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]

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]

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.

Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 General Committees

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, and it is very good to see the shadow Minister in his place. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for the very constructive tone he adopted in the Martyn’s law debate last night. I am very pleased that we have been able to make progress with that important piece of legislation and I am very grateful to him and to the Opposition for the support they have offered throughout the passage of the Bill.

The debate this morning relates to the commencement of a statutory instrument similar to one debated in Committee on 13 November. I will therefore not go into great detail on the context but will briefly remind the Committee that the order relates to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The Act contained a wide range of reforms to reduce economic crime and increase transparency over corporate entities conducting business in the UK, which included reforms to enable targeted information sharing to tackle money laundering and remove reporting burdens on business. Additionally, the Act introduced new intelligence-gathering powers for law enforcement and reformed outdated criminal corporate liability laws. It also introduced reforms to keep pace with the use of emerging technologies used to launder money and commit economic crime, including cryptoassets.

The Act introduced new search, seizure, and detention powers when cryptoassets are being used illegally or for terrorist purposes. The legislation aims to remove criminal gains and disrupt criminals who use cryptoassets for illicit purposes. On 26 April, the cryptoassets measures to which the debate relates came into force in Northern Ireland, as well as in England and Wales. As of the end of November, more than 100 cases in the UK have involved the exercise of the new powers, including cryptoassets seizures or confiscation cases involving cryptoassets. The cases account for £18 million.

The Committee will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to cover the content of the powers as they were debated extensively by both Houses during the passage of the Act. I will instead outline briefly the purpose of the order. The code of practice being brought into operation by the statutory instrument is the search, seizure and detention of property code for Northern Ireland. The code is made by the Home Secretary to guide the exercise of search and seizure powers operated by immigration enforcement and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in Northern Ireland.

It is the responsibility of the relevant Ministers in each jurisdiction in the UK to publish their own codes of practice. The Northern Ireland Assembly’s code of practice for officers’ operating powers in Northern Ireland came into force in July. This is the final code of practice to be debated under the cryptoassets measures in the Act.

The codes of practice clarify the circumstances in which the powers may be exercised to ensure that they are applied consistently and proportionately across law enforcement, in order to safeguard against improper use of the powers, which is vital given the broad range of law enforcement agencies that can exercise them. For instance, the code of practice in the order contains guidance on what constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion when searching a premises and the prior authorisations required to exercise the powers. Those safeguards are necessary where more intrusive powers are used to investigate crime. To be clear, the code relates to guidance for officers using powers that are already introduced.

The draft order is required to complete commencement of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. That will ensure that all necessary legislation is in place and that law enforcement operates the powers proportionately and according to the aims of the legislation. I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for South Antrim for their constructive and helpful comments. I will seek to address the points that they made and if I am not able to do so this morning, I will write to them both as I did previously. Let me see what I can do.

First, on the helpful remarks made by the hon. Member for South Antrim, I think he was seeking assurance that that the code is specific to crime in Northern Ireland. That is the case—I can give him that assurance—but he also, entirely reasonably, was seeking wider reassurances on the engagement that the UK has had with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the Republic of Ireland. I can give him those assurances.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the constructive tone he struck. He asked an entirely reasonable question about the recycling of funds. As he was kind enough to accept that I would not be able to give him the precise figures at this particular moment, rather than giving him an inaccurate figure I will write to him, as I did previously, to make sure that he has the most up-to-date figures that the Department holds. I can also give him the same assurance that I gave the hon. Member for South Antrim about the UK Government’s engagement with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly and contact with the Republic of Ireland, too.

The shadow Minister also made a good point about the cryptocurrency and sanctions against Russia. I was at the National Crime Agency yesterday with the Foreign Secretary and our newly appointed anti-corruption champion, Baroness Hodge. These matters are a real priority for the Government and we are working at pace across the Government to look at the resources we have to tackle the issues the shadow Minister has raised. The appointment of Baroness Hodge, who brings long-standing experience in this area, will complement the work we are doing.

Having visited just yesterday, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary work being done by the National Crime Agency on behalf of the UK Government. It recently completed a very successful operation known as Destabilise, which involved targeted interventions against Russia, about which there has been quite significant media reporting. I can give the shadow Minister an absolute assurance that we are looking incredibly carefully at what more we can doto take action against the use of cryptocurrency and to ensure that our sanctions regime is as effective as it possibly can be.

