Defending Democracy Taskforce

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Thank you for your statement, Mr Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the work the Government are leading to defend our democracy and those who serve within it, particularly as we approach the local and devolved elections taking place in May.

Twice in the last decade, devoted and beloved Members of this House have been lost to abhorrent acts of violence. Each time I enter the Chamber, my eyes are drawn to the shields dedicated to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. They are not simply memorials; they are a daily reminder of the duty we owe to one another and to our democracy to ensure that no one is deterred from public service by fear, intimidation or violence. It is in that spirit that I come to the House to set out the challenges we face, what the Government are doing, and to make clear what we will not tolerate.

The work of elected representatives at every level matters. It shapes millions of lives and our country’s future. That is why those entrusted to serve must be able to do so without fear or favour. Free debate and honest disagreement are the lifeblood of democracy, but let me be clear that harassment, intimidation, abuse and violence are not political expression. Today, the volume, breadth and tempo of threats against elected representatives is unprecedented. Colleagues across the House will recognise the grim reality of assaults, vandalism, stalking, blockading and a blizzard of online abuse. This is not theoretical; it affects hon. Members, councillors and candidates, and it affects our families and our staff.

Women and ethnic minority representatives report the highest volumes of abuse, including overtly sexualised and racially charged threats, which have a chilling effect on who feels able to stand for public office. When fear warps debate, when candidates step back and when fewer people from diverse backgrounds feel able to stand, the damage is deep and lasting. That is why this Government treat harassment and intimidation not as an inevitable occupational hazard, but as a serious threat to our democracy itself.

I know that you share that stance, Mr Speaker, and I pay tribute to your leadership, especially through the work of the Speaker’s Conference. Our response is rooted in the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, working across Government, law enforcement, Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the intelligence community. The mandate of the taskforce, renewed by this Prime Minister, is clear: to tackle the full spectrum of threats to our democracy. That means preventing and deterring harassment, ensuring real consequences when it occurs, and providing proportionate, effective security for everyone who participates in our democratic process.

This is a year-round task, but the upcoming local elections demand that we intensify our focus and, where necessary, go further. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the defending democracy taskforce with Ministers from the devolved nations. It was a constructive discussion on strengthening our collective security posture ahead of May. We reaffirmed our readiness to support colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The police are at the forefront of defending democracy efforts, and I thank officers and staff across the country for their dedication and diligence. Ahead of the May elections, we are working with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to strengthen guidance for frontline officers responding to incidents involving elected representatives. It is essential that the consistency of police response is improved across all force areas, and I welcome the police’s decision to act on the recommendation of your conference, Mr Speaker.

I am pleased to inform the House that Deputy Chief Constable Chris Balmer, from Cambridgeshire police, has been appointed to the role of the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for defending democracy. I have written to the chair of the NPCC and to DCC Balmer to stress the importance of their work to democracy itself. I emphasised the importance of keeping pace with the evolving threat that abuse poses to democracy, and we will be meeting with both shortly.

Every police force now has a dedicated superintendent co-ordinator for Operation Bridger, which handles the protection of Members beyond the parliamentary estate. Through Operation Ford, force elected official advisers at working level exist to support both Members of Parliament and locally elected representatives. I have extended the Operation Ford offer to cover all elected representatives across England, Scotland and Wales, supported by a full-time network of 66 Home Office-funded force elected official advisers. I am also pleased to announce the creation of a new threat assessment centre. This will support Operation Ford by centralising and co-ordinating intelligence nationally for incidents that target locally elected representatives. This function will be live ahead of the local elections.

Where the law fails to provide adequate protection, we will strengthen it. We have seen protests deliberately targeted at private homes, timed to intimidate families and children, and designed to exert pressure through fear. That is why the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new offence to restrict protests outside the homes of public office holders. Peaceful protest is a cherished right, but the doorstep of a private home is not an appropriate setting for it. In addition, the Representation of the People Bill will introduce a new aggravating factor, empowering courts to hand down longer sentences to reflect the seriousness of crimes committed against those who serve our democracy, whether elected representatives, candidates, their staff, campaigners or electoral officials.

Many Members across this House and beyond have faced sustained online abuse and intimidation. Some have questioned whether to stand again. That is simply unacceptable. Through the Online Safety Act 2023, the UK has established one of the strongest online safety frameworks in the world. Services now have clear legal duties to identify, remove and prevent illegal content, including threats, incitement and non-consensual intimate images, such as explicit deepfakes. As we approach the May elections, the Government will engage directly with major social media platforms to support and inform their election preparedness.

Countering threats to our democracy is a priority for this Government, but I have always believed that this should be a shared endeavour. Therefore, today I am directly appealing to every Member of this House, and to colleagues across local government and the devolved Governments, to play their part. Where we see harassment or intimidation, we must act. Where we experience it, we must report it. I know it can be time consuming but reporting really does matter. The Parliamentary Security Department works closely with the Home Office and the police to assess threats and put protections in place, but it can only do so with accurate information.

Every report, even if the incident is judged to be below the criminal threshold, helps the authorities build a clearer picture of the threat. I urge colleagues: if there is an immediate danger, of course call 999, reference Operation Bridger and use your SOS fob; for non-emergency incidents, report them via 101 or online, again referencing Op Bridger, and inform your Bridger single point of contact. Metro mayors, local councillors and police and crime commissioners should reference Operation Ford, and this will be picked up by the local force elected official adviser.

Let me be equally clear about our message to those who threaten, intimidate or harass those participating in our democracy—and this applies to individuals and groups alike: anonymity is not safety, no one is beyond reach, and whether the offence occurs online or offline, those responsible should expect to be investigated and prosecuted.

We must challenge at every turn the notion that abuse, threats and intimidation are now an inevitability for those working in politics and public life. Across our society we must never become desensitised to rhetoric about harming those who serve in public life. When we hear it or see in our communities, it should be challenged, not shrugged off as some new normal. All of us in this House must also lead by example. Those entrusted with public office set the tone for our national conversation. If we allow abuse to creep into our exchanges, whether in the House or on the campaign trail, we risk normalising behaviour that undermines democratic debate. By leading with civility, even in moments of sharp disagreement, we demonstrate to the country that principled argument can co-exist with mutual respect.

I can inform the House that an extensive programme of work is well under way to ensure the security of the local and devolved nation elections in May. This includes support for returning officers to keep polling stations and count centres secure, alongside expert guidance on personal security and cyber-security for candidates.

History shows us that our democracy is precious, so today, together we should draw a line, declaring with one voice that we will not be deterred from serving the public, and we will never tolerate abuse, threats and intimidation. Together we will confront unacceptable behaviour, hold perpetrators to account, and defend our democratic way of life. In doing so, we honour the words of Jo Cox, who taught us that we

“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

[Mr Speaker]

Can I thank the Minister for his statement and for taking on the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference? I would like to put on record my thanks to those who served on that conference for all the effort that was put in. I think this is when the House is at its best.

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

There is much to welcome in the Security Minister’s statement. I thank him for advance sight of it and, more broadly, for his update on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, and I join him in remembering our colleagues who lost their lives in service of the public.

As the Minister rightly notes, all of us in this place have a sacred duty to protect and uphold the democracy that has made this country so great for so long. Mr Speaker, I know that few understand that as well as those in the Speaker’s Office, yourself and all three Madam Deputy Speakers, so let me take this opportunity to thank them on behalf of all Members here for everything that they do in public and in private to keep us all safe.

Targeted and serious intimidation of democratically elected politicians, particularly where that intimidation escalates into credible physical threats, is a serious impediment to the functioning of our democracy. It is of course right that criminal behaviour is prosecuted and punished. At the same time, we have a duty to ensure that the policing of genuinely criminal behaviour does not stray into the policing of free speech or free expression. In individual cases, that can be a challenging balance to strike, and I trust that the Minister will approach those cases with the appropriate caution and sensitivity.

While many aspects of the Minister’s statement are encouraging, I am concerned that other members of this Government have failed to approach this issue with the necessary caution or candour. We must be honest about the fact that, while violence against elected politicians can come from a wide variety of groups, the single biggest extremist threat to our country remains the threat of extremist Islamist violence. That threat is intimately tied up with a growing tendency towards sectarian politics in some parts of our country.

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently, separatism is on the rise in our country, because

“for too long, Britain has been complacent about our culture and too tolerant of those weaponising identity politics for their own gain”.

Yet, in their cohesion strategy published earlier this week, the Government seemed unwilling to deal with the threat head-on. The strategy openly acknowledged the existence of

“communities in the UK living segregated or parallel lives”,

but rather than dealing with that problem directly, the Government have proposed a package that may only make this problem worse: more diversity, equity and inclusion in the public sector and an attempt to smuggle in so-called social engineering under the guise of social cohesion; advisory boards designed to manage tensions, when it was exactly that focus on managing community tensions that allowed rape and grooming gangs to operate unchecked for so long in towns and cities across our country; and a new, rebranded Islamophobia definition to be issued as guidance to public servants, which will have a chilling effect on their behaviour.

The strategy will make it harder to have open, public discussions about subjects like female genital mutilation, grooming and rape gangs, and extremism, including any threats that it may pose to our democracy. We have already seen that creating conditions in which people fear being branded as racist for keeping the public safe can create horrific outcomes. We must never again allow guidance like this to create a culture of fear, which breeds inaction, cover-up and denial. The cohesion strategy is a recipe for further suppression of discussion of the threats that face us today and their root causes. We will not make the truth disappear by discouraging people from talking about it. That has never worked, and it will not work now.

Again, I thank the Minister for his statement and for his work on tackling criminality towards elected officials. Can he assure us that his colleagues in Government are as committed to dealing with this problem at its root as he seems to be?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me join the shadow Minister in expressing what I am sure are our collective thanks to Mr Speaker, all the Deputy Speakers and to all the staff in this House for the important work that they do. It is hugely appreciated, and we are very grateful for it.

Let me try to find a point of consensus, difficult though that may be given what we have heard. I very much wanted to take the opportunity today to do this on a cross-party basis; in fact, I intended, and will continue, to take the opportunity to thank the previous Government for the work that they did. In particular, I pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who set up the defending democracy taskforce. It did not exist before he was the Security Minister; he set it up. That is a very strong legacy for him. He invested a lot in it, and I hope he will see how seriously we take that work. He passed the baton on to me, and I hope he will see that, having taken that baton gratefully from him, we have sprinted forward with it.

