very heart of British values, yet we have seen repeated attempts by some opposition to demean our values. The Government’s insistence on following legal advice has ultimately led to a successful prosecution. Imprisoning murderers and terrorists should never be put at risk, so does the Minister agree that the House should unite on national security issues, as it has done in the past, instead of playing political games?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him. I hope the House knows that the Government will always want to work in a constructive, co-operative and cross-party way with regard to matters relating to national security. That is, I think, the right approach. I can give him an assurance that in the aftermath of the terrible attack back in July last year, the Home Secretary and I were absolutely determined to ensure that we did nothing and said nothing that would interfere with ongoing proceedings. We would, rightly, never have been forgiven had we interfered with that process in a way that might have undermined a trial. That was our motivation: securing justice for the victims and their families.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and particularly for the intention to review and reform Prevent. May I ask him to look at the role of social media, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) did earlier, but to do so in the context of the tragic killing of Harvey Willgoose at All Saints Catholic high school in Sheffield on Monday? My sympathies go out to Harvey’s family, his friends and those at the school, particularly those who witnessed this tragic and awful incident at first hand.

South Yorkshire police have told me that after the incident, many comments and speculations about what had happened appeared online—some downright misleading, while some, as in the Southport case, could have prejudiced a future inquiry and future trial. The social media companies have a responsibility in this regard. Worse still, perhaps, the police told me that immediately after the attack, there was a video on social media of Harvey receiving CPR in the school. I found that absolutely appalling. When South Yorkshire police approached social media—I understand that Meta was the platform—and asked them to take the video down, their answer was that because there was no violence in the video, it was not their policy to take it down. What can the Minister and his colleagues do to get the social media companies to behave responsibly in a situation such as this? Imagine how Harvey’s family and friends must feel seeing that video online.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the circumstances of this awful case, and I join him in sending our condolences for the terrible loss of life in Sheffield earlier in the week. He has made an important point, and has made it in a very powerful way. The tech companies do have a responsibility to keep their users safe, and where there is content such as that which he has described, I do not think any right-minded person thinks it should be available to be viewed. The Government have a working relationship with the tech companies, and I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has had to say. I will raise it with colleagues across Government, and we will see what we can do about it.

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

The Prevent learning review of the Southport horror is shocking. It reveals a series of massive failures, to the point of gross negligence by people in Prevent. However, it also uses some crucial words: it refers to factors that

“make him susceptible to being drawn into terrorism.”

That appears to indicate that the review has found that the killer was a terrorist. I therefore think that the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service need to be crystal clear with the British people. Are they now accepting that the action of this monster was a terror incident?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member has asked me to be crystal clear, so I will be. The perpetrator has been found guilty of a terrorism-related offence, and will therefore be considered to be a registered terrorist offender. He will be subject to the associated sentencing procedures, and will be treated as a person convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

I am speaking on behalf of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), who has been working closely with the Home Office and, most important, with the family of the late Sir David Amess. It makes me angry to listen to the litany of errors that occurred when agencies were not necessarily talking to each other, but I welcome this announcement nevertheless. The Amess family and the city of Southend deserve it, and more. Can the Minister assure me that the Prevent learning review will provide the much-needed answers and, crucially, the learnings that the family of Sir David Amess deserve?

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. Sir David Amess is a much-missed colleague, and his family continue to be in our thoughts. The Home Secretary met Lady Amess recently, and we are very grateful to the family for the important representations that they have made. Next week, as I have said, we will publish the Prevent learning review of the appalling attack on Sir David. We will never forget him.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

None of us would wish to pre-empt the public inquiry before it has even started, but based on what the Minister has told us, it seems inevitable that we will face the issue of different state agencies failing to speak to each other about an individual who is coming up on their systems. If they had spoken to each other, they might have realised the serious danger that the Southport attacker posed. My constituent Zara Aleena would have been alive today if agencies had talked to each other two years ago. Will the Minister ensure that inter-agency communication is at the heart of any lessons learnt from this inquiry?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking his question in the way that he has, and I am dreadfully sad about what happened to his constituent. He makes a very important point about inter-agency co-operation and working. That is one of the things that we will look very carefully at, and it is certainly one of the things that the public inquiry will focus on. We have to ensure that there is a joined-up response at local, regional and national levels, and we will do so.

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will clarify one point that I made to the shadow Home Secretary earlier. He made some good points about transparency, and I want to be clear with him that it is the Law Commission that will review the contempt of court rules.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

The tragic events in Southport were horrific, and I welcome the Government’s review of the Prevent policy. The murderer should have been monitored better. We must implement steps to ensure that this never happens again. The tragic incident set off civil unrest across the country, and it found its way to Plymouth. In that moment of extreme societal emotion, the community in Plymouth came together as one and, in the end, our streets saw minimal public disorder. Does the Minister agree that we must tackle the root causes of that civil unrest, which include disinformation online?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I can give him the assurance that he seeks about tackling disinformation online. He makes an important point about the response from his constituents in the city of Plymouth. Looking back at the aftermath of the terrible attack in Southport, in those dark days of July last year, we saw the worst of our country in that certain people seemed to think that it was acceptable to throw rocks, bricks and missiles at the police, but we also saw the best of our country, exemplified by decent people who stood against that. In that context, it is also important to remember the members of the police force—those brave men and women—who stood against the threat. We should send them our heartfelt thanks for all their work.

Extremism Review

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the Government’s extremism review reported on today.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

In our manifesto, the Government set out our commitment to redoubling efforts to counter extremism, including online, to stop people being radicalised and drawn towards hateful ideologies. A number of strands of activity have been established to progress this work, which, among other things, have led to the appointment of an interim Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson, to drive improvements. We have published plans to introduce youth diversion orders to tackle young people at risk of terrorism.

Many documents produced across Government as part of commissioned work are not implemented and do not constitute Government policy. This work did not recommend an expansion in the definition of extremism, and there are not and have never been any plans to do so. To be clear, the leaked documents were not current or new Government policy.

As we have said repeatedly, Islamist extremism followed by far-right extremism are the biggest threats we face. Last week, the Home Secretary set out our plans to carry out an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds on Islamist extremism, because we are concerned that the number of referrals is too low. Ideology, particularly Islamist extremism followed by far-right extremism, continues to be at the heart of our approach to countering extremism and terrorism.

But, as the horrific Southport attack shows, we also need more action on those drawn towards mixed ideologies and violence-obsessed young people. As the Home Secretary set out in the House last week, there has been a troubling rise in the number of cases involving teenagers drawn into extremism, including Islamist extremism, far-right extremism, mixed and confused ideologies, and obsession with violence. This includes a threefold increase in under-18s investigated for involvement in terrorism. Some 162 people were referred to Prevent last year for concerns relating to school massacres. Our Five Eyes counter-terror partners have also warned about the growing radicalisation of teenagers and young people.

We will continue to drive work to counter the most significant extremist threats in the weeks and months ahead, as the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have already set out.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp]

Yesterday evening, Policy Exchange put into the public domain the Home Secretary’s review into extremism, or at least a version of it. It contained some deeply concerning proposals that I would like the Minister to directly address.

The report apparently says that the definition of extremism, for the purposes of Prevent and other programmes, could be extended to include the spreading of misinformation, the so-called online “manosphere” and misogyny. First, does the Minister agree with Prevent reviewer William Shawcross that we need to focus the attention of Prevent and counter-terrorism policing on those with extremist ideologies and not risk diluting attention with these much wider issues? Ninety-four per cent of terrorism-caused deaths since 1999 were caused by Islamist terrorism. Does the Minister agree that combating Islamist terrorism is more important than policing the manosphere? The wider issues referenced, such as violence against women and girls and more general violence obsession, are, of course, serious. However, they are best dealt with by the police, the criminal justice system, social services or mental health services, which have the power to section people that pose a risk.