I thank the Committee for considering the statutory instrument. As I have set out, it is necessary to complete the commencement of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

For those reasons, I support new clause 1 and the amendments that relate to the powers of the Secretary of State. I know that it is always difficult for Government Members to vote against their own party, but they should not forget that the Bill will affect activities, premises, organisations and businesses in every one of our constituencies. For that reason, we ought to be very careful about what we vote through tonight.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team. That she has somehow been able to channel personal grief into a fierce determination to change the law is beyond inspiring. We should be clear that we would not be here tonight without her campaigning efforts. The whole House owes her a debt of gratitude.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today. As ever, I will endeavour to respond to the points that have been raised. I am particularly grateful for the constructive approach that has been taken to considering the Bill, today and at previous stages. I place on the record my thanks to the Opposition for the constructive way in which they have approached the Bill throughout its passage. It is time that this cross-party commitment to improving the safety and security of venues is delivered without further delay, and I am proud that we are moving one step closer tonight.

As hon. Members have heard during the passage of the Bill, the threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring. Since 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. In October, we heard from the director general of MI5 that the country is subject to the most interconnected threat environment that we have ever seen. Sadly, terrorists can seek to target a variety of locations. The examples of terrorist attacks that have been raised during the passage of the Bill are a sombre reminder of that. I pay tribute again to all victims and survivors of past attacks, as well as their loved ones, and all those affected. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting anyone affected by a terrorist attack.

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

I congratulate the Minister and, indeed, the Opposition on the Bill. Of course, all hon. Members hope that future attacks will be prevented by the Bill, but, as has been mentioned, it is also about planning to ensure increased survivability for those impacted by an attack. With that comes the need to ensure that the support we provide to victims is fit for purpose. What efforts will the Minister make to improve support for victims of terrorism?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the most humbling parts of this job is meeting those who have been the victims of terrorism and their families. I think of people like Figen Murray, Brendan Cox, Travis Frain, Dr Cath Hill—all people I have spoken to recently. We are working across Government to progress this important work, and I intend to meet victims and survivors in the new year to hear more about their experiences and say more about what we will do as a Government to support them.

The Bill will improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK, making us safer. We heard about the excellent work that many businesses and organisations already do to improve their security and preparedness. However, without a legislative requirement, there is no consistency. The Bill seeks to address that gap and complement the outstanding work that the police, the security services and other partners continue to do to combat the terror threat. As a result, qualifying premises and events should be better prepared to respond and to reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack. Additionally, certain larger premises and events will have to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

The public have a right to feel safe, and that is what this legislation seeks to deliver. I am grateful for the considered way in which the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) approached the debate. It is clear that the focus of the Opposition’s amendments and concerns is on, among other things, the impact on business and smaller organisations. I assure him that that has been a central consideration for the Government, informed by extensive engagement, as well as pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee and two public consultations under the previous Government. As a result, the version of the Bill that this Government have brought forward includes important changes to ensure that we can achieve public protection outcomes and that there are no undue burdens on businesses and other organisations.

The Government have, of course, raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200, which creates a more appropriate scope. We have also added a reasonably practicable standard of requirements for the procedures required under both tiers. That concept is in line with other regulatory regimes, such as health and safety, and is designed to allow procedures and measures to be tailored to the specific circumstances of a premises or event.

[Sir John Hayes]

Mindful of what the Minister said about consulting and acting in accordance with the consultation, and of what I said earlier about the changing character of the threat, I ask him to commit from the Dispatch Box to considering, as the legislation begins to have effect, changing the guidance and improving regulation where necessary, sensitive to those circumstances.

[Dan Jarvis]

If the right hon. Gentleman bears with me for a moment, I intend to say more on the matter, but I assure him that if he is not satisfied, I will give way to him again.

We have introduced a fairer basis for calculating whether a premises or event is in scope. Replacing capacity with the “reasonable expectation” of the number of people who may be present will reflect the actual usage of premises or attendance at events. I am confident that this version of the Bill strikes precisely the right balance.

I turn to amendments 25 and 26 tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West for the Opposition. Clause 32 will allow the Secretary of State to increase or decrease the qualifying threshold for either tier. We anticipate that the thresholds would be reduced to either floor only in very limited circumstances, such as if the nature of the threat from terrorism were to change significantly. That will enable the regime to maintain an appropriate balance between being able to protect the public and managing the burden on those responsible for premises and events. The amendments proposed would remove that ability.