I was particularly pleased this week to chair a meeting of the defending democracy taskforce, which brought the whole system together. It was always the right hon. Gentleman’s intention that it would provide a fulcrum point and bring together the different constituent parts of Government, law enforcement and the Electoral Commission to provide a single version of the truth and ensure that we are properly resourcing all those who work to keep us safe. I think and hope that he is proud of the work that the taskforce is doing.

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that this is not just about periods of electoral activity; this activity takes place the whole year round, and he knows how seriously I take it. I was really grateful to be reminded the other day of the work he did in getting us to where we are now. I hope he will be pleased to acknowledge the progress that we have made in recent times, which I referenced in my introductory remarks, not least the fact that the Government have introduced new legislation to restrict protest outside the homes of public office holders; it is important to bring forward legislation where it is required. I do not think anyone really thinks it is appropriate that MPs and their families should be targeted at home, and we are taking legislative action to prevent that from happening.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the relationship with the police is a very important one. We work very closely with them to ensure that they have the appropriate guidance that they need, particularly for police officers on the frontline, when responding to incidents involving elected representatives.

I am particularly pleased to be joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for Democracy—she has other responsibilities, but that is a very important part of her remit. I am really grateful to her for the important work that she is doing on the Representation of the People Bill, which will introduce new measures to create a very powerful deterrent for those who would seek to those who serve in our democracy.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), raised a point about policing priorities, and I understand why. She will understand, not least from her time previously working in the Home Office, that the police are operationally independent, but it is important that we work closely with them. That is why I took the opportunity this morning to welcome the appointment of a new national lead for defending democracy; I intend to work with them very closely, and they will provide an important focus for policing activity around the country.

I am very sorry that the shadow Minister chose to segue into matters that were not in the scope of this statement. I am genuinely so sorry that she decided to do so, not least because I gave Members on the Opposition Front Bench ample warning of my intention to come forward and bring a statement to the House today. I did so on the clear understanding that this is something around which we can unite as a House. If we cannot co-operate on this, of all occasions—as we stand and sit in the shadow of the shields—what can we co-operate on? I hope that she will reflect on her comments.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I hope that the shadow Minister will get to her feet and correct the record, because there is a far greater threat from the far right than there is from Islam. In this holy month of Ramadan, I am sure that Muslims all over the country will be praying for her soul, whether she deserves it or not.

I sit on the Speaker’s steering group on AI, which is chaired quite expertly by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and every month, I put a “block of the month” on my social media. The threats to our safety are getting worse. A small number of tech firms are deciding what a large number of people see and hear on their social media platforms, with very little oversight or accountability. Eight people, basically, decide what 8 billion people see. I hope the Minister will agree that we cannot put guardrails around the AI industry—it is moving too quickly—so we need to put guardrails around human beings. We need to make sure that our rights, our voice, our image and what we do are protected, so we need to focus on guardrails around the humans. I hope the Minister will consider my human rights Bill, which I will be proposing very shortly.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the work she does on the Speaker’s steering group. She is right to raise her concerns in the way that she has. She will understand that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has a very important role in relation to these matters. These are things that we discuss in the forum of the defending democracy taskforce on a very regular basis, but she is right to raise her concerns, which I know will be widely shared across this House.

Perhaps I might just say one other thing to my hon. Friend. I am in awe of the courage that she and other hon. Members bring to their public service. In the face of the extremely unpleasant abuse that she and other hon. Members have to tolerate on a very regular basis, the fact that she continues to step forward to represent her constituents and her country in the way she does is greatly to her credit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I thank the Speaker’s Office for all that Mr Speaker and the Madam Deputy Speakers are doing on this issue. I must say, I was somewhat taken aback by the shadow Minister’s approach; I will try to be constructive, but where I veer away, I hope the Minister will take my points.

The Minister is right to highlight the importance of protecting politicians at every level of our democracy. We must ensure that the horror of what happened to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess never happens again, and that representatives at every level feel secure when they are discharging their democratic duties. Many Members, particularly women and those from minority backgrounds, have received death threats and harassment, and fear for their families. Having experienced threats myself—not from radical Islamists, but from right-wing extremists—I know how important these protections are. As the MP for Cheltenham, I also remember the bravery of Andrew Pennington, who died defending my late friend Nigel Jones in an attack on the Cheltenham Liberal Democrat office.

I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking to ensure that the elections in May are free and fair. Our democracy is precious, and it must be carefully protected by those in power. To that end, we welcome the existence of the taskforce, and the work it is doing. We worry, however, that the taskforce is perhaps not working fast enough to address the threat of foreign interference in our democracy. Hostile states are increasingly using social and traditional media to spread disinformation in order to undermine democracy and our elections, so what steps are Ministers taking to tackle that threat? As the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham, which is home to GCHQ, I know the vital work that our intelligence agencies do to counter those threats, but that work must be matched by political leadership from this House.

We will all remember with disgust the case of Nathan Gill, the Reform politician convicted of working for the Russian Government. That case received remarkably little attention, yet it shows the very real threat to our democracy from within. We are also all scarred by the revelation that there were agents of the Chinese Communist party working in this House for hon. Members, and we were rightly outraged that Peter Mandelson shared market-sensitive information with Epstein, and by many other elements of disgraceful conduct that pose a threat to our democracy. Is it not time for a dedicated crime and corruption unit in Whitehall, and does the Minister agree that it is time for legislation that ensures that all electoral candidates declare any donations or gifts from Russia?

Does the Minister also agree that it is time for rules to be introduced about donations made to political parties via cryptocurrencies? This method obscures the source of donations. That loophole must be closed before it is exploited more widely, to the detriment of our democracy. We will all have noted the recent endorsement of crypto by the leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who maintains that he does not “do computers”. There is much work to be done to protect our democracy, and the Minister and the Government have our support to speed up that work, because there is nothing more important for us in this House than protecting those values.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone. I am also very concerned to hear about the threats that he has faced. As he knows, if he thinks any further support is required, I would be very keen to work closely with him. I also join him in remembering his lost colleague.

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the important work that his constituents in Cheltenham do; as he knows, I am a huge supporter of them, and a fairly regular visitor to Cheltenham. He is also right to raise concerns about foreign interference. He will know—I am pretty certain that his party has made a submission to the Rycroft review—that the Government commissioned Philip Rycroft to do an independent piece of work looking at the nature of interference in our democracy. Mr Rycroft is finishing his work and will report to Ministers in the near future, and will do so in a way that will allow the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to incorporate any recommendations that it thinks is appropriate in forthcoming legislation.

The hon. Gentleman cited a number of particularly egregious examples of interference in our democracy, and made a number of entirely reasonable and helpful suggestions. I hope he knows that my door and, I am sure, that of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), is always open to him, should he wish to discuss these matters further.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I should mention that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission; its members work very collegiately, cross-party, in support of its important work. I thank the Minister for his statement today.

Like the women who encouraged me, I aim to support any young women in my constituency—particularly those from black, Asian and minority backgrounds—who put themselves forward to represent their communities in local government, but unfortunately, the increased harassment, abuse and intimidation of councillors and candidates, particularly in recent years, has been a huge deterrent. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that we increase support and protection for all those putting themselves forward, but particularly women, so that we can encourage women from all backgrounds to step forward and represent their communities?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the important work she does on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, and for the points she has raised. She is absolutely right about the threat that women elected representatives and candidates face around the country. I hope she sees the determination of the Government to work with her and colleagues across this House to put in place the protections and support that are required. That is why I referenced the creation of the new threat assessment, which will provide greater granularity on operational intelligence that we think will deliver real benefits at a local level.

My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to highlight concern about the threats, intimidation and harassment directed at those participating in public life, both online and in person—there have been some particularly egregious examples of that in recent times. We have to do everything we can to support those women who want to step forward. I am particularly concerned about the chilling effect that some of these threats and this intimidation have on extremely talented women who might want to step forward in public life, but will look at the circumstances that they might have to deal with and think, “Why would I want to expose myself to that?” We should all collectively be very concerned about that, and should redouble our efforts against this problem. That is precisely why I made the point—hopefully clearly—that wherever we encounter this kind of activity, we must report it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call my neighbour, Tom Tugendhat.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I thank my friend the Minister for his kind words. I also extend praise to Lord Case, who was so important in setting this taskforce up as Cabinet Secretary. The Minister was absolutely right to mention Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, both of whom were in my mind at various different points when the taskforce was set up, and I am indeed extremely impressed with what he has done in taking forward the defending democracy taskforce.

However, may I—perhaps unfairly—challenge the Minister to go a little further, and to answer some of the questions that I did not answer when I was in his place? I hope he may be able to answer them, now that things have progressed a bit. The first is to do with foreign influence. When we look at what China has done in our democracy, not just in this House but online—at the threats that organisations like TikTok pose, through disinformation, and through the way that they actively promote stories that encourage division—we can see that the nature of the threat has changed. Yesterday, I had the good fortune to meet the director general of Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice investigation bureau. As the Minister knows, I was the first Cabinet Minister to meet a Cabinet Minister from Taiwan in a non-trade capacity. Taiwan has a lot to teach us about the way in which China tries to influence our democracy. Has the Minister considered any of those lessons yet?

Another area on which I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts—it is another area that I did not get to, when I was in his position, although I would have liked to—is the protection of journalists. It is of course important to protect the freedom to speak about elected members of any organisation, whether local or national, and to protect journalists’ freedom to speak. Recently, I was made aware of a very unpleasant threat against Konstantin Kisin relating to the attack on Charlie Kirk, who was murdered only a few months ago. This threat happened to come from a left-wing extremist, but as we know, there are extremists of various colours and creeds in our community, and of various political opinions. Has the Minister looked at how the need to protect journalists could be brought into the work of the defending democracy taskforce?

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the right hon. Member again for the work that he did. He is right to raise the important contribution that the then Cabinet Secretary, now Lord Case, made in setting up the defending democracy taskforce.

I genuinely welcome the points that the right hon. Member makes. He has been very good about providing helpful bits of information and intelligence over the past 18 months or so, and I always really appreciate that, because it is it is well meant and well received. I understand why he raises the concerns about China, which have been very well debated in this House. I believe that he understands how seriously I take those threats. A huge amount of activity is taking place across Government. For reasons that he will know very well, we do not often get into the detail of all that, but I hope that he will understand that that activity is under way, and a crucial part of it is, as he described, working with our allies. We do that very regularly.