Secondly, will the Minister commit to retaining the changes to non-crime hate incidents made by the last Government? Police should not be looking into matters or recording personal data where there is no imminent risk of criminality. To do so would waste police time and infringe freedom of speech. Any move away from that will enable the thought police to stop anyone telling uncomfortable truths that left-wing lawyers do not like.

Finally, the report the Home Secretary commissioned repeats the Prime Minister’s previous smear that campaigning against rape gangs, which we now know consist of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators, is far-right. The report also says that commenting on elements of policing policy is extremist and far-right. That is nonsense. Campaigning against rape gangs is not extremist or far right, and commenting on policing, whether we agree or not with the comments, is simply the exercise of free speech. Will the Minister categorically disown those remarks, which were contained in the Home Secretary’s report?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me gently remind the shadow Home Secretary that his remarks refer to a leaked report, which, I could not have been clearer, does not and will not represent Government policy. The work, as I understand it—because it is not entirely clear which version of the report was leaked—did not recommend an expansion in the definition of extremism, and as I said to the House earlier, there are not nor will there be any plans to do so.

The shadow Home Secretary mentioned William Shawcross. Again, I will gently remind him that this Government have implemented all but one of the recommendations in the Shawcross review. He also asked about non-hate crime incidents. Again, the Home Secretary has been very clear about that: a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken with regard to non-hate crime incidents. The Government have, again, also been crystal clear that our top priority for policing is to deliver on the safer streets mission, rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore public confidence and make progress on the ambition to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls.

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

I must be careful here, Mr Speaker, because I think you were right to allow this urgent question. However, can my hon. Friend the Minister explain just exactly why we are here? It seems to be—

[Clive Efford]

The shadow Home Secretary seems to have come here to ask questions about a document that is not Government policy and to stand there making indignant statements about issues that are not Government policy either. Does my hon. Friend not think that we should be taking a much more level-headed approach to this issue than that which has been displayed by the Conservative party?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, which I entirely agree with. This Government and Ministers are always happy to come to this place to discuss and debate Government policy. The leaked report is not Government policy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

There is no place for extremism or hatred of any form in our society. It is right that the Government work with communities to stamp that out, not least after the previous Conservative Government seemed to seek out opportunities to sow more and more seeds of division.

From what we have heard about the extremism review report, it does not bring the right answers forward and risks being counterproductive.

Now it is up to the Government to develop a counter-extremism strategy that is strong, effective and alive to the modern challenges facing our society. That includes addressing an increasingly complex online world and its role in inciting extremism. I would welcome more details from the Minister on how the Government will do this. To be effective, the work must also properly engage communities. Will the Minister set out how communities will be consulted on any upcoming counter-extremism strategies?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her entirely sensible and reasonable questions. She is absolutely right to say that there is no place for extremism in our society. This Government will work across party, across Government, and use all available levers to ensure that we have the right resources in the right place to tackle what is an increasingly challenging threat. She is right that an important element of that is the work that we need to do and are doing with regard to the online space. She will be aware that the Online Safety Act 2023 will come into force soon, and we have consistently said that we will look very closely at how effective that will be, and that where we need to make changes we will of course do so. As she can imagine, the conversations continue with the social media companies. We expect them to do the right thing, and where there is illegal content online, to remove it at pace.

The hon. Member is also right to stress the importance of working with communities. That is why counter-extremism work is done properly across Government, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as a key partner.

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

I thank the Minister for his unambiguous statement. I had a feeling that he was going to say something along those lines, because I read a similar unambiguous statement from the Home Office in this morning’s newspapers. Therefore, I do not understand how the shadow Home Secretary has struggled to follow the Government’s position. Does the Minister agree that the correct way to deal with extremism is to focus on what drives it? As we heard in the House last week in relation to the Southport attack, weaponry, including knives, has a devastating effect across the country. What steps is the Home Office taking to restrict access to knives and weaponry for those with extreme views?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Over the weekend, the Home Secretary announced stricter age verification checks and a ban on doorstep drops to protect people from knife crime. These measures are set to be included in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is expected to be introduced to Parliament by the spring. Under these new rules, a two-step system will be mandated for all retailers selling knives online, requiring customers to submit photo ID at the point of sale and again on delivery. Delivery companies will only be able to deliver a bladed article to the person who purchased it, and it will also be illegal to leave a package containing a bladed weapon on a doorstep when no one is in to receive it.

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

In the early years of Margaret Thatcher’s Government, Lord Scarman was commissioned to write a report on what were—they did not use this phrase at the time—concerns among the black community about two-tier policing. In response to those concerns, the police listened, changed their procedures, and engaged in consultative work with those communities, so why is it that when communities complain about two-tier policing under this Government, they are branded far-right extremists?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman will have worked throughout his time with our police forces—not just as former Home Secretary, in that great office of state, but elsewhere—and I very much hope that he shares the admiration and respect—

[Mr Cleverly]

Answer the question.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am answering the question. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman shares the admiration and respect that we on these Benches have for the incredibly difficult and challenging work that the police do. I have to say that those who seek to progress a narrative of two-tier policing do no favours to our police forces. All they seek to do is make it more difficult for those extraordinary men and women who step forward to serve in our police force to do a very important job.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

In all the commentary overnight on this leaked advice, I was struck by one comment from the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), that was reported on GB News. He said:

“Of course violence against women and girls and some of the other issues raised in this report… warrant attention by the police”

—“warrant attention”? Is it any wonder that sexual violence was allowed to become endemic under the previous Government and that the best a previous Home Office Minister could say is that it warrants attention?

[Dan Jarvis]

The shadow Justice Secretary was a Home Office Minister for a considerable period of time. It might be worthwhile if he reflects on the record of his Government while he was a Minister.

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

So this report that has just been leaked was commissioned by the Home Secretary after the Southport horrors last July. The truth is that it has come out and all the recommendations have basically been immediately written off by the Home Secretary. Does that not confirm that the people in her Department are completely out of touch with her wishes and those of the British people?

[Dan Jarvis]

Not at all. The hon. Member is simply not correct. This work was being progressed before the dreadful incident in Southport. I am sure, and I certainly hope, that he will appreciate that Secretaries of State will routinely commission advice from civil servants. Some of the recommendations of that advice will be accepted and agreed; some will not, but it is routine practice in government to ask civil servants to look very closely at particular issues. Ultimately, it is for Ministers to decide, and Ministers will decide.

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

As interesting as it sounds, I have no idea what a “manosphere” is. As far as I am concerned, the only real question that the Security Minister needs to answer is what action the Government are taking to ensure this kind of disgraceful, politically motivated leak to a former Tory adviser cannot happen again, especially on issues of national security. We proudly have an impartial civil service, so will he ask the Cabinet Secretary to order an immediate leak inquiry and put on gardening leave those Tory advisers and civil servants who are still working in Downing Street and those who are regarded as close associates of Andrew Gilligan?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful point. It is standard procedure in circumstances such as these that the Cabinet Secretary orders a leak inquiry, and that would be the right way to proceed under these circumstances.

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

In Keighley, we have seen how labelling legitimate concerns around grooming gangs as far-right has distorted conversations, silenced victims and inadvertently given space to bad faith actors. It is therefore incredibly concerning to see this report written by Home Office officials using similar language, calling grooming gangs an “alleged” problem and once again framing this issue through the lens of the far right rather than the eyes of victims. Does the Minister agree with the language used in the report around grooming gangs? If not, how can he, or the Home Secretary, have faith in the Home Office officials?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member has been consistent in raising his concerns in this particular area. I hope he will understand that I was clear earlier that many documents are produced across Government as part of commission work that are not implemented and that do not constitute Government policy. To be absolutely clear with him, this is a leaked document, but the work did not recommend an expansion in the extremism definition. These are not Government plans; this is not Government policy.