Furthermore, the power is narrowly drafted, and regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In requiring the approval of both Houses before they are made, parliamentarians will be able to scrutinise any proposed changes. The Government therefore do not support the amendments.

I thank the hon. Member for amendment 27. I thought he made his points in a reasonable way, as he often does. While I understand the sentiment, the Government do not support the amendment, but let me explain why. It is intended that the Security Industry Authority will rely on advice and guidance in the first instance. However, a credible enforcement regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance, particularly where the regulator identifies serious or persistent non-compliance.

The maximum daily penalty amounts are set at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance, recognising the breadth of organisations in scope as well as the potentially more serious consequences at larger venues. It is important that the Secretary of State has the power, by regulation, to change those maximum amounts, including to increase them if necessary—for example, if the amounts were to prove ineffective in ensuring compliance, or the figures needed updating to reflect changes in economic circumstances in the longer term.

Critically, when determining penalty amounts, the Bill requires the SIA to take into account a range of factors, including the seriousness of the contravention, any action taken to remedy or mitigate its effects, and an organisation’s ability to pay. That will ensure the penalties are effective but proportionate. I reassure Members that changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure, unless they are simply to reflect inflation.

The hon. Member raised concerns over the role of the SIA as the regulator, which I believe is the motivation for tabling new clause 1. There are several reasons why the Government do not support the new clause. The Government are confident that the SIA is the right delivery option for the Martyn’s law regulator, owing to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. It already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its work regulating the private security industry. The SIA has long-established inspection and enforcement functions that ensure compliance with its licensing regime, and it already works with security partners to promote best practice around counter-terrorism protective security.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am going to address some of the points he raised.

Furthermore, it will take at least 24 months following Royal Assent for the SIA to begin undertaking its enforcement duties. It would not be fair of us, nor indeed possible, to judge its performance before it has begun carrying out its new functions, which seems to be the effect of the new clause.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a bit of progress.

I can also assure the House that the Bill already contains provisions to ensure the appropriate oversight of the SIA. Ultimately, the Bill gives the SIA the tools that it will need to deliver its new enforcement functions successfully. We are committed to exploring wider opportunities to strengthen the SIA so that it can carry out its public protection role and deliver the Government’s ambitious agenda.

I turn to the amendments on training provision tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire). I thank him again for his interest in that important issue. As he knows, the Bill has been developed to ensure that those working at premises and events are better prepared to respond quickly to evolving situations in the event of a terrorist attack occurring or being suspected. Those workers make rapid decisions and take actions that could save lives. There is no specific training requirement in the Bill, but it is essential that workers with responsibility for carrying out public protection procedures are adequately instructed—and, where appropriate, trained—to do so. Training and instruction will be tailored to the premises and events in question, and to the procedures that they have developed, rather than our using a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Paul Holmes]

rose—

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a bit more progress.

The Government think that the focus of premises and events should be on how to ensure that their people can effectively carry out their roles, rather than requiring the completion of generic modules or courses. We understand the importance of training, and so have committed to publishing free dedicated guidance and support. That guidance will ensure that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have the information required to understand and identify training needs. The Government also intend to signpost a range of training offers, including the significant support that we offer in the shape of access to expert advice and training on ProtectUK, which already includes free access to the “Action Counters Terrorism” and “See, Check and Notify” training packages. Furthermore, following Royal Assent, the Government intend for there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months before the legislation’s commencement. We are confident that that will allow sufficient time to understand the new obligations and to plan and prepare accordingly, including by training staff where necessary.

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to respond to points made by a number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) made important points about the threat of terrorism. He also rightly paid tribute to Manchester city council for its work with local businesses. What he said about proportionality should reassure any businesses that might have concerns.

As a former police officer, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) speaks with great authority on these matters, and I pay tribute to him for his service. He rightly made the point that the Bill is not just about securing physical premises but has a wider value, and that protecting the public is not just a matter for Government; others also have an important responsibility in that area.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been very patient. I have to say, I am a little mystified that he is not on the Opposition Front Bench. He seems an effective performer and responded well on Second Reading. [Interruption.] I am not sure that I am helping him, but I thought he made a strong contribution again tonight, and I found his words about Martyn’s legacy particularly moving. I am grateful for his constructive approach this evening and previously. He helpfully highlighted concerns about smaller venues, particularly small theatres. I assure him that there has been extensive consultation with smaller venues, although I am sorry that it did not include the constituency venue that he mentioned.