The right hon. Member is right to raise the important role that journalists play. He will remember from his time in the Home Office, working with colleagues across Government, that a lot of resource and time is invested in our protective security regime. We do not tend to say much about it, but I assure him of the seriousness with which we take these issues, and I agree with him about the importance of free speech and the role that journalists have to play. It is completely unacceptable for anyone in this country to be intimidated by any foreign power, and the Government will always stand against that activity.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I put on record my personal thanks to the Minister for the support that he has given to many Members of this House, including newly elected Members like me, and I welcome a newly elected female Member, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer), to the House today. Will the Minister elaborate on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, and talk about any time spent looking into the algorithms that reward rage-baiting and extremist opinions? I feel that they are degrading our public debate, outside and inside this place.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is a great constituency MP, and it is profoundly concerning to me, and I am sure to other Members who have been in this place for a number of years, to hear about the threats, harassment and intimidation that newer Members have had to face in recent times. It is completely unacceptable, and I pay tribute to their resilience in standing against it, but we want to work very closely with them to make sure that they feel properly supported.

My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about algorithms. I assure her that the subject has been discussed on a number of occasions by the defending democracy taskforce. She will understand that DSIT is the lead Department on that activity, but I heard this comparison made the other day: in days gone by, people would go into a library and choose the book that they wanted to read, but people’s content online is now often directed by forces way beyond their control. I think we should all be very concerned about that. I certainly am, and it is a matter on which I work very closely with colleagues in DSIT.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and entirely concur with him on the domestic elements of protecting our democracy that he announced, but returning to the issue of foreign influence, those countries that mean our democracy harm of course do not recognise the value of democracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) mentioned China, and we have debated Russia at length in this House. The Minister was in his place yesterday when I questioned the Home Secretary on Iran’s influence on this country; there are a lot of fears, and a lot of reporting, that entities including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are using shell companies and proxies to operate on our shores. Given the heightened tensions in the middle east, and the focus on the Iranian regime, I ask the Minister to ensure that all loopholes are closed down, so that we stop the regime—no matter our views on the war, I think the whole House condemns the regime—being able to influence our democracy.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes some really important points, and I pay tribute to the extraordinary work conducted by our intelligence services and counter-terrorism police. By its nature, the work that they do is almost always done in the shadows, and often they do not get the praise that they deserve. There are some extraordinary people working round the clock to keep our country safe, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

The hon. Member is right to raise concerns about the situation in the middle east, and to ask questions about the Government’s response to it. There is often a temptation to reach for the tool of proscription, and sometimes that is the right response. We talk a lot in Government about toolkits. There is quite a lot in our toolkit, and I assure the House that I will use everything in the toolkit to stand against the threats that we face.

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

We have heard today from Members across the House about two twin evils that are driving online abuse: the social media giants’ algorithms, which are promoting content that makes people feel angry or afraid; and the influence of hostile states that deliberately sow disinformation designed to undermine our democracies. I heard the Minister say that it is primarily DSIT’s role to deal with that, but please will he ensure that Ministers keep us all updated on the work that is going on to address it? Unless we all work together, across parties and across Departments, this issue will continue to proliferate and there will not be a democracy left for us to defend.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. While of course there is an important role for DSIT, I assure him that lots of other Departments are actively involved in that work as well, including the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office. He is right to raise concerns, but I assure him that we are doing everything we can to stand against those particular threats.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his statement; it stood in very stark contrast to the response from the Opposition, which was chilling. Many Members have referenced the horrific online abuse that we see on a daily basis, which often originates, as has been said already, from foreign states. What steps are the Minister and the taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign interference, which is often subversive, especially following the recent arrests based on allegations of spying for China?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the approach that he has taken. I assure him that through the defending democracy taskforce, and working with the intelligence services, Counter Terrorism Policing and law enforcement more generally, we are doing everything we can to stand against the nature of the threats that he describes. The world is a dangerous, challenging place at the moment, and a range of different state actors will take every opportunity to sow mis- and disinformation and undermine the basis of our democracy. It is a very important role of Government to stand against all of that, but there is also a really important role for this House. That is why I approached the statement in the way that I have. I want to work with Members right across the political divide, and I am grateful to him for his support of that approach.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I put on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for reaching out after the incident involving me that occurred in Blackpool a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, since becoming a Member of this House I have received a barrage of constant threats, including death threats, from the far-right in my constituency, and that seems to be growing, which is a real concern. I know from my discussions with the Minister how seriously he takes the security of Members of this House and the councillors who serve in our town halls. Will he outline how we can support him in defending our democracy in the right way, which unfortunately is in stark contrast to what we heard in the Opposition’s response to the statement?

[Dan Jarvis]

I was very concerned to hear about that recent incident. Under those very difficult circumstances, my hon. Friend did exactly the right thing, but he should not have had to deal with that situation. That is why it is incredibly important that we make sure that our response is as organised and resourced as it needs to be. He asks what more we can do collectively as parliamentarians. To echo the remarks that I made earlier, we can report it. I know that we are all busy people, and our staff are busy too, but we must not let anything slide. We must take every opportunity, even if they fall below a legal threshold, to report matters to the police, so they have an evidence base that we can use.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It was an honour to serve on the Speaker’s Conference and, in all the work that I have done on security, I have tried to be a voice for the smaller parties, and particularly for people who are further away from Parliament. One of the biggest strengths of the Speaker’s Conference was the extent to which it listened to Members’ experiences. I appreciate the huge amount of work that has been done to improve data gathering, and the fact that we are much better at pooling together our understanding of the threat, but will the Minister reassure us that Members’ experiences will be listened to, in addition to looking at the data, so that we can build on the strengths of the Speaker’s Conference?

[Dan Jarvis]

I had a very constructive meeting with colleagues from the Scottish Government yesterday, and I appreciate their attendance at the meeting. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise concerns about people’s experiences, and I will always make myself available to speak to any Member of this House about what has happened to them.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Much of the intimidation that candidates now face is not on the doorstep, but from anonymous or fake online accounts. Having experienced that myself, I welcome the work of this Government, the police, the defending democracy taskforce, and the offices of Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. What action is being taken to stop online anonymity being used as a shield for harassment and intimidation in our democracy, and how will candidates in Portsmouth’s May election receive advice, support, protection and the enforcement they need to stand safely for public office?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is right to raise her concerns in the way that she has done. Hopefully, she will have heard my earlier remarks, which respond to her specific point. We are working very closely with law enforcement, and we are seeking to work more closely with the tech companies, to make sure that we have all the right protections in place for the elections. If there is more that she thinks we should be doing, I would be very grateful to discuss it with her.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and everybody’s commitment to keep us all as safe as possible. Just a few months ago, the Housing Secretary called the Russian interference within the Reform party

“a stain on our democracy”.—[Official Report, 16 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 776.]

Since then, members of the Welsh Labour party have been investigated for their connections with the Chinese state. With the Senedd Cymru election a mere two months away, what assurances can the Minister give that the defending democracy taskforce will help to defend our elections in Wales from foreign influence and interference?

[Dan Jarvis]

I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks, and I am grateful to Welsh colleagues for their attendance at the defending democracy taskforce yesterday. She is right to raise the threats and challenges that we face. We are making sure that our response to them is proportionate.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

I am pleased to hear about the Minister’s positive dialogue with Scottish Ministers ahead of the vital elections in May. On the collective responsibility of political parties to ensure fair and safe debate, does he agree that there should be no repeat of the racist advert published by Reform last year, which attacked Anas Sarwar for his family heritage? It was widely published and seen hundreds of thousands of times on social media.

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I can tell him that the director general of MI5 and I recently met the chief executives of political parties to discuss these matters.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

In 2019, an attempt was made to physically attack me during the general election campaign, when a beer glass was thrown at my head. That was intimidating, but I recognise that it was nothing compared with the experience of those who are commemorated on the walls of this House, or of many of the women who sit in this Chamber. I am very sorry to say that, less than 12 hours ago, the Conservative party put out social media posts that placed the Prime Minister’s face on the body of a slug, a worm or a snake on a £5 note. Several months ago, the Conservative party in Surrey Heath put out a tweet about me that suggested that I somehow supported rape gangs because I could not support the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Does the Security Minister think that those social media acts elevate our politics and conform to the values that we are speaking about today?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am concerned to hear about what happened to the hon. Gentleman back in 2019. He makes an important and reasonable case, and I think the majority of the Members of this House will agree with him. It is something that we need to keep a very close eye on.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement, and I am particularly delighted to read the part that says, “Where the law fails to provide adequate protection, we will strengthen it.” As someone who had a case thrown out by the Crown Prosecution Service for being an MP, and who was told that I should just have thicker skin, that is welcome news—and I do have thick skin. Does the Minister share my concern that Members of this House are benefiting from engagement with platforms such as X and taking a significant income? They are essentially benefiting from angry engagement, and the money goes directly into their pockets.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very sorry to hear about what happened to my hon. Friend. She is right to refer to the work that we are doing. We are strengthening the law in order to provide additional protections for Members and elected representatives. She makes a good point and poses a good challenge, and I know it will have been heard and agreed with across the House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and the Speaker’s Conference for bringing forward recommendations—they are really important. Operation Ford, which is mentioned on page 2 of the statement, will cover England, Scotland and Wales. Will he clarify why Northern Ireland is not included? Perhaps something else is in place, but I want to check.

During election campaigns, Members and their staff are often required to undertake extensive public-facing activities, including constituency events, door-to-door canvassing and campaigning, which can expose them to additional harassment or intimidation. What assessment has been made of the adequacy of the security arrangements and guidance to Members and their staff during election periods, and what role will the taskforce play in co-ordinating measures to mitigate the risks?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I always am, and I am also grateful to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland for their attendance at the taskforce yesterday. With regard to Operation Ford, the devolved arrangements are slightly different in Northern Ireland, but I gave an assurance at yesterday’s meeting that where we can provide additional support to Northern Ireland, we would be happy to do so.