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

If the Conservatives now consider it okay for public servants to leak documents relating to national security, I hope they will not object if we see leaks on matters relating to their time in charge, such as the risks arising from Russian donors to the Tory party and to our great country—whatever happened to British values? Does the Security Minister agree—

[Mike Tapp]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I am not surprised Conservative Members are wound up by that. Does the Security Minister agree that at least one party in this House needs to behave within our values when it comes to security, and that security leaks are wrong?

[Dan Jarvis]

All leaks are wrong, but let me take this opportunity to say that I am actually very proud of the civil servants in the Home Office, who work extremely hard day in, day out to keep our country safe from a diverse range of threats. A number of Conservative Members here have worked in the Home Office, and I very much hope that they share my view that we should be extremely grateful to those civil servants who work around the clock to keep our country safe, and I am grateful for their efforts.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

The horrendous events in Southport show that people who do not fit the profile of Islamist or far-right extremism can still present serious risk. Does the Minister agree that there is a real danger in the promotion of misogyny and opposition to feminism online and that to combat the scourge of violence against women and girls, which sees one woman murdered almost every three days in the UK, the Government must take misogyny seriously as a form of extremism?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She makes an incredibly important point, and hopefully she will know and understand how seriously this Government take those issues. We made an ambitious manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls over 10 years. That is something that, as Ministers in the Home Office with the Home Secretary and the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), we are working at pace to address. We take these matters very seriously, and she is absolutely right to identify the particular challenges that exist online. The Safeguarding Minister will have more to say about this in due course.

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

I am grateful to the Security Minister for his words today. He has successfully exposed the reports about the leak as the nonsense they are. But there are serious issues here, including around how we respond to the rising level of youth violence and extremism and the increasing availability of online material that fuels that obsession with violence and death. Will he tell us how the intelligence services are approaching this challenge and what more the Government can do to stop young people disappearing into this dangerous abyss?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both recently referred to this, including during their statements on 21 February. She is right that there has been a troubling rise in the number of cases involving youth men, boys and teenagers who are being drawn into extremism. As I said to the House earlier, that includes a range of different areas, including Islamist and far-right extremism, but also there is a particularly concerning rise in those drawn into what is referred to as mixed and confused ideology, and those young men and boys who have an obsession with violence. This threat is not unique to the United Kingdom; it is being experienced internationally, but I assure her that the intelligence services and our law enforcement partners are working with Government at pace, along with our international partners, to look at what more we can do in this particular area.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I first echo the Minister’s point that we should be grateful to those civil servants who are working night and day to protect us from terrorist threats? I suppose we should also be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for denouncing the document, which certainly emanated from his Department, without making any personal criticism of those civil servants. But does that document not demonstrate that a large body of opinion has completely lost its way on how we deal with extremism and terrorist threats? I urge him to encourage the Department to return to what Prevent is intended to achieve and not get distracted by all this political correctness, given that most of the country have no idea what a “non-hate crime incident” is. We need to return to proper language that people understand, or the Government themselves will be driving people’s disillusion and despair about these matters.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as always, for his observations, and for his point about civil servants. He talks about political correctness; having served together in the House over many years, I hope he knows the Home Secretary and me well. Fundamentally, this must be about the threat. We will leave no stone unturned to ensure that we have the appropriate level of resource in the right place at the right time, so that the ever-evolving and complex nature of the threat we face—both in the United Kingdom and abroad—is appropriately addressed by our law enforcement agencies. I give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that we will continue to work around the clock to ensure that we protect the public.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I thank the Security Minister for clarifying the timeline of when this report was commissioned. We should remember that since it was commissioned, we have seen the brutal, sadistic murders in Southport and the riots that came after them. Clearly, we are living in a time of rising and worrying extremism, which should concern Members on all sides of this House. Does the Security Minister therefore agree that Members on all sides of this House should be working together to deal with extremism, rather than playing political games?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope the House knows that it is always my default setting—if you want to put it that way—to try to work collaboratively with Members across this House. I give my hon. Friend and the House an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. I think Members will understand that it is right to commission civil servants to look very carefully at the profound nature of the threat that we face, and to bring forward policy suggestions and solutions for how we as a Government are best placed to address them. That is what is happening, but this Government will always do the right thing to ensure that we protect the public.

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

We have to tread very carefully when we enter into this territory. The leaking of this report has already raised alarm bells with a number of different groups, and has given the right another opportunity to spread division and further disinformation. What reassurances can the Minister give campaign groups, environmentalists and those who have taken up campaigns that they will not be included when he finally brings forward his plans in the future?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that this Government will always approach these matters in a level-headed and consensual way. It is the case that previous Governments sought to use these issues as a political football.

[Chris Philp]

indicated dissent.

[Dan Jarvis]

It is the case that previous Governments were, on occasion, motivated as much by a desire to score political points. That will never be the approach of this Government. We are motivated only by a desire to protect the public.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I echo the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray). Just this weekend in my own constituency, we had an incident in our community with young people and knives. Although I cannot comment on that particular incident, I am extremely concerned about the availability of knives, particularly to our young people. Does the Minister agree that the sale of knives is too easy, particularly online, and can he tell me and my constituents what the Government are doing to restrict that availability and the fear it spreads in our communities?

[Dan Jarvis]

The Government share my hon. Friend’s concern about the availability of knives online. That is why—as I said to another hon. Member a moment ago—just this weekend, the Home Secretary announced stricter age verification checks and a ban on doorstep drops, in order to better protect people from knife crime. We will do everything that we possibly can, working with online retailers and the police, to ensure that the availability of knives is very significantly reduced in order to protect the public.

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

The repudiation of the contents of this report is a step back from thought crime, but the danger remains of two steps towards it. Is it not outrageous when individuals are harassed by the police when they have not broken the law?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that, of course, the police should and will be guided by the law. As an experienced Member, I am sure he will have worked very closely with the police over many years. My experience of working closely with the police is that they make the right judgments for the right reasons, but where there are issues that require further attention, the Government will of course look at those matters.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It seems that advice to Ministers on national security issues has been leaked to a former Tory special adviser, and as a result of that leak the Security Minister has been summoned to the Chamber to answer questions, even though the leak does not represent Government policy and the Minister has made it clear that the advice has been rejected. Does he agree that this sets a dangerous precedent and may encourage more disgruntled individuals to commit politically motivated leaks, and that it shows that His Majesty’s official Opposition are sadly sinking into the mire of populism, which can only undermine our national security and, indeed, our democracy in the future?

[Dan Jarvis]

As I hope I have made crystal clear, I am always happy to come to this House to debate and discuss matters relating to national security. I will do that whenever the House wishes me to do so, but on this particular occasion—as I think I have also been crystal clear about—this leak is about something that does not represent Government policy.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

There is no place for extremism in our society or country, from anyone. Prevent unfairly associates certain ethnic minorities and religious groups with extremism, and the programme’s vague definition of extremism has led to inconsistent implementation, with concerns about overreach. What steps are the Government taking to address the discrimination and failings in the Prevent programme and make it impartial and effective, to prevent extremism and violence across all of society?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member is right to say that there is no place for extremism in this country—of course that is the case—but I do not agree with his characterisation of the Prevent programme. That programme consists of some extremely dedicated and hard-working public servants, but the hon. Member will know that the Home Secretary has announced the appointment of an interim Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson. He will be looking very closely at how the Prevent programme works and how it can be made to work more effectively in the future.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

When tackling extremism—whether violent or non-violent—is the Security Minister satisfied that the current division of labour between counter-terrorism policing and the security service is understood well enough by those two organisations, and is delivering and working well?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am always very grateful to the right hon. Member—he speaks with real experience and authority on these matters, and he raises an important and reasonable question. Yes, I am happy to give him that assurance; I work incredibly closely with both counter-terrorism police and operational partners on a daily basis. Of course, we look at these things very closely and keep them under review, and if we think that we need to change the balance in any particular area, we will not hesitate to do so.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

If the Security Minister thinks that there is not two-tier policing in this country, then quite frankly, he needs to get out more. This report states that anybody who calls out two-tier policing is a far-right extremist and that grooming and rape gangs are an “alleged” problem. Does the Minister agree?