All hon. Members have village halls, churches and community halls in our constituencies, and we all recognise the hugely important role that volunteers play. The Government raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200 people specifically in response to the feedback, including from those operating smaller venues similar to ones that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned. We assess that that has resulted in a reduction in the proportion of village halls in scope of the Bill’s requirements from 56% under the original proposals to 13% now. I assure him that we will continue to work closely with smaller venues to ensure the easiest transition to the new arrangements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said that the nature of terrorism is constantly evolving, and that we need to plan to protect against it. He pointed out that the Bill contains straightforward measures—prompts, essentially—that are light touch and proportionate. He also very helpfully referenced the Edinburgh example. I hope that that provides positive evidence of the potential benefits to businesses of the measures.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was constructive, as he always is. He speaks with great experience and authority on matters relating to terrorism, so I always listen carefully to what he has to say, and often find it profoundly moving, as I have again tonight. He mentioned churches, which he has raised with me before. The Government acknowledge that places of worship have a unique and important role in communities right across the country, and have considered them very carefully in the context of this legislation. We have consulted extensively with churches and with places of worship more generally, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to work closely with them to ensure that they have the support and guidance they need. That is a commitment that I make to him.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am conscious of time, so I will keep going, not least because I want to briefly reflect on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). He spoke with personal conviction and experience, and I know that he understands the importance of preparation and planning—I will not say the second bit of that phrase. He also rightly paid tribute to our intelligence services, and I echo that tribute.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) spoke with authority, not just as a Member of this House but as a church warden, and made a really interesting point about critical challenge. I hope he will appreciate this point: the Bill is the result of two very extensive public consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny. It is forged from all that work. That is why I am confident that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and reasonable. However, I was grateful for the constructive challenge he offered.

The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made a number of constructive points about thresholds. I hope the responses I have already given have provided him and the venue in his constituency with the reassurance they want. Finally, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke with passion, as he always does, and raised a number of entirely reasonable concerns. I am afraid that we will not agree on every aspect of them this evening, but I hope that he will at least acknowledge that the Government have worked incredibly hard to ensure that the Bill is proportionate and not unreasonable, given the nature of the threat we face.

I will touch briefly on the Government amendments, which make only very minor and technical changes to the Bill to ensure that its purpose and intent is clear. They include small drafting changes for consistency, to remove unnecessary text, and to clarify technical detail.

In closing, I again pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team, and thank them. Their campaigning for this legislation has been an inspiration to us all. Figen’s son Martyn lost his life in the Manchester bombing. As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading,

“To suffer such a horrendous loss and somehow find the strength to fight for changes…is heroic.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 624.]

This is a vitally important Bill. The public deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. It is therefore right that appropriate and reasonably practical steps be taken to protect staff and the public from the impact of terrorism. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Security will always be the foundation on which everything else is built, and for this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I start by thanking everyone across the House who has contributed to the debates on the Bill for their incisive and necessary contributions and their considered scrutiny. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) who has done such an excellent job in whipping the Bill through. I also thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for their work on the Opposition Front Bench during the earlier stages of the Bill and the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for taking over so ably on Report. I look forward to continuing to work with him in his new role.

Hon. Members will be aware of the Bill’s history, coming as it does out of the tragic events of the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017. I take this opportunity once more to pay tribute to the 22 victims of the horrific Manchester Arena attack, and to Figen Murray, mother of one of the victims, Martyn Hett. Her campaigning has been crucial in driving the Bill forward. We would simply not be here debating this legislation without her.

During these debates, I have been particularly moved by the contributions of hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of constituents who have been affected by the attacks in Manchester, Borough Market and elsewhere, and the important reflections and lessons we can learn from recent history in Northern Ireland. The Bill is one part of our already extensive efforts across Government, including those of the police and security services, to combat the threat of terrorism. I take the opportunity to thank them for their vital work in keeping our country safe; we owe them a debt of gratitude.