Extreme Climate and Weather Events: National Resilience

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing this important debate. Her dedicated advocacy for the resilience of rural communities, particularly in the wake of Storm Goretti, is well-known across this House and in her part of the world. She has spoken powerfully this evening about the experience of communities in Cornwall, following recent extreme weather events, and I join her in paying tribute to the local communities, first responders and emergency services that step forward in these moments of crisis.

The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the country safe. We are absolutely committed to taking all measures necessary to build national resilience to external shocks or threats that could cause disruption to our way of life, now and in the future. The UK benefits from world-leading weather warning and information services, which provide information and advice to the public when bad weather is forecast. Weather events can have wide-ranging impacts on communities, including on homes, health, transport, energy and communications, and the relevant lead Department for each of those affected areas has a responsibility to work closely with stakeholders on the recovery from an emergency.

We are absolutely committed to building resilience on both a national and a local level, and while we acknowledge the Climate Change Committee’s assessment of the third national adaptation programme, we are not simply relying on short-term measures. Alongside delivering the actions in the programme to address climate risks to the UK, we are taking significant, long-term action now to become more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as flooding and overheating. We are building new reservoirs and cutting water leaks to help secure our water supplies. This includes a record £10.5 billion investment in flood defences to protect 900,000 properties.

[Dr Spencer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a little bit of progress. It also includes £30 million for coastal adaptation pilots in the East Riding of Yorkshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and £104 billion in private investment for new water infrastructure.

I was privileged to meet community members and first responders shortly after Storm Goretti, and to hear at first hand about the challenges they faced. I was very pleased last week to see His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visit Helston, in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), shining a spotlight on the strong spirit and resilience of the people of Cornwall.

In the period preceding the storm, our world-leading weather warning service played a significant part in the initial Government response. The storm made landfall on Thursday 8 January; the Met Office issued a rare red national severe weather warning across the Isles of Scilly and parts of Cornwall. The storm brought a combination of heavy rain, significant snow and strong winds to England and Wales. Emergency alerts were quickly dispatched to half a million residents in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, advising them to remain indoors until the danger had passed. The conditions resulted in widespread power outages and disruption to transport networks. The national response was managed by the Cabinet Office, which co-ordinated meetings with health and environmental experts and senior Government officials. The Cabinet Office has committed to a comprehensive review of the response to Storm Goretti, which aims to ensure that lessons are captured across Government to improve our response to future severe weather events.

The Government are also acutely aware of the challenges faced by British farmers due to extreme weather, which can impact harvests and consequently influence food prices. Despite these challenges, the UK maintains a resilient food supply chain that is underpinned by diverse sources; robust domestic production; and reliable import routes. During a recent visit to Aberystwyth University, I visited the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, a leading research institute dedicated to advancing the sustainable production of food, feed, and plant-based resources. I also met Aled Jones, the former president of the National Farmers’ Union Cymru, and we discussed the vital importance of securing our nation’s food supply. I recognise that the Government must work collaboratively with farmers and the NFU to ensure that our food supply is safeguarded for the long term.

As has been mentioned, our telecommunications networks are a vital part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure and our emergency response in weather-related crises. They support the functioning of essential services and keep people connected when they need it most. The public switched telephone network often relies on overhead cables that can easily be damaged during severe winds, and most handsets rely on power supplies. Telecoms companies are upgrading landlines from analogue to digital, with over two thirds of lines across the UK already having been migrated. We recognise that telecoms resilience is underpinned by a resilient power supply. Through close co-ordination with the energy sector, the emergency planning community and industry, we are strengthening back-up power arrangements, improving situational awareness, and ensuring that the sector is ready to activate mitigation measures when risks escalate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

Fraud Strategy 2026

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

My noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Hanson of Flint, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

Today the Government publish their fraud strategy 2026, outlining their response to tackling to most common crime in the UK.

Fraud affects millions of people and businesses every year. It causes severe financial losses and emotional harm, and it undermines confidence in our economy and our digital systems. These crimes are often committed by transnational, organised crime groups who are becoming more sophisticated. These criminals are leveraging technology, exploiting global networks and adapting faster than ever, and this requires an equally sophisticated response. The fraud strategy 2026 sets out our plan to tackle fraud. Working alongside law enforcement and industry, it is built on three pillars: disrupt, safeguard and respond.

First, we will disrupt fraud before it reaches victims by reducing criminals’ access to the tools they use to reach victims. To achieve this, we will launch the Online Crime Centre—a new capability that will bring together law enforcement, intelligence agencies and industry expertise to identify and dismantle fraud networks. We will also work with industry and regulators to shut down some of the most frequent avenues for criminals, including those that abuse the telecommunications networks, social media and online advertising. With the majority of fraud having an overseas element, we will also strengthen international disruption efforts and build a global coalition including by sponsoring the 2026 Global Fraud Summit, hosted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and Interpol.

Secondly, we will safeguard UK citizens and businesses by reducing vulnerability and building resilience among individuals and businesses. We will expand proactive policing initiatives and use advanced data models to identify fraud hotspots and deploy targeted interventions, especially to the most vulnerable. We will also provide clear, accessible advice to help people recognise fraud, protect their personal information and take action before harm occurs. Building on the success of the “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign, we will scale up our national communications effort to deliver consistent, impactful messaging across multiple forms of communication.

Thirdly, when fraud does occur, we must respond with the support and justice that victims are entitled to. We will standardise victim support services and ensure each victim receives consistent care, regardless of where in the country they live. Following its launch this year, the new Report Fraud service will replace Action Fraud with a new, modern and user-friendly platform that simplifies reporting and provides timely updates, offering greater intelligence for law enforcement to act on. We will also explore the use of civil powers to complement criminal proceedings so that we can respond more swiftly and deliver faster, more effective justice for victims.

This strategy represents our efforts to fight fraud alongside partners. Delivering against the commitments in the strategy will make the United Kingdom a harder place for criminals to target and a safer place to live, work and do business.

The fraud strategy, Cmd 1523, has been laid before the House and is also available on gov.uk.

[HCWS1383]

Economic Crime Information Sharing

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Economic crime is a significant threat to our national security and to the prosperity of the UK. To effectively prevent, investigate and disrupt economic crime, it is vital that public bodies and private sector entities are able to share and exploit data. Where an organisation has access only to its own information, it is unable to spot criminal networks operating across sectors, businesses and jurisdictions.

In recent years, Government, law enforcement and the private sector have made significant progress to enhance information-sharing capabilities, having launched in 2015 the UK’s joint money laundering investigations taskforce, which has evolved into a multi-layered capability that now includes public-private threat groups and time-limited cells that address specific economic crimes. More recently, also underpinned by section 7 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the National Crime Agency and financial sector partners have created a dynamic data-led arm of public-private partnership that integrates banking data with law enforcement data to target poly-criminality, known as data fusion.

However, it is clear that the legislative landscape remains complex. Regulations operate differently across sectors, there are operational challenges in joining together separate datasets and, more broadly, there is often a lack of confidence and trust to share information due to the threat of legal challenge.

That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government are today publishing a call for evidence on economic crime information sharing. This call for evidence focuses on identifying legal, operational and cultural barriers to effective data sharing for the purposes of tackling crime, as well as opportunities to strengthen the system through reform.

I invite individuals and organisations to share their views with Government, including law enforcement, regulators, prosecutors, businesses in the anti-money laundering regulated sector, technology platforms, telecoms providers, online marketplaces, and others that hold valuable data relevant to economic crime threats.

A copy of the call for evidence will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.

[HCWS1382]

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle cyber-threats.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

We are working with our allies to counter cyber-threats, most recently using sanctions against Chinese tech companies and Russian cyber criminals. The National Crime Agency has arrested and charged those responsible for the reckless cyber-attack on Transport for London. Our new “lock the door” campaign provides practical ways for organisations to protect themselves from online threats. In the spring, the great city of Glasgow will host CYBERUK, where the Government will launch the national cyber action plan.

[Martin Rhodes]

I recently chaired a roundtable, which produced a report from Fortinet, a cyber-security firm based in my constituency. The report highlights the opportunities and risks of cyber-resilience as we transition to Great British Railways. Does the Minister agree that more public procurement has a crucial role to play in ensuring that our railways are secure by design and that the Government must keep pace with the evolving cyber-threat to our critical national infrastructure?

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend: public procurement is an important tool that ensures the UK’s cyber-security. On Great British Railways, the Department for Transport works with partners across Government and the rail sector to improve the understanding of cyber-risk, and I would be pleased to pass a copy of the report he mentioned to the relevant Minister to ensure that it can be considered as part of that work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

18. What steps his Department is taking to help improve the cyber-security of national infrastructure.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

In November, the Government introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to protect essential digital services from cyber-attacks and to enable the Government to better respond to new cyber-threats. In the spring, we will publish the national cyber action plan, which will strengthen our resilience, tackle the threats and maximise the opportunities for growth in the cyber sector.

[Sarah Russell]

I thank the Minister for his answer. We have seen in recent days that Iran is bombing data centres across the middle east, and we are well aware that there have been problems with cyber-attacks by non-state and state-backed actors from Iran. Can the Minister please outline what the Government and the National Cyber Security Centre are doing to deal with the increased threat?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government are absolutely committed to strengthening the UK’s resilience. We have invested in the Government Cyber Co-ordination Centre, a leading cross-Government service that is actively monitoring vulnerabilities and enabling a more effective response to threats. The National Cyber Security Centre is closely monitoring the situation in the middle east, and directly engaging with relevant sectors by providing immediate sector-specific information and advice.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

19. What recent progress he has made on implementing the humble Address of 4 February 2026.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

21. What assessment he has made of trends in levels of disinformation by foreign state actors.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

Disinformation by hostile state actors, particularly from Russia, is an immediate and evolving threat characterised by divisive information operations and the manipulation of public discourse. In response, the Government have sanctioned 38 organisations for information warfare since 2024, enforced the Online Safety Act 2023, and built media literacy skills for young people, so that they can engage with information critically. Most recently, the UK sanctioned three foreign information and manipulation targets responsible for destabilising Ukraine and seeking to undermine European democracy.