[Dan Jarvis]

The point I was seeking to make earlier, which I am happy to reiterate to the hon. Member, is about the importance that we on the Labour Benches attach to supporting the police. We think that the police do an incredibly difficult job, and while the hon. Member might think that I need to get out a bit more, perhaps he might consider spending a bit of time with police officers on the beat in his constituency and in his area. If he were to do so, I am quite confident that he would see that they are exceptional people doing difficult work under difficult circumstances. There is a real risk that seeking to progress this narrative undermines the important work of the police.

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

It is good to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box to distance himself from the conclusions of a report commissioned by his Department, but reports do not leak themselves. Why does he think that whoever leaked this does not agree with him that there is “Nothing to see here”?

[Dan Jarvis]

Ultimately, that is a matter for the leaker, but as I have said, it is standard procedure in circumstances such as this for the Cabinet Office to initiate a leak inquiry. I think that would be the right course of action under these circumstances, so if I were the leaker, I would not be too comfortable at the moment.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

In drawing up a policy, the Minister needs to consult with representatives of all communities, particularly those suffering the worst attacks by the far right in Britain, so can he assure us that he will be meeting the Muslim Council of Britain and other Muslim organisations, and that the policy of non-co-operation with the MCB has been brought to an end, despite statements by his office that there was no plan to do so?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Government have a responsibility to consult with all communities. Of course, that work is shared across Government, which is why we work very closely with other Departments, not least the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is progressing its own bits of work on all this. On his specific point about liaison, there is not a change to the Government policy with regard to that.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain why the review appears to focus on the symptoms of extremism rather than its underlying root causes? Can he assure the House that that mindset is not directing policy in the Home Office?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I can assure the hon. Member that the mindset that directs policy in the Home Office is what the Home Secretary and I think is in our national interest. The Home Secretary and I will use every tool and every lever at our disposal to ensure we keep the public safe. That is what we get out of bed every morning to do, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I trust the Minister will agree that terrorism in all its forms is always deserving only of punishment and repudiation, never of glorification, particularly by political leaders. Does he therefore agree that it is beyond reprehensible that the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, continues to attend IRA celebrations of the actions of IRA terrorists? Just before Christmas, she laid a wreath and spoke at the commemoration for three IRA terrorists who blew themselves up with their own bomb. What message does that send on extremism to future generations?

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope the hon. and learned Member will understand that I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to delve into matters in Northern Ireland in the context of this response. But his remarks at the beginning of his question about there never being an excuse or justification for terrorism are a point of consensus around which we can all unite.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Security Minister recently told me that it remains Government policy not to engage with the Muslim Council of Britain. Last week, the Minister for Social Security and Disability attended the MCB annual leadership dinner. Did that Minister breach Government policy, or is engagement with the MCB now tolerated after all?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member asked me a question previously at Home Office orals, specifically in the context of engagement by the Home Secretary and her Ministers.

[Chris Philp]

Answer the question!

[Dan Jarvis]

The shadow Home Secretary is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I was literally shown the Hansard transcript before this urgent question. [Interruption.] If he will allow me, I will respond to the question.

The hon. Member asked me previously about engagement with the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers. I clearly cannot account from the Dispatch Box for other Ministers’ activities. However, I am happy to look at the circumstances he has raised. I am happy to confirm to him that Government policy has not changed, and if there are specific points I need to come back to him on, I am very happy to do so.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Extreme misogyny associated with far-right ideology is a major factor in extremism. It should be dealt with, to counteract the one women killed every three days in this country, and to ensure that the horrendous Southport killings, the five killings by Jake Davison in Plymouth and the 51 massacred in Christchurch, New Zealand do not happen again. No one wants violence—ideological or political. Does the Minister agree that our obsession with focusing solely on Islamism has left repeated Governments blindsided to real threats facing us from elsewhere?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member is right to say that extreme misogyny is, frankly, a disgusting blight on our country. That is why this Government made a manifesto commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls. It is an ambitious commitment that has not been made previously. As I told the House earlier, the Home Secretary and the Safeguarding Minister are working at pace to seek to address these issues. It is a big priority for the Government, and we intend to make good on the commitments we have made.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers and, in particular, welcome his commitment to supporting the police, which he has mentioned a few times. I have great concerns that the revival of non-crime hate incidents will mean more work for our overstretched police forces, and that it will mean getting involved in a war on offensive words, rather than the war on drugs, the war on terrorism or the war on violence against women and children. Will the revival of non-crime hate incidents come with a substantial increase in police funding, and if so, where will that come from?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as ever, and I am very grateful for the support that he has provided to the police over many years. Let me seek to reassure him, because the Home Secretary has been clear that a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken to non-crime hate incidents. The Government have been crystal clear that our top priority for policing is delivering on our safer streets mission.

Post-legislative Scrutiny of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The Government have today submitted a memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee regarding post-legislative scrutiny of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.

The Home Office has carried out the post-legislative scrutiny, working with key Government and operational stakeholders. The memorandum includes an assessment of how the Act has worked in practice and sets out its findings in a Command Paper to the Committee.

The memorandum has been laid before the House as a Command Paper (CP 1249) and published on gov.uk. Copies will also be available from the Vote Office.

[HCWS377]

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

7. When she plans to bring the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 into force.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman’s work in bringing forward this legislation and reiterate the Government’s commitment to safeguarding rural communities. We will implement the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, and we fully support its intention to tackle the theft and resale of high-value equipment, particularly for use in an agricultural setting.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words and to the Government for their support for what was my private Member’s Bill and is now the Act. The commencement date for the Act was in January last year, but it requires a statutory instrument to be moved to bring it into full force. When will that statutory instrument be moved? Can he assure me that there is no delay because of the equipment manufacturers, who of course benefit massively from crime because they get to sell another one?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the Act requires secondary legislation to take effect. We are currently considering the views of those who may be affected by the legislation, but we intend that the regulations will be in place by the summer.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to help tackle crime in Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

It is a top priority to protect our country and our elected representatives from interference, intimidation and harassment. The defending democracy taskforce brings together a cross-Government response to these threats. We will use all the tools at our disposal to protect our democratic security and resilience.

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

T2.   Last week, the Scottish Parliament passed a motion calling for action on immigration to address the needs of Scotland’s employers, communities and public services, with a particular reference to rural visa pilots. As the Secretary of State knows, every sector in Scotland is crying out for Scottish solutions to distinct Scottish issues and problems. What is her response to that democratically passed motion other than not being interested?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Recently, the owner of social media site X has used his sizeable platform to undermine the democratic result of last July’s general election; has stirred up hatred towards my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), putting her safety at risk; and has sought mechanisms to depose the Prime Minister. Can the Minister say what actions the Defending Democracy Taskforce is taking to prevent this kind of foreign interference in British politics?

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The Government consider this work to be urgent. We have seen some utterly unacceptable activity, both during and beyond the general election. I hope that work to address this issue will be a shared endeavour right across the House, but the Government are working at pace to address it.

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

What actions will the Home Secretary be taking following the news that eight UK companies and organisations have been deemed terror groups by the United Arab Emirates?

