Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

1. What steps her Department is taking to help protect consumers against fraud.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Fraud devastates lives, and this Government are determined to meet that challenge head-on, including through the new expanded fraud strategy that we promised in our manifesto. We are working with law enforcement and industry to better protect the public, and we are demanding that the tech companies go further and faster to protect consumers at risk of fraud on their platforms.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

Online scams are a cause of particular concern in Hendon. A number of my constituents have been targeted, and one lost £40,000 to an online scam. Many of the scams originate overseas. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology about tackling online scams and working with other countries to crack down on scams originating abroad?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, not least that the vast majority of scams are perpetrated by criminal gangs based overseas. We need the support of overseas Governments and agencies and the co-operation of tech firms to prevent fraud from taking place on their platforms. My noble Friend Lord Hanson will be meeting tech firms next month to confirm what action is being taken. Working across Government, including with partners in DSIT and others, we will not hesitate to take further action where necessary.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It was disappointing to see in the January figures that fraud has risen again after it had been coming down, but I commend the Government for proceeding with the Payment Services (Amendment) Regulations 2024 to slow down payments where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraudulent activity. What effect does the Minister believe that change will make?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is right that the latest statistics show that there were 3.9 million incidents in the year ending September 2024—that is one in 15 people becoming a victim—which demonstrates the urgent need for action. The Government are taking action: the Home Secretary, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology recently wrote to tech and telecoms companies, urging them to go faster and further on fraud, and we expect them to do so.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

2. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain.

--- Later in debate ---

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

16. What steps her Department is taking to counter hostile state threats.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The Home Office works closely with other Departments and operational agencies to strengthen the UK’s defences against state threats. That includes continuing to implement measures in the National Security Act 2023, which will make the UK a harder target for states that seek to commit hostile acts.

[Mark Sewards]

Hostile states are using unknowing security officials here in the UK to undermine our national security and conceal their activities, and the director general of MI5 has said that Russia and Iran are increasingly using this tactic. I welcome the Home Office guidance that allows security organisations to carry out effective due diligence, but what else is the Department doing, with the security industry, to ensure that our country is protected from these hostile state threats?

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank my hon. Friend not just for his question but for mentioning the recent Home Office guidance, which was a crucial first step in upskilling security officials on the risks that they might encounter from state actors. We are following that up with targeted engagement events across the sector, including upcoming industry conferences which we will be attending to ensure that the key messages are well understood and we can have an ongoing dialogue with the sector about the handling of such threats.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When considering hostile state threats, we cannot ignore terrorist groups from both the right and the left in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who work with some of those states. What is being done to ensure that paramilitary groups across the United Kingdom are taken on, and that the hostile states they represent on the basis of their own motivations can be addressed directly?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, as he always does. I can say to him that a threat is a threat, regardless of the direction from which it comes. We take all those threats extremely seriously, and we work around the clock with the police and the operational agencies to keep the public safe, wherever the threat may originate.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Strong encryption is vital for everyone’s security, but last week Apple pulled its advanced data protection services in the UK after the Home Office had reportedly demanded back-door access to its UK customers’ encrypted data. Liberal Democrats have long argued that investigatory powers must be proportionate, as any “way in” for security services can be exploited by criminal gangs or, indeed, hostile states to target innocent people. Given that rights and security go hand in hand, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that our national security and civil liberties are properly protected? Why do the Government believe that Apple’s UK customers do not deserve the same privacy rights as every other customer in the rest of the world?

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot comment on operational matters, and it would not be appropriate for me either to confirm or to deny the existence of any notices under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This is a long-standing position held by successive Governments for obvious reasons of national security. What I can say is that the suggestion that privacy and security are at odds is not correct; we can and must have both. The Investigatory Powers Act contains robust safeguards and independent oversight to protect privacy and ensure that data is obtained only on an exceptional basis, and only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T9. In recent years, the UK has slid down the international league table on tackling corruption. Given the threat of corruption to our democracy, economy and national security, will the Minister say whether the Government intend to publish a new comprehensive anti-corruption strategy?

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does on the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. I can confirm that the Government take the threat of corruption, illicit finance and kleptocracy extremely seriously, which is why we announced that we will publish a new UK anti-corruption strategy this year. The new strategy will include measures that make it harder for corrupt actors to operate, strengthen global resilience to corruption, and address the UK’s vulnerabilities to corruption, including through ways to ensure that all those in public service are held to the highest standards.

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The Home Secretary knows that raising the minimum income threshold has reduced net migration, which is why I introduced it while I was Home Secretary. If the Home Secretary wants to continue bringing net migration down, will she now confirm that she will introduce the further increases to the threshold, as I proposed?

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 requires the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their TPIM powers under the Act during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

Home Office Exclusion Policy: Russian State

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The Government are today announcing an important reform to the Home Office’s exclusion policy.

Under new measures, the Home Office will expand the criteria for exclusion to ensure that while Russia remains an acute national security threat to the UK, exclusion from the UK may be considered if the individual is part of an elite linked to the Russian state.