[Peter Swallow]

Last week, a representative of Meta appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and when I pressed him on its role in safeguarding democracy, he was unable to say whether it is doing enough to prevent foreign actors from using social media to undermine our democratic rights and freedoms. This week, we have had the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, which seeks to strengthen our democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to use this opportunity to get together with social media companies—or rather, to get tougher with them; I only wish we could get together with them—that are not doing enough about foreign interference on their platforms?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with my hon. Friend that social media platforms have a very important role to play in safeguarding our democracy. The foreign interference offence is a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, which places duties on social media platforms to tackle illegal content. It requires platforms to take proactive action to identify and minimise users’ exposure to state-linked interference. However, we will not hesitate to go further to protect our citizens and our democracy from this threat.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Yesterday, in the light of the new China spy case, I asked the Security Minister to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. He told us that FIRS is “a relatively new tool”, and that the Government

“are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 817.]

That is wonderful Whitehall language, but will he please tell us what it means?

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

The arguments about FIRS are well rehearsed, but I am old enough to remember when Conservative Members said that we would not introduce FIRS. Then they said that we would introduce it later than we had said we would. We introduced FIRS on time, but it is still a relatively new capability. I think that it offers considerable potential, in terms of what it will deliver for our country, but we are looking very closely at how we can ensure its maximum operational capability. I think that is pretty clear in any language.

[Alex Burghart]

Well, it is not very clear, because FIRS is three years old. This morning, I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who established FIRS. When he was establishing it, MI5 told him that it was essential for understanding the operation of the Chinese state in the UK. The enhanced tier would impose mandatory registration and transparency requirements on individuals and organisations in the UK working with Chinese entities. I think most people in this House would now agree that that is entirely necessary. It is there to help our security services protect our country. Please will the Security Minister give us a date by which he will come back to this House to tell us definitively whether he will put China on the enhanced tier, and to set out his explanation?

[Dan Jarvis]

On a simple point of fact, FIRS is not three years old. When we came into government, FIRS was not a properly developed system. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may groan, but it is a statement of truth that FIRS was not ready to go. This Government got a grip and introduced that tool. It came into force, in effect, on 1 October last year. We have already placed two countries on the enhanced tier. We take these decisions very carefully, but I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will come back, when there is a requirement to do so, and update the House on any further decisions that we seek to make on FIRS.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

T4. The Government deal with a huge number of arm’s length public bodies of variable value and success. What progress are Ministers making on tackling the number and effectiveness of arm’s length public bodies?

China: Foreign Interference Arrests

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding three arrests that took place this morning as part of a Counter Terrorism Policing investigation into suspected offences under the National Security Act 2023. I can confirm that this relates to China. I can also confirm that this relates to foreign interference targeting UK democracy.

Mr Speaker, for reasons that you will understand, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any aspect of what is now a live investigation. It is absolutely critical that we do not hamper the work of the police or prejudice any future legal processes by what we say in this House today.

I would, however, point the House to what Counter Terrorism Policing has just said in its own statement, which is that, this morning, its officers arrested three men as part of an investigation into suspected offences under the National Security Act. All three men were arrested on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence service, contrary to section 3 of that Act. Any decision as to whether to proceed with a prosecution would be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Government stand resolute in our resolve to counter foreign interference activity targeting the UK from any state actor. The Government have been consistent and unambiguous in our assessment that China presents a series of threats to the United Kingdom. We remain deeply concerned by an increasing pattern of covert activity from Chinese state-linked actors targeting UK democracy. This involves attempts to obtain information on UK policymaking and interfere with our sovereign affairs.

From the November MI5 espionage alert warning about Chinese intelligence officers targeting individuals with access to sensitive information on Parliament and Government to the attempted interference activities of Christine Lee in 2022, this Government will not tolerate it. I can confirm to the House that British officials have formally démarched Chinese counterparts in London and Beijing about these allegations to raise our strong concerns. However, as this is a live investigation, it would not be appropriate to comment further. But let me be clear: if there is proven evidence of attempts by China to interfere with UK sovereign affairs, we will impose severe consequences and hold all actors involved to account.

In the meantime, the Government are taking robust action to ensure that the UK’s democratic institutions and processes are a hard target for this activity. The National Security Act 2023 provides our intelligence agencies and law enforcement with the modern legal tools they need to deter, detect, and disrupt the full range of state threats. The action that Counter Terrorism Policing has been able to take this morning is an example that shows that the legislation working well. The political influence tier of the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act also provides an essential framework for ensuring that those who seek to undermine our democracy are held to account.

I continue to drive across Government the delivery of our counter-political interference and espionage action plan, which I announced to Parliament on 18 November. This is being co-ordinated in strong partnership with the parliamentary security authorities.

Our aim is to forge a cross-party and whole-of-society shield to safeguard UK democracy. This includes strengthening our legal defences, cutting off channels for interference, and supporting those on the frontline of UK politics to recognise, resist and report the threat.

Members should have seen the guidance that the National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre published last year, which included what to look out for in terms of malicious foreign targeting and some basic steps that Members can take to protect themselves. I urge all Members to read carefully through the guidance that was issued. If hon. Members do experience any suspicious or out-of-the-ordinary interactions, whether in person or online, they should report it to the Parliamentary Security Department. The Government will continue to work in collaboration with the Parliament Security Department to set up a range of more tailored, bespoke briefings for those at greatest risk.

In January, I joined the director general of MI5 and the chief executive of the NCSC to brief the chief executives of the UK political parties on the developing threat picture. I can confirm that officials are now focused on developing a programme of work to engage with the UK’s think-tanks and non-profit sector to discuss the threats that they face from foreign interference. Our intent is to work with them to strengthen their resilience, ensuring that their hard-won reputations and networks are not exploited by our adversaries as platforms for covertly influencing UK public discourse and policymaking.

In February, we introduced the Representation of the People Bill, which will further strengthen safeguards against foreign interference through political funding. Our proposed Bill includes introducing tougher rules for donor recipients to conduct risk assessments before accepting donations, as well as increasing the powers of the Electoral Commission to ensure that it has the tools necessary to fulfil its duties.

The Government eagerly await the report of Philip Rycroft, following his independent review of regulations and safeguards against foreign financial interference in UK politics. The review was commissioned to rigorously test the financial safeguards we currently have in place and will specifically consider safeguards against illicit funding streams, including the use of crypto-assets. The review’s findings will be delivered to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and me by the end of the month. I confirm that recommendations, where appropriate, will inform the Representation of the People Bill. We are also working on new powers to counter foreign interference, including a proscription-style tool to disrupt proxy organisations undermining our security.

It continues to be in our long-term strategic interest to engage with China. We are engaging with China confidently and pragmatically on areas where engagement is in the UK’s national interest, including climate, global health, trade, scientific research, illegal migration and serious organised crime—to name just a few. But let me be crystal clear: this is not a question of balancing economic and security considerations. We do not trade off security for economic access. Instead, by taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to co-operate in other areas.

We will always challenge any country, including China, that attempts to interfere with or undermine the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will always prioritise UK national security. That is why the Prime Minister’s visit opened up a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security, including domestic security issues, at the most senior levels of the Chinese system.

I assure Members of the House and the public that further steps can and absolutely will be taken to defend our democracy. The Government are steadfast in our commitment to disrupting and deterring China’s interference activity wherever it takes place. I commend this statement to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I appreciate the speed with which he has come to the House today.

Here we are again: another year, another Chinese spy scandal, and the backdrop is the Government’s failed policy of appeasement. The Government must surely be coming to the realisation that unless the United Kingdom stands up to these threats, our country will continue to be treated with disdain. We watched how the Government allowed the Chinese spy case involving Members of this House to collapse. We watched as—despite the interference in our democracy—the Government approved the Chinese mega-embassy in London, and we watched as the Prime Minister went to Beijing, cap in hand, begging for trade deals to mitigate the costs of his own disastrous economic policy. We in the House watched as those things happened; the Chinese state watched, too, and saw that it could act with impunity. The Minister said that there is no trade-off between our economic interests and our democratic and national security interests, but I am afraid that is exactly what has happened.

I understand that the Minister will be unable to say much about the new case, but we all know what we are dealing with here, so I hope he will be clear about the Government’s response. I hope that he will talk a little bit about whether this case touches on Members of the House, because while we have been in the Chamber the BBC and The Guardian have reported that one of those arrested is the spouse of a sitting Labour MP and that another is the spouse of a former Labour MP. Given that that is being reported in the press, will the Minister confirm whether that is true?

Will the Minister also give a cast-iron guarantee to the House that the Government will do everything in their power to prevent this case from collapsing? We have seen this show before. Will he promise that, unlike last time, the Chinese ambassador will be summoned by Ministers and told that aggressive interference in our country and its democracy will no longer be tolerated? Mr Speaker, I should say how right you were to deny that ambassador access to this House.

Will the Minister now commit to placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? The Minister said that China presents a series of threats, but during the last spy scandal the Government refused to say the crucial words—that China posed a risk to our national security—and they would not publicly accept that China was opposed or hostile to the interests of the United Kingdom. Will he now accept that that position is no longer tenable?

The Minister said that if there is proven evidence of attempts by China to interfere with UK sovereign affairs, the Government will impose severe consequences and hold all actors involved to account. We sincerely hope that is true, but it was not true last time, so here we are again. Unless the Government finally step up, we will be back here time and again.

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the speed at which the Government have sought to make a statement. I know that he and right hon. and hon. Members will understand that there are strict limitations on what I can say about what is obviously now a live police investigation, but I hope that I speak for both sides of the House when I say that these are the most serious matters, which require us as a House to put the protection of our democracy above any political point scoring. That is how we should approach these proceedings.

The hon. Member, for reasons that I understand, sought to critique the Government’s position. I understand why he did that, but I am confident in the Government’s response to this incident and to our wider agenda on countering political interference. Of course, it is right that Members across the House have the opportunity to scrutinise Government policy and ask questions. That is precisely why we have moved at pace to provide an opportunity for them to do so.

I want to give the hon. Member and other right hon. and hon. Members a guarantee that, given the sensitivity of these issues and the obvious need to protect the operational activity of our police and the security services, we will look for other opportunities to provide appropriate briefings to relevant Members across the House by the relevant experts, to ensure that they can be updated in a way that simply cannot be done on the Floor of the House.