[Dan Jarvis]

The UAE is an important international partner for the UK, but of course other countries have their own rules on designation and it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on their processes. I can say to the hon. Member that extremism has no place in our society and that we work very closely with law enforcement, local communities and our international partners to tackle groups and any individuals who seek to sow division and hatred.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

My deepest condolences go to the family and friends of 17-year-old Thomas Taylor, who was fatally stabbed in Bedford last week. Bedfordshire has some of the highest knife crime rates in the country. While I welcome the increased funding for the force and the progress made on tackling knife crime in the region, will the Secretary of State ensure that the special grants awarded to Bedfordshire police in recognition of the high level of serious and violent crimes in the region are maintained? Will she outline what further steps are being taken to deter young people from carrying lethal weapons?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The National Crime Agency estimates that £100 billion of illicit funds flow through the UK yearly. Despite the existence of the David Cameron-created unexplained wealth orders, only 11 orders in total have ever been issued, relating to four or five cases. What is my right hon. Friend doing to stop these orders from becoming pointless, as they were under the Tories, because we cannot afford to use them?

[Dan Jarvis]

Among many other things, the Government have appointed Baroness Hodge as the Government’s anti-corruption champion. We will be working very closely with her and other ministerial colleagues to address the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Can the Home Secretary confirm that none of her Ministers or officials engages with or is in touch with the Muslim Council of Britain, and that there is no correspondence between No. 10, the Home Office and other Departments about restoring ties with the organisation?

[Dan Jarvis]

Yes, we can confirm that that is the case.

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

Several of my constituents in South Oxhey have unfortunately been the victims of burglary or attempted burglary. Will the Home Secretary outline the measures her Department is taking to allow the police to invest in technologies such as live facial recognition, which can make crimes such as burglary easier to solve?

Draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025 Draft Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025.

[Dan Jarvis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.

Both the draft statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 29 October 2024, relate to the National Security Act 2023. That Act, which received Royal Assent in July 2023, includes a number of measures to protect the public, to disrupt the full range of modern-day state threats and to modernise our counter-espionage laws. Among the measures is a prohibited places regime, which includes a suite of tools and offences to protect against and capture harmful activity in and around some of the UK’s most sensitive sites, including from modern threats such as unmanned aircraft—more commonly known as drones. It is essential to make the amendments in the two draft instruments to ensure consistency of approach in consequential amendments in both English and Welsh versions of related legislation, and to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the right tools to do their critical work.

The draft Police Act 1997 regulations add drone-specific offences under the National Security Act 2023 to the list of relevant offences in the Police Act 1997. The 1997 Act provides police and other authorised officials with the legal authority to employ counter-drone equipment, to detect and prevent the use of drones in the commission of relevant offences. That amendment is essential to enforce the National Security Act, as it ensures that police and other authorised officials can authorise the appropriate technical tools to tackle and combat drone misuse. If we do not proceed with the draft legislation, there may be instances in which an offence under the National Security Act 2023 is committed but the police are unable to authorise the use of their equipment.

The other instrument, the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025, amends the Welsh-language version of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019. In December 2023, when changing the English-language version of the 2023 Act through the National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2023, the corresponding change was not made to the Welsh-language version, due to an oversight. The draft instrument will correct that oversight, ensuring that there is no misunderstanding when consulting the Welsh-language version of the Act regarding the ability to disclose information obtained in the course of an investigation by the Public Services Ombudsman, if required in relation to a prosecution for offences under the National Security Act.

I hope that I have made it clear in my remarks that the draft regulations are simply to ensure the correct application and enforcement of primary legislation that has already been agreed by Parliament. Passing the two draft statutory instruments is an important step to correcting an inaccuracy and enforcing primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the constructive tone of his response. I think this is the third statutory instrument that we have done together, and he has always asked entirely sensible and reasonable questions; I am grateful for his approach.

The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the police need to have the technological capabilities to address a developing technological threat. Concerns have been expressed around drone activity in recent times; that has been very much in the public domain. He is absolutely right to say that we must take every step to ensure that drone hobbyists, who rightly use drones in an entirely responsible and reasonable way—there are a number, both nationally and in my own constituency—do not fall foul of the legislation. The last thing that we want is unnecessary pressures on the police and the courts. I will take away the shadow Minister’s point and reflect on it further. I will satisfy myself that work is under way, locally, regionally and nationally, to address the points he raised. If I think I need to come back to him on those points, then I will, but I am grateful to him for raising them today.

In closing, I reiterate that these instruments provide essential updates to allow the correct application and enforcement of the National Security Act 2023. The amendment to the Police Act 1997 is essential to ensure that police and authorised officials have the right tools to tackle drone misuse. The consequential amendment will ensure that existing primary legislation will continue to function properly. The amendment to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019 is essential to ensure correct application of the rules of disclosure in relation to offences contained in the National Security Act of 2023. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025.

DRAFT POLICE ACT 1997 (AUTHORISATIONS TO INTERFERE WITH PROPERTY: RELEVANT OFFENCE) REGULATIONS 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025.—(Dan Jarvis.)

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Appointed Person Report 2023 to 2024

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Today, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 appointed person report covering England and Wales for the period 2023 to 2024, has been laid before Parliament. The appointed person is independent of Government and scrutinises the circumstances and manner in which search and seizure powers conferred by the Act are exercised without prior judicial approval and where nothing is seized for more than 48 hours.

I am pleased that we are now able to publish the appointed person’s latest report. The report details that search and seizure powers were used in these circumstances on five occasions.

The appointed person has confirmed in the report that he is satisfied that the criteria required for justifying the searches without prior judicial approval were met and that the powers of search were exercised appropriately. The appointed person has made no new recommendations for the period. This would indicate that the powers are being used reasonably and appropriately in accordance with the Act. We will continue to monitor the way that the powers have been used closely.

Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office, and it will also be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS341]

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022: Unexplained Wealth Order Report 2023 to 2024

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Today, the unexplained wealth order report for the period 2023 to 2024, has been laid before Parliament. The unexplained wealth order report details the number of unexplained wealth orders made by the High Court in England and Wales during that period, and the number of applications made to that Court by enforcement authorities for such an order.

During this reporting period, two unexplained wealth orders were applied for. One was obtained and the other did not receive a judicial decision during the reporting period. One of the UWOs applied for in the 2022 to 2023 reporting period was also obtained in this reporting period.

Enforcement agencies remain committed to using the unexplained wealth order power where they see it is the best tool available to them. Not all cases merit an unexplained wealth order, and often the range of civil and criminal powers available to them to investigate, search for, and seize assets, better suit the circumstances of a given case. Large amounts of assets are being recovered. In the financial year 2023 to 2024, £62.9 million was recovered through civil recovery order receipts, the highest amount recovered in the last six years.

Enforcement agencies continue to review whether cases are suitable for a UWO.

Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office, and it will also be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS340]

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Costs Protection Report

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Today, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 costs protection report covering England and Wales, has been laid before Parliament. The report is a statutory requirement under section 215 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The Government are required to review whether costs protection should be introduced for enforcement agencies in civil recovery proceedings under part 5 of POCA and publish a report by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the Act was passed.

I am pleased that we are now able to publish the report. The report outlines the engagement exercise that took place to seek consultees views and the options considered for introducing potential changes. The report concludes that the Government see merit in introducing costs protection based on the consultation responses and are making progress to determine whether amendments to legislation should be made.

Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office, and it will also be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS339]

United Front Work Department

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Government if they will make a statement on the extent of the operations of the United Front Work Department within the UK.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The first duty of any Government is national security, and we therefore welcome the court’s decision to uphold the Home Office’s position with regard to the exclusion of H6, who can now be named as Yang Tengbo. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission concluded that there was a “basis for the conclusion” that H6

“had been in a position to generate relationships with prominent UK figures which could be leveraged for political interference purposes by the CCP (including the UFWD) or the Chinese State.”