This category will consider any individual who:

Provides significant support to the Russian state;

and/or owes their significant status or wealth to the Russian state;

and/or has access to the highest levels of the Russian state.

The entry of elites linked to the Russian state into the UK may threaten our national security and our national interests. Elites linked to the Russian state may pose a number of specific harms, including but not limited to: acting as tools of influence for the Russian state; opening the UK to accusations of hypocrisy for welcoming these individuals while condemning the actions of the Russian state; and enabling the continuation and expansion of the Russian state’s aggression or malign activities.

The UK has been steadfast in its response to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and to its malign activities in the UK and around the world. We have imposed extensive sanctions on elites linked to the Russian state, strengthened our law enforcement capabilities through the National Crime Agency’s combating kleptocracy cell, and closed the legislative loopholes open to money laundering by criminal actors.

Despite these measures, there are members of the elite who continue to travel to the UK while denouncing the west in public life, seeking to enjoy in private the benefits here, which they deprive others of in Russia. The nature of the Russian state, with its lack of rule of law, free media, or delineation between the public and private realms, means that we can no longer rely on existing exclusions measures, such as grounds of corruption or involvement in serious crime to deal with corrupt elites. We must go further to ensure that those who pose a threat to UK interests, because they enable, support or are indebted to the Kremlin regime, are prevented from accessing the UK.

The measures we are introducing today will expand our exclusion criteria to ensure that the most senior and influential individuals linked to the Russian state—whether through financial, political or governmental ties—can be stopped from entering the UK when that is what our interests demand.

Our reforms will:

Strengthen the criteria for exclusion—any member of the elite with known links to the Kremlin may be subject to exclusion from the UK.

Enhance information sharing—working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as well as with our operational partners, the Home Office will ensure that exclusion decisions are based on the most robust and up-to-date information available.

Signal the UK’s position on Kremlin-linked elites—these reforms make clear the Government’s view that elites linked to the Russian state are not welcome in the UK.

This policy has been subject to extensive internal and external review. These new measures will not target ordinary Russians, but will focus on those who prop up the Russian regime, wherever they were born. The Government have been clear that we take issue not with the Russian people, but with the actions of their Government.

On the third-year anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Government remain resolute in our support for Ukraine and in standing with our allies against Russian aggression both at home and abroad. These measures send a clear message: the UK is not a haven for those who enable or profit from the Kremlin regime.

[HCWS458]

Prevent: Learning Review

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the publication of the Prevent learning review into the perpetrator of the attack that tragically killed Sir David Amess on 15 October 2021.

Sir David Amess was a beloved Member of this House. A hugely respected parliamentarian, his popularity extended right across the political divide. To win and keep the respect of those outside one’s own party is, as we all know, a rare accomplishment. Over nearly 40 years of service in this place, Sir David fought every day for his constituents. He advanced numerous causes with compassion, persistence and skill, and Members on all sides of the House knew him as a warm, respectful and always fair parliamentarian. His legacy lives on, not least in Southend, which now has the city status he campaigned so determinedly for. He will never be forgotten, and as the motto on Sir David’s memorial shield behind me states, “His Light Remains”. While this House lost a hugely valued Member on that terrible day, Sir David’s wife and children lost a loving husband and a devoted father. They are in our thoughts and prayers today and always.

Together with the Home Secretary, who spoke with Sir David’s family recently, I recognise the courage and persistence they have shown in seeking the answers that they deserve. As the House will know, it was a heinous act of violence on 15 October 2021 that took Sir David away from those who knew and loved him. The killer, Ali Harbi Ali—and I will not say his name again—was convicted of murder in April 2022 and received a whole-life sentence. The judge said that this

“was a murder that struck at the heart of our democracy”,

and he had “no doubt whatsoever” that the nature of this case meant that the perpetrator

“must be kept in prison for the rest of his life.”

The perpetrator had previously been referred to the Prevent programme and subsequently to the specialist Channel programme between 2014 and 2016, or between five and seven years before the attack took place. Immediately after the attack, a Prevent learning review was jointly commissioned by the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing to examine what happened in the case and see whether lessons needed to be rapidly learned. It was completed in February 2022.

Last week, I made a statement to the House on the Government’s publication of the Prevent learning review concerning the perpetrator of the abhorrent attack in Southport. Today, we are taking a further step to enable public scrutiny of Prevent, and in recognition of the seriousness of the terrible attack on Sir David, by publishing the Prevent learning review conducted in this case, too.

The perpetrator of the attack on Sir David became known to Prevent in October 2014, when he was referred by his school after teachers identified a change in his behaviour. The case was adopted by the Channel multi-agency early intervention programme in November 2014. An intervention provider who specialised in tackling Islamist extremism was assigned to work with him. The perpetrator was exited from Channel in April 2015 after his terrorism risk was assessed as low. A 12-month post-exit police review in 2016 also found no terrorism concerns. The case was closed to Prevent at that point. There were no further Prevent referrals in the five years between the case being closed and the attack.

The Prevent learning review examined how Prevent dealt with the perpetrator’s risk, and how far the improvements made to Prevent since he was referred seven years prior would have impacted on his management. The review considered both the handling of the case at the time and the changes that had been made to Prevent since the referral in 2014. It examined how far those changes addressed any problems identified, and then made a series of recommendations.