As hon. Members have heard me say more than once in this place, the first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe. This cross-party commitment to improve the safety and security of venues in the wake of the Manchester Arena attack must be delivered without further delay. The Bill was a manifesto commitment, and I am proud that we have been able to introduce it so early in the Session. I thank colleagues from across the House for their support for the Bill, which has enabled it to progress through its stages in this place so smoothly. I am also grateful to the previous members of the Home Affairs Committee for their report; its recommendations have been crucial in shaping the Bill.

I also take the opportunity to say an enormous thank you to the following people: Ella Terry in my private office; the Bill team of Tom Ball, Chloe White, James Fair and Izzy Hancock; Michelle Chapman and the policy team; Kris Lee and his legal team; Joel Wolchover and Tim McAtackney at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel; and Debbie Bartlett and Shaun Hipgrave, whose leadership over several years has been exemplary. I also thank all the many civil servants, including those in the Home Office analysis and insight and comms teams, who have worked on the Bill with great diligence and professionalism. Many of them have done so for several years. Finally, I thank the fantastic staff of this place for their work in supporting the Bill’s logistics, in particular the Doorkeepers and the parliamentary Clerks’ team.

I finish with a gentle word of encouragement to colleagues in the other place. It has been wonderful to have seen consensus on the Bill in this place. I hope that they will agree with us on the importance of the Bill and that this manifesto commitment can proceed as smoothly through the other place as it has done here. After several years, and as Figen has said, it is time to get this done.

Anti-Corruption Champion: Appointment

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

My hon Friends, the Minister of State for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories (Stephen Doughty), the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq) and I, are today pleased to announce the appointment of Baroness Hodge of Barking as the Prime Minister’s new anti-corruption champion.

Corruption and the illicit finance that stems from it undermine this Government’s objectives at every turn, both domestically and across the world. Corruption weakens the rule of law and undermines economic growth. It fuels crime on British streets by enabling drug dealers and smuggling gangs. It inflates UK property prices. Today’s appointment is another way in which this Government are proving their commitment to tackling these pernicious harms.

As champion Baroness Hodge will have three core responsibilities:

Helping the Government to drive development of a new Anti-Corruption Strategy and provide a challenge function for its delivery, once agreed.

Acting as a Government entry point on anti-corruption issues for Parliamentarians, private sector representatives and civil society.

Where required, engaging internationally to help drive progress on UK priorities.

We believe that the appointment of a champion will be beneficial in driving forwards and supporting the anti-corruption agenda. We recognise that this has been a long-awaited announcement since the previous champion stood down from his role. Baroness Hodge brings experience as a leading parliamentary and public campaigner on anti-corruption, strong relationships with key stakeholders and a background in public service to this role. We look forward to working together to deliver an ambitious Government-wide agenda to tackle the devastating impacts of corruption and the illicit finance that stems from it, both at home and overseas.

[HCWS290]

Freight Crime

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) on securing this debate. As was very clear from her remarks, she has a huge interest in, and knowledge of, these important matters. As she said, this debate is very timely, not least because it comes hot on the heels of the publication of an insightful, comprehensive report on the subject by the all-party parliamentary group on freight and logistics, which she chairs. I thank her for that work and I am grateful to all the other Members who have participated in the debate.

As my hon. Friend will know, matters relating to freight crime are the responsibility of the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), rather than the Security Minister. The Policing Minister is very sorry that she cannot be here, but I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s excellent contribution and I will endeavour to respond on behalf of the Policing Minister to all her points. If I miss anything, I will endeavour to ensure that the Department writes to my hon. Friend on those matters.

At the outset, I emphasise how damaging and distressing freight crime can be, as my hon. Friend clearly said, and acknowledge its hugely detrimental effect on businesses and individuals. Everyone should be concerned that freight crime rates have risen over the past few years. The Government will work with partners—she asked me for an assurance on this—including the police to mount the most effective response possible.

As my hon. Friend knows, we are pursuing a wide-ranging mission to tackle crime and make our streets safer. A big part of that is restoring visible neighbourhood policing, which is essential for deterring crime, reassuring residents and businesses, and maintaining public confidence. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we will deliver thousands of neighbourhood police, community support officers and special constables.