The hon. Member asked a number of questions. He will understand that there are strict limits on what I can say, but let me assure him about the seriousness with which we take these matters. I have always believed that the work that takes place across the House, led by Government, to defend our democracy should be a shared endeavour. The defending democracy taskforce was an initiative brought forward by the previous Government, and this Government have invested in it. It is the fulcrum at which we co-ordinate activity across Government and with law enforcement partners, working closely with Mr Speaker and the parliamentary security authorities here in the House, to ensure that our elected representatives are properly protected against the threats that we face. I assure him of the Government’s determination to stand with all Members to ensure that they are properly protected.

The hon. Member knows, because we have had such exchanges on numerous occasions, that matters relating to prosecutions are specifically matters for the Crown Prosecution Service. It is not for Ministers to opine and make judgments from the Dispatch Box, because the CPS is rightly independent of Government. But he does know—as do other hon. Members—how extremely disappointed the Government were that the trial last autumn did not proceed. Clearly, as he will understand, there is a crucial difference in that the charges in that case had been brought under the Official Secrets Act 1911. I am confident that the National Security Act 2023 provides the robust legislation we need to address the threats that we undoubtedly face.

The hon. Member mentioned FIRS, and I understand why he decided to do so. FIRS is an important capability that comes from the National Security Act. It is still a relatively new tool, and we are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it. We have not made any final decisions as to whether we will place other countries on the enhanced tier, but we keep that under very close review. As I have made clear, this Government will simply not tolerate attempts to interfere in our democracy. We have already taken tough action to strengthen our defences against foreign interference, and we will not hesitate to take further steps where they are necessary.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his immediate update to the House, given the recency of this breaking news. He will know that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy did its report on the case of Cash and Berry, in which it made certain recommendations. The National Security Act 2023 is now fully in place. That is post the original Official Secrets Act 1911, which related to what was undertaken, allegedly, by Cash and Berry. Would the Minister agree that, given the essence of the grain of rice strategy pursued by China, we could see many more cases such as this, involving intelligence gathering by the Chinese as they seek to undermine our democracy and political system?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his Committee for the important work that they do, and I am grateful for their report. He will have seen the comprehensive response from the Government. We want to ensure—and we are doing this—that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible target for those who would seek to interfere in our democracy. That is why we are investing in the processes of the defending democracy taskforce, why we commissioned the Rycroft review and why I announced the counter-political espionage action plan. There is a lot of work taking place across Government, working with law enforcement to ensure that we are protecting our institutions and our elected representatives. I hope that I can convey to my hon. Friend and the House the seriousness with which we take these matters, but I want this to be a shared endeavour, working with parliamentarians of all colours. This affects us all, and the Government are working at pace to stand against the threat.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement, even if at this stage he is rather limited in what he can say. He is entirely right to say that we must continue to allow the police to do their job and to do it well. We remain grateful to all those who are working to keep our country safe, both here in the UK and abroad. It is essential we defend our country and our democracy, including through a robust response by counter-terrorist police.

The arrests this morning highlight the continued reach of foreign interference in the UK, whether it involves spying in its raw sense or the pervasive and persuasive influence of foreign money in our politics. The Government could be doing more to put an end to the clout of foreign money in our democracy, and there is an opportunity to limit the influence of foreign money through the Representation of the People Bill, but as Spotlight on Corruption has made clear, the provisions in the Bill as it stands—looking at company revenue rather than profit—can be easily exploited and far too easily gamed to allow foreign money in. This must stop.

The Security Minister mentioned the foreign influence registration scheme in his statement, but he was unable, not for the first time, to mention any plans to add China to the enhanced tier. How many times must we all come to this House to hear a report of further rounds of arrests under counter-terrorism legislation before this Government take this action? Do the Government plan to review their decision to allow the building of the Chinese mega-embassy, and will they go further to stop foreign money being funnelled into our democracy, including through an absolute donation cap and a ban on those who have worked for foreign regimes from making any donations at all?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me take this opportunity—on behalf, I am sure, of all Members in this House—to thank those whose vital work keeps our country safe. They are the best of us, and our national security is underpinned by their endeavours. The hon. Lady makes several important points. She is right to raise concerns about foreign money in our politics. The Government take these concerns incredibly seriously. That is precisely why we have commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct an independent review into this issue at pace. She might be aware that we debated these matters in Westminster Hall just a couple of weeks ago, when I encouraged her colleague, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), to make formal representations to Mr Rycroft. I am grateful for her confirmation that they have done so. That is very much appreciated, because this is an important body of work that will provide recommendations to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and myself in the next couple of weeks, in time to inform the Representation of the People Bill. This is a timely piece of work and a good opportunity to ensure that that Bill provides the protections that we—I think, collectively—want it to.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned FIRS, and I understand why. FIRS is a useful tool, but it is still a new tool and we are working to ensure that it provides the maximum operational capability. We are looking carefully at how we can use it to best effect. She also mentioned the embassy; again, I understand why she did so. She knows the Government’s position with regard to the embassy. Again, I am a bit limited in what I can say about that because of ongoing legal proceedings, but I refer her to the remarks that I have made previously. There is a strong national security case for the embassy. She will have noted the letter that was sent to the Government from the directors general of MI5 and GCHQ, and I am confident that this is the right thing to be doing.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and for all the work he does on the defending democracy taskforce. I also put on record my thanks to the law enforcement authorities and national security agencies. From what I have read online, I understand that one of today’s arrests took place in my constituency. My constituents will obviously be concerned to hear that, and I wonder what the Security Minister can say to reassure me and my constituents that the police and all the relevant authorities have the resources needed to keep us safe and to keep our democracy safe. If I am right to assume that what I have read online is correct, will he meet me at the earliest opportunity to discuss this further?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend has raised important points with regard to our democracy on countless occasions, and I am grateful to him for doing so again today. I can assure him that the police have the resources they need to do a difficult and complicated job, and of course I would be happy to meet him at the earliest available opportunity.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Chinese only represent strength, and for them everything is transactional, so I think the country would rejoice if the Government were to summon the Chinese ambassador and say to him, “This sort of behaviour is intolerable. You cannot build this mega-embassy in just about the most sensitive site in London while you behave like this.” I am not asking about what MI5 and MI6 have said. This is transactional. We must say, “Treat British nationals like Jimmy Lai properly, and don’t spy on us; otherwise, we’re going to pause this embassy until you learn to behave.”

[Dan Jarvis]

The Father of the House will have heard my introductory remarks, where I made it clear that Chinese officials have been démarched, both here in London and in Beijing. He talks about the transactional nature of the relationship. I hope he will accept that this Government have to, and do, act in the national interest. There are absolutely areas where we need to co-operate with China. I have referenced some, but they also include some areas within the law enforcement space, such as illegal migration, serious organised crime and narcotics trafficking. I honestly think it would be naive of anyone—although I am certainly not saying that the Father of the House was putting forward this view—to say that we should not have some kind of functional working relationship with China, but I was crystal clear in my opening remarks that national security is the first priority of this Government and we will do everything we need to do to safeguard our country and our democracy.

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

The conflict in Iran is deeply concerning, and I was glad to see that the Government’s flights are set to leave the middle east tonight. What more can my colleagues and I do to protect those stuck in the region from bad faith actors?

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

Given the vulnerabilities of Members of Parliament, can I urge the Security Minister to work with the parliamentary authorities not just to pass information to Members but to work proactively with us to ensure that we are all aware of the risks that are posed to us and the steps we need to take to ensure that we are not exposed to interference from foreign states?

[Dan Jarvis]

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee is absolutely right. I hope she understands the seriousness with which we take these matters. I spend a lot of time working with the defending democracy taskforce to ensure that we have in place the protections we need. That is not just about elections; it is about our democracy on an enduring basis. The relationship with this House and with Mr Speaker—hon. Members know how seriously Mr Speaker takes these matters—is a close working relationship. I will always make myself available to talk to colleagues about any matter of concern. A significant amount of guidance has been issued over the last few months. I encourage Members of this and the other House to engage with the materials that have been published, and, where they have further concerns, to raise them through the Parliamentary Security Department and with myself.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his update on this difficult case. In his statement, he confirmed that the Government are working on a

“proscription-style tool to disrupt proxy organisations undermining our security.”

When will this tool be ready and does it include the recommendations set out by Jonathan Hall?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raised this matter with the Foreign Secretary just yesterday, and he is right to do so. He will know that the Government commissioned Jonathan Hall to look at the legislative framework given the concerns we had that there was not an appropriate legislative tool to proscribe a state-backed organisation. Mr Hall has made a number of recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Government. I am conscious that the Leader of the House is sitting here and will not expect me to talk about matters relating to parliamentary business, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurances he seeks that the Government are seeking to deliver this tool and will seek to bring forward legislation at the earliest available opportunity.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

As I hope the Minister would accept, the last trial of those accused of alleged espionage on behalf of China foundered—to put it at its mildest—because of a lack of shared understanding between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government about the evidence that the Government could properly submit in support of that prosecution. I do not expect him to comment about the specifics of this case, but would he accept that it would be sensible for the Government now to ensure that as this matter develops, no such misunderstanding occurs, and that the relationship between the CPS and the Government is in the right place to ensure that evidential conversations are held early rather than late? Finally, would he accept that it would be sensible for the Intelligence and Security Committee to be kept up to date as this matter develops, given that we meet in private and the risks of prejudicing future prosecutions are lower in our case?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member and share in much of the analysis that he has brought forward. Misunderstandings are never helpful and, under these circumstances, above all else we will ensure that there are no misunderstandings. He knows the disappointment that is felt across Government, and within the agencies and law enforcement, about where we got to back in the autumn. Of course, I give him an absolute assurance and commitment that we will do everything we need to do to ensure that the CPS is able to make a judgment; but, as he will understand, that has to be independent of Government. His point about the ISC is absolutely right. He will understand that events have moved incredibly quickly this morning and that we will want to take a moment later today to reflect on what needs to happen next, but I give him an absolute assurance that we want to work closely with the ISC as part of the process.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the update, and I welcome progress made on the counter-political interference and espionage plan. Would the Minister return to the House as appropriate to further update us on that plan?