The reviewer found that

“from the material reviewed, the assessment in terms of”

the perpetrator’s

“vulnerabilities was problematic and this ultimately led to questionable decision making and sub-optimal handling of the case during the time he was engaged with Prevent and Channel.”

It identified that the vulnerability assessment framework was not followed, with the perpetrator’s symptoms being prioritised over addressing the underlying causes of his vulnerabilities. The reviewer ultimately found that, while Prevent policy and guidance at the time were mostly followed, the case was exited from Prevent too quickly.

The reviewer identified six issues: the support given did not tackle all of the vulnerabilities identified; record keeping was problematic and the rationale for certain decisions was not explicit; responsibilities between police and the local authority were blurred; the tool used for identifying an individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation was outdated; the school that made the referral to Prevent should have been involved in discussions to help determine risk and appropriate support; and the tasking of the intervention provider was problematic, with a miscommunication leading to only one session being provided instead of two.

The reviewer then examined how far changes in the Prevent programme since 2016 had addressed these issues. The reviewer recognised the significant changes that had been made to Prevent since the perpetrator was managed, in particular the introduction of the statutory Prevent and Channel duties under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The reviewer concluded that over the intervening period there have been considerable changes to policy and guidance for both the police and the wider Prevent arena, including Channel.

While a number of the issues in the perpetrator’s case would most likely not be repeated today, there were still a number of areas that could be considered as requiring further work to mitigate future failures. The reviewer made four recommendations for actions to further strengthen Prevent. These were to improve the referral process, strengthen the initial intelligence assessment process, update the tool used to identify vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism, and to not reduce data retention periods.

Since the report, the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing have fully implemented all four recommendations. First, a single national referral form was launched to encourage a consistent approach to referrals, building this into new training packages and mandating its use via statutory guidance. Secondly, training has been delivered to police staff to strengthen the initial intelligence check stage, ensuring their understanding of Prevent is robust. Thirdly, a new Prevent assessment framework was rolled out in September 2024, which replaces the tools previously used to assess all referrals and cases in the Prevent system. Fourthly, data retention periods were fully reviewed in 2023, and a joint decision was taken by the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing to maintain retention review periods at six years, or six years after the 12-month review for Channel cases.

In addition to the publication of the Prevent learning review, we recognise the significant concerns that remain over the way in which Prevent dealt with the perpetrator, as well as the need to ensure that the recommendations it suggested for improving the scheme have been properly implemented. Last week, I set out to the House a series of new reforms instituted by the Government to strengthen the Prevent programme, recognising the vital work done by officers across the country to keep people safe. That included the creation of a new independent Prevent commissioner. I can today inform the House that the Home Secretary has asked the Prevent commissioner to review the Prevent programme’s interactions with the perpetrator in this case, and ensure the implementation of all relevant recommendations. We will ensure that the Amess family have the support they need to engage with the Prevent commissioner in this work, so that they can have confidence that it will get to the truth about any failings in the scheme.

Two further important issues have been raised that are relevant to this case—local policing and Members’ security. On local policing, concerns have been raised by the Amess family about the way in which Essex police handled this case. A complaint has been made, and referred back to the local force by the Independent Office for Police Conduct for consideration. That process must be allowed to follow its course. However, I can inform the House that the Home Secretary has written to the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner of Essex police asking them to set out how the investigation will be conducted, and to be kept updated as the investigation progresses.

Members’ security is something the Home Secretary and I care deeply about, and I know it is a matter to which Mr Speaker attaches the utmost importance, as will all Members across the House. A review of security measures for MPs commissioned under the previous Government has concluded, and all the recommendations have been implemented. We must ensure that the learnings from this case have been properly implemented.

I take this opportunity to thank Mr Speaker for his continued leadership on these matters. The Speaker’s Conference is specifically considering what reforms are necessary further to improve MPs’ security and safety, which is another important step. The Leader of the House, the Home Secretary and I look forward to working closely with Mr Speaker and all Members to ensure that the facts of the appalling murder of Sir David are properly considered as part of the Speaker’s Conference’s work, and that the Parliamentary Security Department implements the recommendations it made following the review it conducted in the aftermath of Sir David’s death.

I am also grateful to previous Home Secretaries and Security Ministers for their efforts in this area. Our democracy is precious, and this Government will defend it against any and all threats, not least through the defending democracy taskforce, where we are mounting a whole-of-government response to combat these threats, including ensuring that elected representatives can perform their duties safely and without fear.

To conclude, I pay tribute once more to Sir David. He was a giant of this House and we miss him dearly. In all that he did, Sir David epitomised public service at its best. It is beyond a tragedy that we can no longer seek his advice or rely on his wisdom. We can, though, follow his example and devote ourselves every day to the task of building a better, safer Britain. That is our shared challenge, and under this Government, nothing will matter more. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I start by thanking the Security Minister for providing advance sight of his statement and advance sight of the Prevent learning review into Sir David Amess’s tragic murder. I thank him for the courtesy and collegiality with which he has conducted our discussions on this topic in recent days.

