National Security

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The whole House supports the security services and the police for their work. I pay tribute to the brave men and women who serve our country in that way.

On RAF Fairford, seven suspects were arrested, one a dual UK-Iranian national. These men were all released quickly on bail, about which senior US officials have expressed surprise. Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether she thinks it was reasonable to release those men so quickly, and whether she believes they pose any risk? Will she also tell the House whether the Government were aware in advance of any threat to RAF Fairford and, if so, what action they took?

As the Prime Minister and, just now, the Home Secretary have said, it is highly likely that the Iranian state directed this. It is not acceptable for a state like Iran to organise hostile activity on our soil. After the Salisbury attacks by Russia, then Prime Minister Theresa May expelled 23 Russian diplomats. Will the Government now take similar action and expel Iranian diplomats, especially those thought to be involved in hostile activity or espionage? Does she agree that in these circumstances it was unwise of the Foreign Secretary to publicly shake hands with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 24 September, in contravention of long-standing Foreign Office policy?

I note that on 4 October the US withdrew all its B-1 bombers from RAF Fairford, and both the President and vice-president of the US ascribed this to security concerns. Will the Home Secretary confirm that that is indeed why the B-1s left, and does she have any concerns about the safety of US military assets here in the UK? Shortly after the RAF incident, two Latvian men were arrested inside RAF Molesworth, which also hosts US forces? Can she comment on whether any foreign state may also have been involved in that incident?

I thank the Home Secretary for her update on the police response to the terrible murder of Ann Widdecombe. The whole House mourns her, and those who knew Ann will miss her. This comes on the heels of the tragic murders of our dear colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess not that long ago. The threat against current and former Members of Parliament is clearly a very real one.

Joshua Kerry, the man accused of murdering Ann, is said by prosecutors to have an “extreme left-wing mindset”, suggesting that this was a politically motivated murder. He is also accused of conducting online reconnaissance on over 100 public figures and trying to break into the home of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) last year. It has been reported that despite recovering substantial amounts of CCTV, that case was closed. It was then reopened—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to be very careful about where we are going on motivation. We are creeping into what a court might decide, and we are not the court. Please can we steer a little bit away from that? We all want a prosecution. I want nothing to risk this case, because she was a friend to all.

[Chris Philp]

I was quoting what the prosecutor said, Mr Speaker, but I will of course take your advice, as always. I was going to ask whether the Home Secretary shares my concern, which she alluded to in her statement, that the cancellation of the earlier investigation may have meant that opportunities to prevent the later tragedy were missed.

I understand that a number of current and former MPs have very recently been contacted to be told that they appeared on a list made by Kerry. Kerry was arrested on 11 July, but it was not until last week—nearly three months later—that some on that list, including current and former MPs, were notified. Can the Home Secretary tell the House when she knew about that list? Does she agree that it would be wrong if those on it had had that information withheld from them for a period of time, potentially as long as three months?

Threats to democratically elected representatives are threats to democracy itself, so I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement on protective security, including for those outside Parliament—recognising, of course, that it is Mr Speaker who plays the leading role in protecting Members of Parliament.

I would also like to mark the anniversary of the terrible deaths of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby at Heaton Park synagogue in an antisemitic attack perpetrated by an Islamist extremist. In the year since, I have twice visited Golders Green in the aftermath of antisemitic attacks. As the Home Secretary said, in the last 10 days two Iranian small boat illegal immigrants have been charged with plotting a further antisemitic terror attack in Manchester. It is more important than ever that we redouble our efforts to fight antisemitism and Islamist extremism with all our might.

On that topic, I wrote to the Home Secretary on 27 September asking her to deny an entry visa to Randa Abdel-Fattah, who praised the appalling terrorist massacre on 7 October as “exhilarating”. But the Home Secretary allowed her into our country anyway. Why did the Home Secretary do that, given the obvious risk that Abdel-Fattah might radicalise others with her antisemitic and pro-terror views? I really think that demands a specific answer.

There are clearly a wide range of serious threats to the safety of our country, political leaders across the political spectrum and our Jewish community. I know that the whole House will be united in wanting to fight those threats. I thank again those serving in the security services and the police, who work tirelessly to keep us safe. The whole House supports them in their vital work.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his comments and questions, though much of what he has asked, as I believe he knows full well, relates to ongoing investigations. As such, there are limits to what I can share with the House today. I also observe that there are limits to what is appropriate to be said publicly while investigations are ongoing. That is not just a restriction that we impose on ourselves for the sake of it; it is an important part of ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system and the independence of police investigations.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will therefore understand, even if his questions do not suggest so, that in relation to RAF Fairford and the decision to bail suspects, that was entirely an operational decision for the police, who are solely responsible for that investigation. I have full confidence in the police as they carry out that investigation. Because it is ongoing, more facts will be established, and I am sure that the police will take appropriate action when they come to light.

Those suspects are bailed under strict conditions, and no one—certainly no one in our legal jurisdiction—should be commenting on the rightness or wrongness of that, because it is in our jurisdiction and we have a responsibility to ensure that the investigation has full integrity. If there are criminal proceedings to follow, those proceedings must not be prejudiced by commentary beforehand. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands why I will not go further than what I have said in my statement on that point. I think that a more responsible approach from all Members of this House on this matter is required.

I would not comment on intelligence briefings, and nor have other Home Secretaries. I will not compromise an ongoing investigation. As more facts are established, they will be public when it is appropriate for them to be made so.

The right hon. Gentleman made a point about action taken by the previous Government after the Salisbury attack and laid out his suggested actions against the Iranians at this stage. I set out the actions that the Foreign Secretary is already taking, but we will not take anything off the table as the investigation matures, more facts are established, and more detail is known on exactly what happened. The Government will always keep under review all the methods we have at our disposal for responding to any hostile state carrying out activity in our country.

On RAF Molesworth, again, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman knows this, but the police have said that their investigation is at a very early stage. At the moment, there is nothing to suggest that this incident is connected to the events at RAF Fairford. The police are continuing to investigate. It would not be appropriate to provide a wider running commentary on that investigation while it is still in its early stages.

The shadow Home Secretary moved on to the circumstances relating to the murder of Ann Widdecombe and the recent charging decisions against Joshua Kerry on terror charges. Again, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on conversations between me and counter-terror policing, but I do not believe that information has been withheld from anybody at any point in an inappropriate manner. This is a thorough investigation whereby the police have been checking devices and other material at the property of that individual to establish a fuller picture. As that fuller picture has emerged, they have been sharing information; they have sought to do so appropriately, in my view.

I know that people have been contacted by the police. That is a matter for the police to pursue. I think the implication of the shadow Home Secretary’s questions was that potentially there was a withholding of information or that it had taken too long for it to be shared with individuals—both Members of Parliament and former Members of Parliament. I do not believe that anything has happened in this investigation that is inappropriate; that is how I will respond.

The shadow Home Secretary went on to ask questions relating to attacks on our Jewish community. In relation to the Home Secretary’s powers for excluding individuals from entering our country—we have had these exchanges on a number of occasions across the Dispatch Box—I will always use my powers appropriately by looking at both threat and risk as well as the wider impact on communities. I have used those powers in some instances where that threshold has been met. I have not used them in every single one—it would not be appropriate to do so—but let me tell him that I take a robust approach to the exercise of my powers and will always use them in an appropriate way to limit the threat to our communities here at home.

I think that I have covered everything that the shadow Home Secretary said. I will ensure that I respond to his letter as soon as I finish the statement.