[Dan Jarvis]

The counter-political espionage and interference plan draws together numerous important strands of activity across Government and ensures that all that work is properly co-ordinated, and we take that very seriously. I absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We will provide updates at the earliest available opportunity, but should he or any other Members have concerns in the meantime, I would be very happy to speak to them.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I praise the work of our police and our security and intelligence services in this case. I thank the Minister for his statement. Like him, I look forward to the publication of the Rycroft report. The Foreign Affairs Committee heard evidence from the Electoral Commission, as did the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Would the Government consider new clauses to the Representation of the People Bill to widen and strengthen the powers of the Electoral Commission and, importantly, provide it with the necessary funding to properly defend our democracy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

All the points that the hon. Gentleman makes are entirely sound and reasonable. He will understand that we need to wait for the Rycroft review to report; I expect that to be in just a couple of weeks. We very deliberately sequenced it so that it can make recommendations that inform proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill. He knows from contact we have had through the Joint Committee that we take these matters very seriously, and we will want to ensure that we have all the safeguards we need. I am grateful for the confirmation from his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), that his party has engaged with that process, and I would be happy to discuss this further with them.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for the work he does—and did, in his previous career—to ensure that our country and democracy stay safe. Mr Speaker, you will be aware that democracy only happens in this place because of House staff and MPs’ staff, who make a huge difference to us and ensure that we can do our job. How will the Minister protect MPs’ staff and House staff, and ensure their security as well?

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has developed something of a knack for finding a good question that most people will have in their mind. I can give him the assurances that he seeks. It is important that we ensure that protections are in place, not only for our elected representatives—those who step forward to serve in this House and in other places—but for their staff, who work so hard and diligently to serve them. We still have a lot of work to do—that work will be led here by Mr Speaker and the Parliamentary Security Department —but the Government will work very closely alongside them, to ensure that they have the support that they need.

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

The Minister spoke of “severe consequences”. Will he outline what those severe consequences might be? Does he understand that Beijing is unlikely to take that terribly seriously, given what has happened in the recent past? Will the severe consequences include putting on hold plans for the Chinese super-embassy and spy centre, pending the outcome of the Met’s investigation?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of this House, will know that, given that we are referring to events that took place just a couple of hours ago, it would be unwise of me to get into further detail. On our response to the threats that we have faced over the last months, I point him to a number of measures that I have referred to. He knows, I hope, how seriously we take these matters. He and I do not agree on the embassy, but I say to him, as I have said to other hon. Members, that there is a clear national security case for the embassy proposal. The directors general of two of the security services have been clear about the national security advantages, as have I. This Government will do everything we need to do to protect our country, our national security and this place. He knows that there is a lot that I cannot say about what we intend to do, but let me be crystal clear: where malign actors—whoever they may be—seek to undermine our democracy, there will be consequences.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I recently visited the Defence Intelligence Academy with the armed forces parliamentary scheme and saw at first hand that our intelligence services are the best in the business. The Government should be praised for increasing the single intelligence account in real terms. Will he commit to keeping the SIA under review, given the increasing threats around political interference, and the threat of state-sponsored terrorism from Iran?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the SIA. He is right that this Government have ensured that our intelligence services have access to the resources they need in a difficult and challenging world. I give him and the House an assurance that should there be a requirement for additional support, this Government will always ensure that both our police and our intelligence services have the resources they need to do the very difficult job that we ask them to do.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The Government will be well aware that, through the united front, the Chinese Communist party has created a global network of individuals and organisations that act as a political weapon to isolate, neutralise or counter Beijing’s critics. Indeed, a Jamestown Foundation report published this month shows that the UK is one of the four most exposed countries, with over 400 united front-linked organisations identified here. Why do the Government continue to refuse to take the necessary action to protect the nations of these islands by placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? That scheme may be new, but if it is going to be useful, it needs to be used.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. He will have heard what I said about FIRS. It is an important capability, and we need ensure that it is deployed in the right way, but we have introduced a number of measures in recent months to ensure that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible operating environment for those who seek to undermine our democracy. We are doing lots of things that I am unable to talk about, but I give him the assurance that we are taking these matters incredibly seriously, and will do everything that we need to do.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I have raised my concerns about foreign interference by Russia and China on many occasions, and today’s events underline why the issue is so important. I welcome the Rycroft review; it is fundamental that we get to the bottom of foreign interference in our politics. My only concern is that because the review will consider financial interference specifically, it may not have the scope to get the full facts. If that proves to be the case, will the Minister do everything in his power to ensure that we have further such work, so that we know the full extent of foreign interference in our democracy, in our elections and in this place?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point, and he has done so consistently. The Rycroft review provides a very important opportunity to take stock of the threats and challenges, and to work out how best to respond. However, I absolutely give him the assurance that he seeks; I would not want to prejudge the review, but if there are measures that are not included in it, we will of course keep an open mind about what more we need to do. We already have a number of powers, and we need to make sure that we use them to maximum effect, but where there is a requirement for new legislation, new powers or additional resources, we will not hesitate to bring them forward.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

As the Minister said, at the heart of this is the question of whether our enemies and malign actors fear the consequences of hostile acts against us. That question is why many of us say that the embassy should be paused. Why would the Chinese be worried about consequences of spying, when this week, another malign actor attempted to kill British armed forces personnel and attacked sovereign territory, but suffered no consequences? What lesson does the Minister think China will take from our failure to defend our own territory from military attack?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman raises his concerns, as he is entitled to. It was important—many would not agree—that the Prime Minister went to China to have frank conversations relating to our national security. People should understand that if they seek to commit criminal acts, attack our country or undermine our democracy, there will be consequences. This Government will ensure that this is the hardest operating environment for those people.

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

I recently made a submission to the Rycroft review relating my concerns about Chinese communist regime influence on the Labour party. Given that we now understand that the partners of a sitting Labour MP and of a former Labour MP have been arrested today, the Minister will understand why I shall be updating that submission ahead of my meeting with the Rycroft review next week. Will the Minister confirm whether the Rycroft review can take account of these arrests, or will it need to be extended until a decision is made on whether charges are brought?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for contributing to the Rycroft review, not least because he and a number of his colleagues have expert insight into the consequences of foreign interference. I hope that he has taken the opportunity to reflect on that and fed it into the review. Of course, the review is being conducted independently by Philip Rycroft and will report by the end of this month, so he will absolutely have the time and space to reflect on recent events. It is an important piece of work that will inform Government policy, not least on cracking down on all the foreign money that should not be in our politics—another matter that Reform Members know quite a bit about.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

China is a risk—we have so much evidence of that—yet the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has signed an energy deal with China for co-operation on batteries, offshore wind, cables and inverters. It effectively gives China access to our energy grid—that is a massive risk. Was the Security Minister consulted by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero before the deal was signed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I can give her and the House the assurance that we have checks and balances in place to ensure that decisions such as the one that she refers to are made in a way that enables our continued national security. We work collaboratively across Government; it is a system that we inherited from the previous Government. We will do everything we can to ensure that we are making informed judgments. Of course, where appropriate, we will make judgments that will aid economic advantage, but underpinning all that will be decisions to ensure that nothing undermines our national security.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I join all colleagues in the Chamber in expressing my shock about the news this morning. I am also disgusted that the Chinese state has targeted the partners of sitting and former MPs. From a personal perspective, may I ask the Government and the Minister to ensure that those affected are supported, following this utterly outrageous targeting of those closest to them?

On the practicalities of what this may imply, can the Minister reassure us all that if the inquiry suggests that any information accessed through a sitting or former MP affected the Government’s decision on the Chinese embassy, that decision will be paused, reviewed and potentially reversed?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on specifics relating to individuals. Along with the director-general of MI5, I recently briefed the chief executives of UK political parties, including the Liberal Democrats. One point made at that briefing was that people who are involved in politics should not take the view that only those who serve in Government or in particular positions of authority and responsibility are targeted. All those involved in the wider political ecosystem are in play here, and that is an important message for people inside and outside this place to understand.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his other point. He knows the Government’s position on the embassy. There is nothing more I can say about that now.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I know how seriously the Minister takes national security; he will feel keenly any interference with our democracy. However, the news that officials being are démarched will be cold comfort for the 4,500 Hongkongers who live in the borough of Solihull. Can the Minister guarantee that the Chinese ambassador to the UK will be summoned by the Foreign Secretary for an interview without coffee?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman is right: I do take these things incredibly seriously. I am grateful for his point about Hongkongers in his constituency. I have personally raised our concerns about arrest warrants and bounties directly with Chinese authorities, and he will have heard what I said earlier about officials being démarched. The Hongkongers make an important contribution to our country. He knows the Government’s position on transnational repression. A lot of work has taken place through the defending democracy taskforce to ensure that people are, and feel, protected, but if he thinks that we should be doing more, I would always be very happy to discuss it with him.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is a source of concern that two of the three men were arrested in Wales, and that they have close associations with the Labour party. Given that the Senedd goes to the polls in just over two months—in the shadow, of course, of the Nathan Gill scandal—what support will be given to the Electoral Commission to ensure that there are sufficient resources to safeguard those elections against the growing threat of foreign interference?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Member is right to raise the importance of the work done by the Electoral Commission. It is a key member of the defending democracy taskforce, and we work closely to ensure that it has the powers it needs to do the difficult job asked of it. She will obviously understand that the Rycroft review and the Representation of the People Bill will not provide legislative change in advance of elections that are taking place in May. That is precisely why we are working closely with the devolved institutions, and we will be having further contact with them over the coming weeks, to ensure that the important elections that are taking place around the country in May do so in a fair and free environment. That is what we all want to see.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Will the Security Minister confirm whether the partner of the sitting Labour MP arrested on espionage charges of spying for China had a parliamentary pass?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not ask me about FIRS, because he has consistently done so and I always enjoy our exchanges. He will understand that I have come here at extremely short notice to provide an update to the House, and I cannot get into the operational details of matters that took place just a few hours ago.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to reassure the hon. Gentleman, the answer is no.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Minister has said numerous times that the Government always prioritise UK national security, but those words ring hollow whenever we think of the Chinese embassy, and the fact that this Government have granted a mega-embassy close to underground cables carrying highly sensitive data. In the light of these highly concerning developments, surely the Government should show courage, strength and leadership, and with immediate effect revoke that decision in the interest of national security.