Let me add my words to those of the Security Minister in remembering our colleague, Sir David Amess. All of those who served with him in this House held him in great affection and the highest regard. He was a colleague who was loved, and is remembered fondly, across the House. His particular form of charm, kindness and good humour is something that everybody who ever met David will remember. Every day, I walk into this Chamber and see his shield up there on the wall opposite—I see Jo Cox’s, too—and I remember David and the loss that we, everyone in his constituency and most of all his family have suffered.

I spoke earlier today to Sir David’s wife, Julia, and I pay tribute to her and her daughters for the courage and fortitude they have shown over these past few years in campaigning to get the answers they need. I also thank the former Member of Parliament for Southend West, Anna Firth, who has been supporting Julia and her family throughout this difficult time. I thank the Home Secretary, as well, for meeting Lady Julia recently. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for taking the time to do that.

Turning to the Prevent learning review, which I recently received and which I believe is about to be published, I noticed that it is a redacted version. I would be grateful if the Security Minister confirmed that nothing material has been redacted. I am sure that it has not, but it would help to have that clarified.

We heard in the Security Minister’s statement—and I thank him for the thoughtful and considered way in which he made it—that the Prevent learning review identified a number of failings in the way that Prevent handled the murderer of our late colleague, and that there had been opportunities for further intervention. While I welcome the fact that the report has been published, and that the new Prevent commissioner will conduct a further review, there are still questions relating to this case and others that perhaps merit a more formal inquiry to ensure that we get to the bottom of it.

There are other cases where there are questions around whether perpetrators of violence either encountered Prevent and could have been better identified and interdicted, or encountered mental health services. Those that may merit further inquiry include: the case of Ahmed Hassan, where 50 people were injured on a tube train following the detonation of a device; the case of Usman Khan on London Bridge; the case of Khairi Saadallah, who murdered three men in Reading; and, the Southport case that we have discussed in this House recently. It strikes me that there are systemic issues, both with the failure of Prevent to identify and stop potential perpetrators and, associated with that, with the operation of the mental health system and whether more could be done. Because these are systemic issues, I think a more formal inquiry is merited, and I would welcome the Security Minister’s views on that.

On the more systemic issues, there are two things on which I would be interested to hear the Security Minister’s response. I mentioned them to him individually a few days ago. The first is that in the past 26 years, 94 out of 101 murders committed by terrorists in the United Kingdom since 1999 were committed by Islamist terrorists. That is 94%, yet for the most recent figures available, only 13% of the Prevent caseload relates to Islamist extremism. That strongly suggests on the face of it that Prevent is under-engaging those with Islamist ideologies who go on to commit serious offences. I know that the Shawcross review in part addressed that issue, but it is so serious and the disparity so stark that I would appreciate the Security Minister’s views on that. That is a topic that a further inquiry might address.

The second area, which the Security Minister and I briefly discussed on Monday evening, concerns the Mental Health Bill currently making its way through the House of Lords. Many of the cases entail extremist terrorist ideology, but many also touch on mental health issues and whether better treatment should be given or, indeed, whether people should be sectioned and detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 to protect the public. That consideration is relevant, of course, to the Valdo Calocane case, as well as to some of the other cases I have mentioned.

The Bill as drafted, for reasons that Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have set out, makes it harder to detain people under the Mental Health Act. I am concerned that that might inadvertently have adverse implications for public safety, if people who should be detained under the Mental Health Act to protect the public might now not be detained. That is a matter of concern. I know that the Security Minister will want to respond specifically to that issue.

This matter started from a terrible tragedy. Sir David was more than just a loved colleague: he was a husband and father who lost his life in the course of doing his duty as a Member of Parliament. It is testimony to him—and a memorial that will last forever—that Southend is now a city, but let us also learn the lessons and take the actions needed to ensure that this does not happen again.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the points he has raised and for how he has approached the statement. He mentioned—I am pleased that he did—that he had spoken to Lady Amess this morning. Let me take the opportunity to reiterate how courageous the Home Secretary and I think that the Amess family have been in pursuing answers about Sir David’s murder. They, entirely understandably, wanted the Government to publish the Prevent learning review, and we have done that today. As I referenced earlier, the Home Secretary has also asked the independent Prevent commissioner to look carefully at the details of this case, and we will progress that at pace. The Home Secretary, as I referenced earlier, has also written to Essex police about this matter. Let me also say that we continue to want to work very closely with the Amess family. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I stand ready to meet them again in the near future to discuss what more we might be able to do to support them.

The shadow Home Secretary specifically asked me about redactions in the Prevent learning review. I am happy to confirm that nothing material has been redacted. The report is now live on gov.uk and contains only minimal redactions to obscure the names of people who worked with the perpetrator, including teachers and police officers, and personal information about the perpetrator’s family as well as some national security sensitivities. Nothing material has been redacted.

I say to the shadow Home Secretary that I hope there is much common cause here. I hope he will acknowledge that there are a number of reforms to the Prevent programme, which we have recently referenced, including with regard to the point he rightly made about mental health provision. I will say a bit more about that in a moment.