Where there are individuals who pose a threat to our national security, we are absolutely committed to using the full range of powers available to disrupt them. When we encounter foreign interference or espionage, whether it stems from the United Front Work Department or from any other state-linked actor, we will be swift in using all available tools, including prosecutions, exclusions, sanctions and diplomacy, to keep our country safe.

Given the potential for further litigation, it would be inappropriate for me to say any more, but it is important to recognise that this case does not exist in a vacuum. As the director general of MI5 made clear in October, we are in the most complex threat environment that he has ever seen. Alongside the threat from terrorism, we face ongoing efforts by a number of states, including China, Russia and Iran, to harm the UK’s security. Our response is among the most robust and sophisticated anywhere in the world.

The National Security Act 2023, which was supported by Members on both sides of the House and which strengthened our powers to protect the UK, is central to our protection against states that seek to conduct hostile acts. To date, six individuals have been charged under the new Act, and the Government have been working hard on the roll-out of a crucial part of it: the foreign influence registration scheme, or FIRS. We will say more about that soon, but we intend to lay regulations in the new year and commence the scheme in the summer.

The Government have also set out our approach to China, which will be consistent and strategic. We will challenge where we must in order to keep our country safe, compete where we need to, and co-operate where we can—for example, on matters such as climate change. That is acting in the national interest, as the Prime Minister reiterated earlier today. However, the threats we face from foreign states are pernicious and complex. The work of our intelligence agencies is unrivalled in mitigating them, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them for the amazing work that they do to keep our country safe. Today, as ever, they will be pursuing those who wish to do us harm, including those from foreign states. We support our intelligence agencies in their efforts, and we always will—and they will know that at any point when the UK’s national security is at risk, we will not hesitate to use every tool at our disposal to keep our country safe.

[Mr Speaker]

I want to put two things on the record. First, it would have been easier for the Government to come to the House with a statement; obviously, there was more to say than we have allocated time for.

Secondly, I say to Sir Iain: please do not tell the media what you are going to do and how you are going to do it, and do not try to bounce the Chair into making a decision. If anybody else had put in for an urgent question, I would have given it to them—on the basis that I am not dancing to the tune of the media.

It would be helpful if the Government came forward with statements, rather than being dragged to the Dispatch Box. Hopefully, we can all learn from this, and here is a good example of how that will be done: I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Mr Speaker, I apologise if that was the case.

Yang Tengbo—H6—was, in fact, not a lone wolf. He was one of some 40,000 members of the United Front Work Department, which, as the Government know, the Intelligence and Security Committee report last year said had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy, including by spying, stealing intellectual property, influencing, and shaping our institutions. Our agents say they are now frustrated by the lack of action, but they do not seem to have the tools they need to deal with the issue. One of those tools is staring us in the face. Will the Government commit to putting China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and will they do it now? There is no need for delay.

The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, or IPAC, found that H6—Yang Tengbo—is already well known as a United Front member, and that he is known to others who are already deep in the political establishment. Parliamentarians are exposed to the United Front on a regular basis. Will the Minister remedy this today, and accept that China is our most prominent security threat and that all action must take priority?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who was the previous Security Minister, has said publicly that the Home Office was ready to name China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which would have forced United Front members like H6 to register or face serious consequences. Given that doing so is an available option, why have we not done it yet? Is it true, as is being reported by papers, including The Times, that behind the scenes the Government are now under pressure from banks, the wider business community and Government Departments not to do it?

When it comes to a member of the royal family, I simply say this: how was it that somebody who was known to the security forces was allowed to get so close to a member of the royal family without proper scrutiny exposing them?

Finally, I note that the Prime Minister said today in response to the issue that we will “co-operate where we can”, particularly on environmental issues, and “challenge where we must”, particularly on human rights issues. If the Prime Minister means that, why are we still buying from China huge numbers of solar arrays that have demonstrably been made using slave labour? Surely his statement is clearly incorrect; far from challenging China on human rights, it now appears that we are turning a blind eye. Why is that?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me first come to the point the right hon. Gentleman made about FIRS. Upon our arrival in government, we found that FIRS was not ready to be implemented, as has been claimed. Since coming into office, we have ensured that more people than ever are now working on FIRS implementation, and the case management team have been recruited and are now in place. As I said in my opening remarks, we plan to lay the regulations that underpin the scheme in the new year, ahead of the scheme going live in the summer. As we have previously committed, we will provide three months’ notice of the scheme’s go-live date to give all those who will be affected by it adequate time to prepare.

The scheme will be underpinned by an IT solution consisting of a registration platform, a case management system and an online public register. The IT programme developed under the previous Government was not ready for the scheme to go live, and plans were not sufficiently robust. This Government have progressed at pace with the work to ensure that we are in a position to launch FIRS, with the laying of the regulations in the new year with a view to the scheme going live in the summer. Work is also under way to identify which foreign powers will be placed on the enhanced tier. That will be based on robust security and intelligence analysis. The Home Secretary and I plan to begin setting out the Government’s approach for the use of the enhanced tier in due course.

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

The first duty of Government is national security, and the threat that the country faces is the most complex and evolving we have ever seen. Given the range of threats we face from hostile state actors, it is important that the Government take action to protect our critical national infrastructure from cyber-attacks and ransomware attacks. Can the Minister update us on the plans announced in the King’s Speech for a new Bill on cyber-resilience and other actions to improve protections in this area?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are working at pace with colleagues across Government, including in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, to progress these matters. There is a lot of work going on across Government to ensure that we are as resilient as we can possibly be to the threats we face from a range of actors. He can be assured, as can the House, that this Government will use all necessary measures to protect our security and ensure that our critical national infrastructure is as resilient as it possibly can be.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

First, we were pleased to offer that briefing because these are important matters that should not divide us. It will always be this Government’s approach that, where we can work co-operatively with all Members of this House on matters relating to national security, we will seek to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman made some important points about matters relating to business, higher education and universities. He is a former Technology Minister, so I know he speaks with authority and expertise on matters relating to intellectual property theft, and this is an important point for him to make. I share his concerns. It is completely unacceptable that any entity, whether they are a hostile state or otherwise, should seek to draw intellectual property out of our country, and this Government take the matter very seriously.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the comments of the director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, and I would say to him that the National Security and Investment Act 2021 provides a framework for this Government, as it did for the previous Government, when dealing with some of these matters.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about FIRS, and I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance on the Government’s intention to table the regulations as soon as practically possible in the new year, with a view to having the scheme up and running by the summer.

On the approach to China, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Prime Minister’s recent meeting. I would just say very gently to him that at least the Prime Minister did not take President Xi to the pub for a pint.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Will the broader China audit include an assessment of the number of Chinese Communist party operatives working in the UK, including through bodies such as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office? And will the Minister ensure that everyone targeted, whether they are Members of this place, members of the royal family or members of the public with British national overseas status who are originally from Hong Kong, has access to tailored security support?

[Dan Jarvis]

We are working with other Departments to carry out an audit of the UK’s relationship with China. This is being done to improve our ability to understand and respond to both the challenges and the opportunities that China poses. It is vital that we have a thorough understanding of the bilateral relationship with China, including where we need to challenge to protect the UK’s national security. The audit is ongoing, and its outcomes will guide a consistent and coherent approach to China.

British national overseas status is a matter that I know my hon. Friend has rightly pursued for a significant amount of time. This reflects the UK’s historical and moral commitment to those people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BNO status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997. BNO status holders and their families are making significant contributions to our economy and local communities. From the route’s introduction on 31 January 2021 to the end of September 2024, more than 215,000 visas were granted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question on a crucial issue for all of us in this place, because we are looking for robust action from this Government to keep our politics and democracy safe from the influence of foreign Governments.