On freight and related vehicle crimes specifically, we are working closely with the police, the automotive industry and the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service. We have provided the police with additional funding this financial year to help to tackle the export of stolen vehicles, supporting enforcement at the ports to prevent stolen vehicles and vehicle parts being shipped abroad, including through the deployment of additional staff and specialist equipment to the ports. We will also bring forward legislation to ban electronic devices that have been used to steal vehicles, empowering the police and courts to target the criminals using, manufacturing and supplying them.

Recently the Policing Minister had the opportunity to meet the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vehicle crime, Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Sims, to discuss those issues and how we can work more effectively together. Led by ACC Sims, the national vehicle crime working group is raising awareness of crime against road haulage companies within the national police vehicle crime response. We look forward to working closely with the Road Haulage Association as part of that group.

In support of the working group, a network of vehicle crime specialists has been established, involving every police force in England and Wales. It will help to share information about emerging trends in vehicle crime so that we can better seek to tackle regional issues. As a key member of the working group, the Government continue to work with NaVCIS, the specialist unit funded by industry, to provide dedicated specialist intelligence and enforcement. As part of its remit, NaVCIS is working with the Government; we are together taking forward a project to analyse heavy goods vehicle-related crime in England, with a specific focus on identifying crime patterns at HGV parking sites. The Government are determined that all lorry drivers should have access to high-quality, safe and secure facilities right across the country, which is why we have invested in improved lorry parks and safer rest areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth specifically mentioned that point and she extended an invitation to visit the services in her constituency. I can assure her that I will extend that invitation on her behalf to the Policing Minister. She made a number of other points, which I will come to in a moment. Before I do, I want to confirm to her that an industry-led task and finish group on HGV facilities will complete its work in January. It is focusing on increasing capacity for safe and secure parking, and driving the industry’s adoption of existing HGV parking standards. We will consider the findings closely and will do so mindful of the comments that she has made today about Hollie, as well as the important points she made about retention in the industry and about public awareness.

With industry, the Government and National Highways are investing in improved welfare facilities, security upgrades and more HGV parking spaces at lorry parks and truck stops across England. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the importance of infrastructure. The Government are prioritising improvements to the planning system, which she mentioned. New language on freight and logistics in the recent consultation on the national planning policy framework recognises the importance of considering freight in planning, and I thank the sector for taking the time to respond to the consultation.

I acknowledge the worrying involvement of serious and organised criminals in committing freight crime, which my hon. Friend rightly referenced. These individuals corrode our country’s global reputation and cost us billions of pounds each year. As announced by the Prime Minister in his recent speech to the Interpol General Assembly in Glasgow, we are investing a further £58 million in the National Crime Agency. That will make a real difference, including through the strengthening of data analysis and intelligence capabilities. I will also take away my hon. Friend’s important point about the need for a national strategy. We will work with policing on a new national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services that local police forces can draw upon to raise standards, and improve efficiency and productivity.

My hon. Friend made a couple of other points that I want to respond to. I am grateful to her for acknowledging the measures in the Budget to freeze the fuel duty allowance and for the important point she made about the huge contribution that freight makes to the UK economy. She was right to do so, as freight accounts for 5% of gross value added to the UK non-financial business economy. The Government completely recognise the significant importance of the sector.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth for securing this debate and to all those who contributed to it. We have covered a number of specific issues, and I know that the Policing Minister will reflect on them in our ongoing work with partners, including policing, and work closely with colleagues in the Department for Transport.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, freight crime is a serious threat and must be dealt with as such. This Government are committed to tackling criminality of any kind, which is why we have made it our mission to deliver safer streets for all and restore neighbourhood policing. Reducing freight crime is integral to that mission.

Question put and agreed to.

Serious Crime Prevention Orders in Terrorism Cases: Review of Police Powers

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I have today published the review of police powers to apply for serious crime prevention orders in terrorism cases. The report has been laid before Parliament and it will be available in the Vote Office and online on gov.uk.

This report is published and laid before Parliament to discharge the statutory duty under section 44 of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021.

[HCWS260]

Counter-terrorism Disruptive Powers Report 2023

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I have today published the counter-terrorism disruptive powers report 2023 (CP 1212). The report has been laid before Parliament and will be available in the Vote Office and online on gov.uk.

It is important that there is transparency in the use of our counter-terrorism tools. Publishing this report ensures that the public can access data and information on the range of powers used to combat terrorist threats to the United Kingdom, the extent of their use and the safeguards and oversight in place to ensure that they are used properly.

[HCWS262]