Let me respond to the shadow Home Secretary’s particular point about the threat from Islamist extremism and the referrals to Prevent. He is right that we should never forget the horrendous death toll caused by Islamist extremism over the past 20 years. It is the foremost threat that we face, and we must and will address it head-on. Last year, the number of Islamist referrals to Prevent increased by 17%, but that was from too low a base. Work is already under way to improve ideology training and build awareness of the ideologies that drive radicalisation.

We should be clear about the fact that the threat is evolving fast. In October, the director general of MI5 said that 75% of counter-terrorism work was of Islamist extremism in nature and 25% was extreme right wing, and that 13% of those being investigated by MI5 were under the age of 18. He flagged that MI5 was seeing a

“dizzying range of beliefs and ideologies”.

The Southport attack reflects how that particular threat is changing.

I come back to the shadow Home Secretary’s point about mental health. As he knows, the Government’s mental health legislation is currently in the other place. The purpose of the Mental Health Act 1983 is to ensure that clinicians have the power to detain and treat mentally unwell people who present a risk to themselves or to others. The new Bill will not change that. It is specifically designed to make it more likely that those detained will seek help, complete their treatment successfully and stay in contact with authorities where needed, reducing the risk to themselves and others.

NHS England has asked every mental health trust to review the findings of the Care Quality Commission report published in August and set out action plans for how they treat and engage with people who have serious mental illness, including how they work with other agencies such as the police. The trusts have also been instructed not to discharge people if they do not attend appointments. I hope that goes some way to answering the shadow Home Secretary’s questions, but I am happy to continue the conversation with him.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, and of course the Home Secretary, for coming to this place for this statement. None of us in the House can imagine the pain, the suffering and the anger that the Amess family are going through after losing their beloved Sir David: their father and husband. I have met the family, and they are still in absolute devastation. We should hold them in our thoughts today.

We should never forget Sir David. I pay tribute to him and to his family for the way in which they have conducted themselves throughout this whole sorry affair. I will continue working closely with the family as well as with the Home Secretary and her team to ensure that they get the support and the answers that they need.

We will never forget Sir David in Southend. We will shortly be putting some memory boards up on the Chalkwell lifeguard station that reflect Sir David’s life and our journey to becoming a city. I thank Lady Julia and the local councillors for working closely with me on the project.

I welcome the news today that the Prevent commissioner will be reviewing this case and the implementation of recommendations in relation to it. I am glad to hear that the Home Secretary has written to Essex police about the complaint that has been logged. I thank her for her support on that. It is important that that is seen through so that once again the family get the answers that they deserve. I ask the Minister, and obviously the Home Secretary, to give me an assurance that they will continue to work closely with me and, most importantly, the Amess family, so that we can get them those answers and give them the comfort to enable them to move on with their lives. They will never forget, but we can help them to move forward.

[Dan Jarvis]

I very grateful to my hon. Friend, not least because this is an issue of the most profound importance to his constituents. He is completely right that we must hold Sir David’s family in our thoughts and in our hearts today. He is also completely right that we should strive to ensure— and I know that we will—that we never forget Sir David.

My hon. Friend is in his place close to where I remember Sir David used to stand. Sir David was, among many other things, a complete master of the pre-recess Adjournment debate. I can see him now standing there confidently, expertly and authoritatively reeling off a very long list of requests that he completely expected the Government to get on with and deliver for his constituents. He was truly inspirational. We will never forget him.

I absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks that we will continue to work closely with the family and with all hon. Members to ensure that, through the work of the independent Prevent commissioner and the work I referenced earlier with regard to the Home Secretary writing to Essex police, the family get the answers that they rightly deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful as always to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. What happened to Sir David Amess was a terrible tragedy. Though I am new to this House, I have heard many stories of his kindness and his compassion, and I know that he is sorely missed across these Benches. We owe it to Sir David’s grieving family and to the people of Southend to ensure that a tragedy like that can never happen again. That means ensuring that our counter-terrorism strategy is fit for purpose and able to work with communities to tackle the modern challenges that our world is facing.

The Liberal Democrats have long raised questions about whether Prevent is best placed to deliver that. As we have learned over recent weeks, these failures are not happening in isolation, so it is right that the Government have asked the Prevent commissioner to look at this case. I would welcome further assurances that the commissioner will have a wide-ranging remit to take a comprehensive look at Prevent. I urge the Minister again to put the role on a statutory footing. The remit must include looking at how Prevent communicates with other agencies such as local authorities and different police forces.

Local communities need to be at the centre of our counter-terrorism strategy, whether that means keeping them safe or ensuring they are effectively engaged. Will the Minister outline how communities will be consulted on any upcoming counter-extremism strategies?