We should not pretend for a moment that the case of H6 is in any way unique or unusual because, as we have heard, the director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, has warned that bodies like the UFWD are

“mounting patient, well-funded, deceptive campaigns to buy and exert influence.”

We see it in our business world, and we see it in our universities.

We have the Chinese consulate in my Edinburgh West constituency, and I have, on more than one occasion, been personally chastised by the consul for expressing my views about Uyghur Muslims or for speaking up for Hong Kong residents in this country, so it is a serious problem. In fact, I was once filmed by a mysterious drone while speaking at a Hong Kong protest. We need robust action to clamp down on things like the police stations that we have heard exist in this country. The Government say they are seeking closer relationships with China, so how can the Minister reassure us that they will not weaken their stance or robustness against Chinese influence in this country, or on human rights and democracy in Taiwan and Hong Kong? How will they protect us all from China’s insidious approach?

[Dan Jarvis]

I can assure the hon. Lady that this Government are, and will be, taking the robust action required to combat the nature of the threat that she rightly characterised. She is right to say that the particular circumstances of the case we are discussing today are not unique. The Government are working with the intelligence agencies and partners to combat a much wider threat On matters relating to China, she will understand that the Government have to weigh a number of considerations. While national security will always be our primary responsibility and the thing we take most seriously, there is, as there would have been for the previous Government, a requirement to look for areas where we can co-operate. In truth, we have to balance that relationship, but I can give her an assurance that we will take the robust action required, including through the defending democracy taskforce, which is a useful mechanism that we use across Government to look more closely at these matters.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Members from across the House are right to raise concerns about the security threats and attempts to undermine or infiltrate our institutions that we face from China. On behalf of all Members of the House, will the Minister pass on our thanks to all those who work in the security services for their vital work? Most of us will never know or see that work, but it is constantly protecting us from those threats.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. By necessity, the work that our intelligence services do is in the shadows, but since coming into this role a number of months ago, I have been extremely impressed by the professionalism and dedication of those men and women who work incredibly hard to keep our country safe. We all, across the House and the country, owe them a debt of gratitude, and I will ensure that is passed on.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

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

May I urge the Minister to introduce the FIRS scheme as soon as possible and commence it at the earliest possible opportunity? What steps has the Home Office taken to ensure the proposed new Chinese embassy, at the Royal Mint site, has proper oversight, so that we do not allow it to become a new base for spies?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for her questions; I know the Home Secretary is looking forward to appearing in front of the Committee tomorrow.

On the embassy, as the right hon. Lady will know, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has called in the application, in line with current planning policy. The planning decision sits solely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government—the Deputy Prime Minister. As the right hon. Lady will understand, I am unable to say anything more about that, but a final decision will be made in due course.

The right hon. Lady also asked about FIRS. I can give her an assurance that we are progressing it at pace, and it is the Government’s strong intention to introduce it as soon as practically possible. To that end, we intend to lay the regulations as soon as possible in the new year.

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

The shadow Home Secretary referred to “sycophancy” towards the Chinese, but I think that charge is better directed at Members of his own party. It is less than five years since Theresa May went to Beijing, where she was praised by the state media; I know that because I was on that trip, in a former career. She was praised for “sidestepping” human rights issues in the furtherance of the wider necessities of the trip. Does the Minister agree that that is not the right approach to the Chinese?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree that is not the right approach; the current Government’s approach is the right one. I have laid out the strategic approach we intend to adopt with China. We have to be clear headed about the nature of the threat we face, but we also have to look for areas where we can co-operate as well.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

Last year, as Home Secretary, I made the decision to exclude Yang Tengbo from the UK because his presence posed a threat to our national security. That decision was based on the advice of MI5, and I am very pleased that the High Court has upheld that decision. I say gently to the Minister that it is regrettable that it has taken a high-profile case, public outcry and Opposition MPs dragging the Minister to the Chamber to finally get the Government to commit to implementing the foreign influence registration scheme—a scheme that we enacted and that was ready to go at the time of the general election. If the Government are really serious about tackling the unprecedented threat posed by China—malicious cyber-attacks, transnational repression, the Confucius institutes, Chinese police stations, and of course human rights abuses against the Uyghur Muslims—when will they list China on the enhanced tier?

[Dan Jarvis]

I was not going to make this point, but given the way in which the right hon. and learned Lady has made hers, I will gently point out that the previous Government had a significant period from the passing of the National—

[Suella Braverman]

indicated dissent.

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. and learned Lady shakes her head. It is a statement of fact that the previous Government had a significant amount of time—many months—from the passing of the National Security Act 2023, during which they could have chosen to implement FIRS. They did not implement FIRS. It now falls to this Government to do so, and that is precisely what we will do.

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

It is disappointing that some Opposition Members are trying to turn what should be a moment of collective unity in the face of a shared security threat into a political row. Does the Security Minister agree that it is pretty incredible for the party whose Defence Secretary was sacked for leaking vital intelligence about the Huawei 5G contract now to pose as the protector of our national security?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree. This Government’s approach will always be to work constructively across the House on matters relating to national security, but given the record of certain right hon. and hon. Opposition Members, I suggest that humility might be the order of the day for some of them.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I do not want to go over the readiness of FIRS again and again. I will leave it at this: I was assured by the same officials who sit in the Box advising the Minister that it would be ready to go by the end of the year. Clearly the advice has changed. Only one thing in the Department has changed, which is the party leading it, so I can only assume that there has been a change of intent, but I am delighted that it will be ready to go by the summer—better late than never. The real question, of course, is whether it will be worth having. The advice from MI5 was very clear: if China is not in the enhanced tier, it will not be worth having. Will China be in that tier?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I take these matters incredibly seriously. He and I have known each other for a very long time. I therefore know that he will take on trust my assertion to him and to the House that the scheme was not ready to go when we arrived in government in July this year. We are working at pace. I have today given the House a timeframe and said that we are looking very closely, working with colleagues across Government, at how we can best structure the scheme. We will make announcements in the normal way in due course.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

One weak point in protecting our parliamentary democracy from hostile state actors is money in politics. Does the Security Minister agree that this latest case shows that it is a priority to ensure that our electoral laws are robust enough that only funds that are clean and sourced entirely from within the UK fund our political parties, because there certainly seems to be some confusion among some of the parties in opposition?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and speaks with great authority on this matter. He will know that we have just appointed Baroness Hodge as the Government’s new anti-corruption champion. She will support the work that we do, looking very carefully at the impact of dirty money on politics. He is right that the Government will want to assure ourselves that the electoral laws that govern the conduct of elections are robust, and ensure that there are no opportunities for people from overseas to intervene in our political processes. That advice should be taken very seriously by all parties across the House.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

In my constituency there are many Hongkongers deeply concerned about surveillance from Chinese agents in this country. Can the Minister give my constituents any assurance that their legitimate fears are being addressed by the Government?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the plight of his constituents. Yes, I can give him those assurances. The Government take very seriously the kinds of interventions he refers to. Through the defending democracy taskforce, we are looking carefully at the issue of transnational repression, and we will have more to say about it in due course.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Can I ask the Minister about the integrity of our democracy? In particular, what steps is he taking to ensure the integrity of the processes and institutions of our political process, especially but not only with regard to China?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I briefly mentioned earlier the importance that this Government attach to the defending democracy taskforce. We inherited that body from the previous Government. We are working at pace to ensure that it works across Government as effectively as possible. Fundamentally, it seeks to address the point he made about challenging those threats to the integrity of our democracy. This Government will ensure that no stone is left unturned in seeking to address the significant challenges that we all know we face.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Just a few days ago, the head of MI5 talked about having to make “uncomfortable choices” and paring back counter-terrorism operations in order to deal with the huge rise in state threats. If the Government mean what they say about security being the first priority of Government, will the Minister undertake to ensure that MI5 and the security services as a whole have the resources they need to tackle all the threats? By all means, blame the previous Government for the state we are in, but it will not get him far, because I need him to answer that question.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and a good challenge. I can assure him that the Home Secretary and I work incredibly closely with MI5 and colleagues across Government to ensure that they have the resources they need to do the difficult job they do. I mentioned the remarks that Ken McCallum made in his annual threat lecture back in October. The nature of the threat we face is more challenging and complex than at any point in our lifetimes. That does require resource and expertise. The Home Secretary, I as Security Minister and all the Government will work to ensure that our security services have the resources they need to do the job.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the urgent question and thank the Minister for what he has said, in particular about the defending democracy taskforce. Can he assure me not only that the Government will do all they can to secure our national security but, with respect to the activities of individuals with known links to the Chinese Government and who are considered to be a national security risk, that the fullest of investigations will be done to ensure the integrity of our national security?