[Dan Jarvis]

With great respect to the hon. Lady—I always listen carefully to what she has to say, because she represents a part of the United Kingdom that I have a long-standing interest in—she is not right in what she says about the embassy. I refer her to comments made by the Intelligence and Security Committee and the director generals of our security services. The arrangement that underpins the Chinese embassy involves the reduction of the diplomatic estate in London from seven sites down to one. I hope that when she looks at it in those terms, she will understand that there are national security advantages from that proposal.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

A Member of Parliament’s partner has been accused of spying for China. The Minister has been asked this several times: have the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary specifically asked and summoned the ambassador to come to explain themselves, and if not, why not?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member will have heard from my opening remarks that Chinese officials have been démarched in both London and Beijing. I hope he will also understand that we are referencing events that happened earlier this morning.

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

As Home Secretary, I delivered the National Security Act 2023, largely because of the threat posed by China. If media reports are true, does the Minister agree that the perception of conflict of interest, compromise and bias are just as damaging as actual conflict of interest, compromise and bias? Will he reassure the House today that the Labour party will do everything and take appropriate measures to protect the probity of the investigation and maintain public confidence?

[Dan Jarvis]

Of course the Government will do everything to ensure that the counter-terrorism police and intelligence agencies have whatever they need to conduct this investigation. As the right hon. and learned Lady will understand from her time as Home Secretary, that is conducted independently of Government, and it is not for the Security Minister, the Home Secretary or any Minister to get involved in the business of an investigation. That would not be appropriate, and I hope she would acknowledge that. Let me also say something positive to her. She was Home Secretary when the National Security Act 2023 was introduced, and that vital piece of legislation is making a real difference to our ability to counter those who would seek to do us harm. It is a valuable tool in our armoury, but where there is a view that we need to add more tools to that armoury, we will definitely do so.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The name of the Labour Member of Parliament whose husband has been arrested is circulating widely via the media. I do not intend to name that Member of Parliament, but if the reports are true, that Member of Parliament sits on a Select Committee that would have sensitive, maybe even secret, information and, through totally legitimate means, has visited a number of our defence sites across the country. Has there been, or will there be, an urgent review of what sensitive information that Member of Parliament might have been party to and, at the appropriate juncture, will the Minister release any correspondence between his Department and that Member of Parliament on things such as the Chinese embassy and other matters relating to China?

[Dan Jarvis]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he will understand that membership of a Select Committee is not a matter for the Government, but Mr Speaker will have heard the point he raised, as have I. On his second point, he will understand that we are dealing with events that took place a couple of hours ago. I have not seen what is being reported online, because I have obviously been here, but I will give consideration to the matter he has raised.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers. Nobody in this House doubts his commitment to finding answers to ensure that the truth is out and justice is done—I thank him for that; everybody respects it. I highlighted when my constituents raised surveillance by the Chinese Communist party in my constituency, and when the website of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, was hacked, and information that highlighted human rights abuses and persecution in China was removed. The Minister has outlined clearly what will happen on the mainland, but Northern Ireland has a porous border with the Republic of Ireland. CCP authorities regularly cross the border going north and south with little or no checks, and its activities in the Republic of Ireland must be watched. What discussions has the Minister had to ensure that the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and the Garda Síochána, work collectively to thwart the CCP wherever it is, especially in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as always, for his words about our commitment to these matters. I know he shares that commitment, and he has been a tireless champion for the freedom of people to practise their religion. He has raised some important points, and he will understand if I want to reflect on them more closely. We have a close working relationship with the Republic of Ireland, but I will look carefully at what he said and get back to him.

Points of Order

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern, but the Chair is not responsible for the content of the statements made by Ministers. Ministers will no doubt update the House when and if appropriate.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

indicated assent.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

indicated assent.

Unexplained Wealth Orders Annual Report 2024-25

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Today, the unexplained wealth order report for the period 2024 to 2025 will be 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, five unexplained wealth orders were applied for, all of which were granted. Four orders were applied for by the National Crime Agency and one by the Serious Fraud Office, the first agency other than the NCA to apply for an order.

This is the highest number of unexplained wealth orders applied for in one year since their introduction in 2017. This has, in part, been facilitated by reforms to the orders in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which were designed to increase their use. Unexplained wealth orders are intended for particularly high-value and complex cases, which is reflected in their more limited use, compared to other powers. The wide range of alternative civil and criminal powers available to law enforcement agencies to investigate, search for, and seize assets are more appropriate for use in the majority of cases.

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 www.gov.uk.

[HCWS1355]

Cabinet Office

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy on 9 February 2026.

[Dan Jarvis]

The Government’s first duty, as I hope any Government’s would be, is to keep the country safe. We are absolutely committed to taking all necessary measures to expose and disrupt any attempt to interfere with our sovereign affairs.

That is why on 18 October last year I set out the Government’s counter-political interference and espionage action plan, to ensure that our democracy is the hardest possible target for foreign threat actors.

[Official Report, 9 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 270WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis):

[Dan Jarvis]

The Government’s first duty, as I hope any Government’s would be, is to keep the country safe. We are absolutely committed to taking all necessary measures to expose and disrupt any attempt to interfere with our sovereign affairs.

That is why on 18 November last year I set out the Government’s counter-political interference and espionage action plan, to ensure that our democracy is the hardest possible target for foreign threat actors.

Integrated Security Fund

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I wish to update the House on the Government’s plans for the integrated security fund and how funding will be allocated over the next three years—2026-27, 2027-28 and 2028-29—to support delivery of the UK’s national security priorities.

As the 2025 national security strategy made clear, threats to British national security and interests are proliferating. Foreign powers plot espionage, sabotage and cyber-attacks on British soil, colluding with criminal groups to achieve their aims. The threat posed by terrorism continues to persist and diversify. Hostile actors seek to undermine and destabilise the international order not only through conflict and aggression, but through hybrid tactics aimed at sowing and exploiting divisions within our societies.

In this increasingly complex and interconnected national security landscape, it is more important than ever that we take an integrated approach to protecting the UK and its people. This year, the ISF has already demonstrated its value in co-ordinating whole-of-Government responses to key threats, providing vital support for the Government of Ukraine’s efforts to oppose Russian aggression and investing in the UK’s own resilience to threats.

Over the next three years, the Government will continue to invest in the ISF as a cross-Government mechanism that can complement the work of individual Departments, while embarking on ambitious reforms to improve its efficiency and to directly align the fund’s work with the Government’s wider national security response and the national security strategy. This will support the ISF to deliver on its core purpose: protecting the UK’s national security domestically and overseas.

Reform

For 2025-26, the ISF delivered a series of structural changes, closing some ISF portfolios and consolidating others to streamline and focus the fund’s efforts. This was part of a phased transition towards a reformed ISF governance structure that will take effect from 2026-27. The second phase of ISF transformation will:

Deliver a more focused ISF strategic framework, concentrating ISF programming on tackling five key areas: Russia; Iran and its proxies; threats emanating from the Asia Pacific region; serious and organised crime, including organised immigration crime; and terrorism. The ISF will also focus on building sovereign capabilities in four areas: cyber and tech; biosecurity; counter state and hybrid threats; and economic security.

From 2026-27 onwards, funding will be allocated and programming overseen by cross-Government boards responsible for delivering the UK’s strategies related to each of the ISF’s nine strategic priorities. This will see an end to bespoke ISF governance arrangements, leading to greater accountability for spending through the ISF and reduced bureaucracy.

Set multi-year allocations to enable more efficient, longer-term programming. To preserve the ISF’s flexibility to respond to a crisis or a change in security priorities, this will be balanced by holding 20% of the allocations in 2027-28 and 2028-29 “at risk” and available for reprioritisation if necessary.

Transfer responsibility for funding the UK’s contributions to UN peacekeeping missions and other multilateral commitments to the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. This is in line with the ISF’s sharper strategic focus on UK national security. The ISF will continue to fund wider programming to prevent and/or resolve conflict and instability where there is a direct link to UK national security.

Spending review 2025 allocations

These reforms will enable the ISF to maximise the national security impact of its budget over the SR25 period. This budget totals circa £820 million per year, of which circa £200 million per year is official development assistance. The ISF will transfer circa £250 million per year to the FCDO and the MOD to enable those departments to manage UN peacekeeping and multilateral commitments currently funded by the ISF. The ISF will also transfer a further £30 million, £70 million, and £100 million non-ODA to the Home Office over the three years of SR25 to support national security priorities and safeguard the UK’s homeland security. The ISF’s budget for national security programming will therefore total £545 million, £499 million and £471 million in 2026-27, 2027-28 and 2028-29 respectively.

The ISF will focus programming funding towards the most acute threats to UK national security. This includes increasing the ISF’s investment in its two largest areas of spend: countering Russian aggression, including in Ukraine; and strengthening the cyber and tech capabilities of the UK and our allies. Together, these areas make up 46% of the ISF’s budget in 2026-27. By 2028-29 the ISF will also increase funding by 33% to enable the UK to counter threats emanating from the Asia Pacific region, including engaging safely and securely with China while protecting UK interests, and supporting our partners around the world to do the same. The ISF will also invest in new cross-cutting, domestic counter-state threats programming, which will complement actor-specific international activity to counter Russia and other states.

The ISF’s counter-terrorism allocation will increase from £31 million this year to £58 million in 2026-27, before declining to £46 million by 2028-29. This front-loaded allocation will establish new domestic counter-terrorism capabilities from next year, while providing sufficient funding to maintain existing counter-terrorism activity in Africa and the middle east. In 2026-27, ISF funding on serious organised crime will also rise by circa £10 million from 2025-26 levels, to fund new activity disrupting and dismantling criminal groups facilitating illegal migration to the UK.

Prioritising funding in these areas means that greater fiscal discipline is required elsewhere in the fund. Programming in the middle east will narrow its focus to countering the highest priority threats in the region and to support work to secure a resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict through a negotiated two state solution. The ISF allocation will therefore reduce by 20% by the end of the SR25 period. Following the ISF’s successful maturation of UK sanctions capabilities, which will be funded by Departments’ core budgets from next financial year, the ISF’s allocation to economic security will also reduce from £12 million in 2026-27 to £8 million in 2028-29. The ISF will maintain funding for strengthening UK resilience and preparedness in relation to biosecurity threats at £15 million per year through the SR25 period.

These allocations closely align ISF funding with the priorities of the national security strategy. They balance investment in capabilities to bolster domestic resilience and make the UK a harder target for hostile actors, with overseas activity to promote stability and help allies and friends bolster their own resilience. Together with the reforms to the ISF’s structure and operating model, they will ensure that the ISF is not only more efficient but more impactful in protecting the UK and our partners globally.