As the Minister mentioned, this tragic case has also brought to light questions about MPs’ safety. Will he please provide some more details on how the defending democracy taskforce is progressing with its work, particularly on helping to keep Members and their families safe? It is my hope that we can continue to work across the House to deliver the effective counter-terrorism strategy that our country deserves. We owe it to the Amess family to make that a reality.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the way in which she has approached the statement and for the sensible and reasonable points she made, as she always does. She made an important point about the role and remit of the independent commissioner. I hope that she, like all hon. Members, would acknowledge that Lord Anderson is superbly qualified to fulfil the role. He is an expert in this area of public policy, and he brings authority, credibility and integrity to the role. The Home Secretary and I look forward to working closely with him but, of course, I reiterate the point about his independence.

The hon. Lady rightly raised the importance of the work that is taking place across Government on counter-extremism. That work is being progressed very closely with other Departments, specifically the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is a priority for this Government and we will endeavour to update the House in the relatively near future about its progress.

Finally, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for referencing the work of the defending democracy taskforce. This initiative was set up by the previous Government, but we think it is fundamental to ensuring that those people who step forward to serve as elected representatives, whether in this House or in local government as police and crime commissioners or metro Mayors, are able to perform their duties without fear or favour. The remit of the defending democracy taskforce will ensure the most effective cross-Government response, working with operational partners and law enforcement so that those elected representatives can go about their duties unencumbered by the completely unacceptable harassment and intimidation that we continue to see.

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

Sir David Amess was a hugely respected parliamentarian of massive popularity across all parties and in his wider community. He worked every day with true compassion to improve the lives of residents in Southend West and Leigh, Southend East and Rochford and more widely. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), and I bring that legacy with us as we continue the hard work of representing our communities.

I am pleased that the Prevent learning review published today has looked into the attack on Sir David Amess. I commend the hard work of his family, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh, the former MP for Southend West and the Home Office, who are committed to preventing such horrific attacks in future. We must do everything in our power to prevent anything so tragic from ever happening again. My thoughts and prayers will always be with his friends and family.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. Let me reiterate what he and the shadow Home Secretary said about Anna Firth. We are grateful for her support and the contribution that she continues to make.

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend has just provided me with an opportunity to offer one further personal recollection of Sir David. He responded to my maiden speech in 2011, which I made from the Opposition Benches. It was, by any metric, a pretty average maiden speech, but the warmth of his response has stayed with me forever. From that point, every time we saw each other we would reminisce about how overly generous he had been about it. For that, and for many other reasons, I will always be incredibly grateful to David Amess.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his generous tribute to Sir David. Southend is now a city, so we comfort ourselves that on that, at least, he won in the end. We all miss him, not least myself. I welcome what the Minister said about an inquiry into whether Essex police could have done more to protect him. I welcome the Speaker’s Conference on MPs’ security. The Minister knows that I have great regard for him, but I regret to hear that Prevent may have acted sub-optimally—that is an appalling Whitehall euphemism for errors that may have contributed to the death of an MP in the line of duty. In addition to those possible failures, the murderer in Southport had multiple interactions with Prevent, yet still those three innocent children were tragically murdered. We have spent a fortune on Prevent, but it seems that, ultimately, it does not do what it says on the tin.

I understand that the Amess family, rightfully seeking answers, have asked if the errors that may have occurred in Sir David’s case, and that almost certainly occurred in Southport, could be looked into in more detail under the auspices of the Southport inquiry. That seems a reasonable request, given the exceptional circumstances. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary, who rightly is in her place beside him, consider that request very seriously, and hopefully grant it?

[Dan Jarvis]

It may be hard for newer Members to understand how difficult this is for more experienced Members, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who spent so many years on these green Benches, working so closely with a much beloved colleague. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is sitting below another shield. Members across the House understand the pain experienced with the loss of our colleagues, and our shared determination to work together and with others to do everything we can to ensure that those who serve in this House have the support and the protections that they need and deserve.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly took the opportunity to reference one of Sir David’s many achievements: the city status of Southend. That certainly would not have happened without Sir David’s campaigning over many years. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the work that will take place with Essex police. I understand the important concerns that he has raised about Prevent. The terms of reference of the Southport inquiry rightly are still a matter of discussion between the Home Secretary, the Home Office and the families in that particular case, so I am unable to make a judgment about that at this point. What I can do is not only reiterate the point that I have already made, but offer a further commitment from the Home Secretary and me to look very carefully at this, to continue the conversation with the late Sir David’s family and other Members, and to work out the best mechanism to provide them and all Members of this House with the answers that they both want and deserve.

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

The murder of Sir David Amess cut to the very heart of democracy. Clearly, he was the very best of British. The Minister talked about parliamentary security in his considered statement. I have spoken to many colleagues across the House who have said that they feel that abuse and harassment are peaking, and many feel unsafe. Of course, it is unwise to go into details of specific measures, but is the Minister confident that these measures will make us feel safer in this House?

[Dan Jarvis]

As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful contribution. “Best of British” is precisely the right phraseology to apply to Sir David. My hon. Friend asked an important question about how we defend our democracy. He asked about my confidence in the work that we are doing to ensure that Members of this House and elected representatives elsewhere can perform their duties with the confidence that they are safe. I must be honest with him and say that that is an ongoing process. All of us in this place will have experienced threats, harassment and intimidation. That is worse particularly for women Members. It is a stain on our society that there are those out there who feel that they can abuse female elected representatives.