[Dan Jarvis]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The United Front Work Department is said to have 40,000 members globally, and Mr Yang Tengbo is surely the tip of the iceberg in the UK. The department is tasked with cultivating relationships not only with high-level figures that extend an influence to British nationals, but with those in all walks of society. That means the public need to be much more aware of the risk to themselves. What is the Minister doing to assess the number of those members in our society, and what public awareness campaign will he make for my constituents in Dundee and constituents across these islands?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes an important point about public awareness, and I will take that away and give it further consideration. With regard to the remarks he made at the beginning, he has essentially underlined the importance of why we need the FIR scheme. As I have said a number of times before, the Government are committed to implementing the scheme. We are getting on and will implement it in the new year.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the somewhat chiding tone of some of the comments from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, does the Security Minister agree with me that it is actually possible both to maintain a consistent and long-term relationship with China, as we must, and to take the robust measures that he has set out today to defend our national interests?

[Dan Jarvis]

I do agree. That is the challenge for any Government, regardless of their political stripe. Yes, of course national security is the priority and we must defend against the threats that we face, but we also have to co-operate economically. The Government will seek to balance those two responsibilities.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Security Minister mentioned the breadth of the national security threat against the United Kingdom. He mentioned Russia, China and Iran, but, unless I missed it, he did not mention North Korea. Will he comment on that? Following on from the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) asked about resources, is the Minister confident that the UK intelligence community, across agencies, has sufficient resources to manage the increased threat that he has recognised today?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with experience and authority on these matters, and he is right to mention North Korea. On his point about resources, I am not remotely complacent about that at all. Mindful of the nature of the threat that we face, the Home Secretary and I will work with our colleagues across Government to ensure that our security services have the resources they need. We have exceptional people stepping forward to serve, and it is the responsibility of Government, regardless of political colour, to ensure that they have the resources and technology they need not just to keep pace with the threat, but to retain a competitive advantage. We will ensure that they have the resources to do that.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Yang Tengbo is the alleged Chinese spy who has been stalking the corridors of power in our country, rubbing shoulders with royalty, Prime Ministers and business leaders, yet his name was withheld from the great British public. Does the Minister agree that his name was withheld only to avoid embarrassment for previous Prime Ministers and for business leaders, and that that was not in the best interests of the British public?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I named H6. His initial anonymity was a result of a court order; it was not a UK Government decision.

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

The west certainly learned a lesson about energy supplies and where they come from when Russia invaded. To build on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, I want to press the Minister on solar and renewables. The Government have an agenda to push this country quickly towards renewable energy, yet China manufactures and processes a lot of the materials that we need for it. Before we accelerate towards that goal, will the Minister undertake an assessment of the risk to our energy supply? That is a crucial piece of our national security.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reasonable and constructive points, which we will consider further. He will acknowledge that the Government must make difficult judgments about those matters, but I assure him that we will look at them with a clear-headed view of what is in our national interest, and in the end national security will always prevail.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that it is not just the big schemes that need consideration, but the small ones too? Elite capture can happen at higher education and infrastructure level. Peking University HSBC business school in Oxford wants to expand. The local planning authority narrowly passed the proposal. I asked the previous Government to call it in, but just last week this Government approved the scheme. That is a mistake. The economic benefit will go primarily to the Chinese Communist party. Will the Minister’s Department ask the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to look again at the scheme? What resilience is he offering local planning authorities on such matters?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Lady is right. It is not just about the bigger schemes; the smaller ones are important as well. I think what she refers to was essentially a planning matter, but I will look at it further. On matters relating to higher education, we work closely with colleagues in the Department for Education, and mechanisms are in place across Government so that when concerns are expressed, we will follow them up.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I acknowledge the transformation in the security threat that this country faces, and I urge the Government to move forward as quickly as they can with the implementation of FIRS. However, I draw the Minister’s attention to the website of the US Department of the Treasury, which today gave a read-out on the seventh meeting of the financial working group between the US and the People’s Republic of China, and set out a memorandum of understanding arising from the group’s discussions in Nanjing. The Minister should do everything he can to ensure that we have a sophisticated relationship with China. As uncomfortable as that may be, in order to preserve global and financial stability, we need to maintain our relationship.

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible point, as always. I have not yet looked at the US Treasury Department’s website, but I give him an undertaking that I will look at it and report back later today. He is right about the sophisticated relationship, as he describes it. As he knows government well, I can tell him that we take these matters incredibly seriously, and that the National Security Council provides the forum for decision making on these issues across Government. A lot of work, effort and political leadership goes into ensuring that that is an appropriate forum for making decisions collectively, across Government. Some of those decisions are not easy—some are more challenging —but we will always seek to do what is in the best interests of our country.

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

The Government recently put on hold the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, passed last year. Does he feel that that has helped or hindered the work of United Front in our universities, particularly our elite institutions?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I am very happy to discuss with him offline. I will look carefully at the suggestion he has made; I know that it is being considered by colleagues across Government, but let me take it away and I will come back to him.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

China is clearly trying to infiltrate all areas of UK society. Will the Minister outline the meetings that he is having with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that the UK strengthens its foreign direct investment screening and cyber-defences, and focuses in particular on increased data transparency requirements, in order to become more economically resilient?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes an important point. I can assure him that we are working collaboratively across Government, not only with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade but with those in the Cabinet Office. He has mentioned cyber, which we take incredibly seriously. I was recently at the National Cyber Security Centre, which is doing extraordinary work with partners across Government. We are co-operating closely with other Government Departments, including the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on looking at what more we can do to combat that threat.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Can the Minister assure the House that Chinese investments in the UK are properly scrutinised, particularly those that may be used to acquire leverage over UK policy?

[Dan Jarvis]

Yes, I can give that assurance.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The urgent question asked about the extent of the United Front Works Department’s operations in the United Kingdom. What is the Minister’s assessment of that department’s work with, or within, the devolved Administrations?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes an important point. On the nature of the threat, I refer him to the annual threat lecture given by the director general of MI5 back in October. We work incredibly closely with all the devolved Administrations, and I hope at some point to visit the hon. Member’s part of the world.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be aware that I have spoken on numerous occasions about the feelings of my constituents who are British passport holders of Chinese origin, and their impressions of the threats from the Chinese Communist party. Other hon. Members have also spoken on the subject. What the Minister has said is not surprising, but it remains concerning. Does he agree that inaction is not an option, and how can he give Chinese nationals who are British citizens assurance about their safety and security? I have had to make reports to the Police Service of Northern Ireland because I was concerned for these people’s safety while they live their life in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in raising this matter. Let me give him an absolute assurance that foreign intervention, wherever it comes from, is completely unacceptable, and this Government will use all tools at our disposal to combat it. We use the mechanism of the Defending Democracy Taskforce, and there is a lot of work looking at the issue of transnational repression. I can assure him that we take these matters very seriously, but if he has specific concerns that he wants to raise with me, I am always happy to discuss them with him.