What I can give my hon. Friend is an absolute assurance that we are organising and marshalling the resources that we have across Government, working with law enforcement and operational partners, and co-operating very closely with you, Mr Speaker, and the House authorities, to ensure that those who step forward to serve can do so with the security and comfort of knowing they are properly protected. I will leave no stone unturned in my work with colleagues across Government to ensure that is the case. Where individuals have concerns, wherever they may be, I will always make myself available to discuss those concerns with them.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I echo the Minister’s praise for Sir David, who was a loved friend to so many, including many Members in this House. I welcome today’s statement, which is a sobering reminder of the importance of getting the Prevent programme right. The seriousness of the statement contrasts sharply with the immediate reaction and debate that followed Sir David’s murder, when there was, to be frank, a bizarre and misplaced rush to talk about issues such as online civility, rather than the clear threat that was behind the murder. Will the Minister join me in saying it is time for an end to the denialism we often see around the threat from Islamism, and, recognising what he said about the changing nature of the threat, does he agree that as the major terror threat that we face, Islamist extremism should always be Prevent’s top priority?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with long experience from working both at the heart of Government and in the Home Office. He makes some important points, and I assure him that I will give them further consideration. He is also right, though, to reference the changing nature of the threat. Of course, Islamist extremism presents the single biggest challenge that we face as a country, as the director general of MI5 made clear in his annual threat lecture back in October. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier response to the shadow Home Secretary on the number of referrals—we are looking very closely at that. I am grateful to him for his contribution, which I will reflect on further. I am always happy to discuss this issue with him.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

Sadly, I never got to meet Sir David, but, as we have heard from Members across the House today, his reputation goes before him; he was a loved and valued colleague, respected across the whole House and across all Benches. Does the Minister agree that Sir David exemplified the best traditions of this place, working hard and working together to make real change? Can we also take a moment to express our respect for the officers who turn up at these scenes? As a former police officer, I have attended many such scenes, and know it is something we both never want to do and hope never to do again.

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s characterisation of Sir David and his work ethic. I also take this opportunity to join him in paying tribute to those brave police officers who step forward under the most exceptionally difficult circumstances for the service they perform. I thank my hon. Friend for his service, too.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I remember the day Sir David Amess was tragically murdered very well. I was serving as Lancashire’s police and crime commissioner at the time, and I remember having initial conversations with serving Members of this House, including the former Member for Hyndburn, Sara Britcliffe, who, along with her dad, had been lifelong friends of Sir David. I learned an awful lot about the sort of man he was and how much he meant to people in Parliament from the reactions of the Members I spoke to that day.

I will turn to the Minister’s statement. The reviewer identified six issues. I will not read them all out in full, obviously, but they include not tackling all the vulnerabilities identified, problematic record keeping, the rationale for certain decisions not being explicit, responsibilities between police and local authorities being blurred, the tools used for identifying the individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation being outdated, and so on. These words and phrases could have been taken from the statement about the tragic incident in Southport—something else that is incredibly important to us, as a fellow north-west MP—but they could also have been taken from many inquiries, reviews and statements over many years on similar cases.

The shadow Home Secretary’s point about the differential between the number of murders that have Islamist terrorism at their heart being over 90%, while only 13% of the casework is linked to Islamist ideologies, was also quite stark. For me, the issues here are around process—the quality of following process and quality of work—and the interlinking between different public services, but also around culture and how our public services in different ways have danced around the issue of Islamist extremism, and whether Prevent has delivered in identifying the threat and effectively dealing with it. I echo the suggestion that it is time to take a step back from all the individual reviews, inquiries and statements and take a look at the bigger picture.

I am not going to press the Minister for a specific answer right now; in line with the tone all Members have taken this afternoon, I do not think this is the time for point scoring or trying to secure individual commitments at the Dispatch Box. I would just like to ask the Minister, as he goes forward, looking at this issue, Southport and others, to step back and ask whether Prevent is serving its intended purpose and offering value for money, whether it is keeping the public safe from terrorism, and whether it is time to take a broader, more strategic look, rather than a case-by-case look.

[Dan Jarvis]

As a former police and crime commissioner, the hon. Gentleman brings a weight of experience to the House that we appreciate hugely. He is right that the learning review identifies a number of points that cannot just sit on a shelf; they have to be actioned. We have to ensure that the processes that are in place are as effective as they possibly can be. I agree with him on the disparity between the number of Islamist attacks and the number of Prevent referrals; I will repeat my earlier point that there was a 17% increase in those specific referrals in the year ending 31 March 2024, but I agree with his analysis. He makes some important points.

What I can say to him is that there are a number of measures—including measures I have referenced today, as well as others in my Southport statement last week—that I think will go a significant way towards addressing the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised. I will have to ensure that the House has confidence on that. He made a particularly interesting point at the conclusion of his remarks about stepping back and taking a strategic look at whether the processes and resources that are in place are appropriate. I will do that. I will also work very closely with Lord Anderson, who will bring a huge amount of analysis and value in this area. I very much welcome the opportunity to work with him, and with all Members, including the hon. Gentleman, as we accept this as a shared endeavour to ensure that these attacks never happen again.

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

First, I want to put on the record my sympathies for Sir David’s family and friends. As a new MP, I did not have the privilege of knowing him, but I vividly remember the day he was murdered. From the warm words spoken across the House, he was clearly highly regarded and is sorely missed.

I thank the Security Minister for his detailed statement. Can he assure me that the lessons from these Prevent learning reviews are learned, that all recommendations are implemented, and that there is appropriate tie-in not just between local authorities, police, national security and national crime agencies, but with the defending democracy taskforce, so that we can work collectively to ensure that tragedies such as this can never happen again?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He makes an important observation about the importance of co-ordination and of ensuring that locally, regionally and nationally all the relevant agencies and services are in place and are talking and communicating with each other in the most effective way. He is right to refer to the defending democracy taskforce—a mechanism that I chair—which brings together a whole-of-Government response and ultimately provides the fulcrum point for discussing and acting on these matters in government. It is our specific responsibility to ensure that the services he refers to are properly resourced and co-ordinating properly with each other. I am grateful for the points he has made.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I agree with colleagues that Sir David Amess’s kindness knew no party boundaries. In particular, I reflect that he found himself in a place of unexpected and certainly unsought popularity in the SNP group in 2015 when, as a group of new MPs, it turned out that barely any of us had not received a kind word, a little bit of advice or certainly some directions from Sir David in those opening weeks. He was remembered kindly by everybody in our group, given that it was a group of newbies at the time, so I want to put that on the record and send my thoughts to his family.

I thank the Security Minister for the statement. Will he set out how an ongoing assessment of the efficiency of Prevent and Channel will be undertaken going forward? Does he feel that he has the full co-operation of social media companies in particular in taking forward his work?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his points and for his reflections on Sir David. He makes an important point about the mechanism the Government will use moving forward. Clearly, the public inquiry will provide a very important forum to ensure that the lessons that have been identified, and further lessons that will no doubt be identified, are properly actioned and implemented. In advance of that, as I think he will be aware, we have commissioned Lord Anderson to look at these matters. I think he will acknowledge, as other Members will, that Lord Anderson is precisely the right person: independent of Government, with previous experience as an independent reviewer of terrorism legislation; a recognised legal mind, with credibility and authority in this field; and a Member of the other place. We want to work collaboratively with him to ensure that we satisfy ourselves, and therefore Members across the House and people right around the country, that the mechanisms in place are fit for purpose. That is a significant priority for the Government and I can give the hon. Member an assurance that we will not rest until the processes in place are fit for purpose.

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

I associate myself with the comments from both sides of the House about Sir David Amess. One challenge in addressing Islamist extremism is the proliferation of hate preachers around the world, both online and in person. I am very concerned about the prospect of the preacher Mohamed Hoblos visiting Middlesbrough later this month. Will the Minister set out the steps he will be taking with regard to that specific case and the broader actions he will take to address hate preachers around the world?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He will understand that I am somewhat limited in what I can say, but I can tell him that the United Kingdom has a range of disruptive immigration measures at our disposal to refuse entry and cancel permission if it is assessed that a foreign national’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. I can give him an assurance today that we will look carefully at the circumstances that he has helpfully raised.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his words. None of us who were privileged to know Sir David Amess are not mindful of both his goodness and his faith—he and I shared the same faith.

As a nation blighted by terrorism and action by evil people who believe that they have the right to take life, it is clear that the powers to address those people must be accessible by intelligence services and that funding to suit must follow appropriately. The actions that resulted in the death of Sir David and those three precious little girls were shocking. It is clear that there was not enough support for the Prevent programme. Indeed, it failed and we all acknowledge that. We do not say that in an objectionable way, but in a way that is factual and evidential, and it is a point that we want to make. I hope that things will change—I think that is what we are all looking for—so that UK citizens are safe from known suspects. How can the Government ensure that public officials and MPs’ staff, who we have a responsibility to look after, are safe in our places of business, while always remembering that we must be and will be accessible to our constituents who elected us to this place?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I always am. Both he and Sir David were and are true champions of this place. I know that the House is grateful to him for the important and constructive contributions he always makes. His interest in, and experience of, terrorism is well known and long standing. He makes a very important point about accessibility. All of us, as constituency MPs, rightly want to get out and meet our constituents, and make sure that they feel as if we are accessible to them. There is, on occasion, a balance to be struck to ensure we are able to perform our functions and duties at a local level without fear or favour, while at the same time ensuring that activity that takes place locally and nationally is as safe and secure as possible. I give him an absolute assurance that these are matters to which we attach the most profound importance. We are working very closely with Mr Speaker on the work he is doing on the Speaker’s Conference. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about the priority we attach to that important work.

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

As a new Member, I sadly never knew Sir David Amess, but from what people have said about his dedication to his constituents and his good humour across the House, he is a model for all new Members to follow.

At the Home Affairs Committee last week, we heard from the permanent secretary about how Prevent is changing and how the terror threat is changing. As we can see from the learning review, there are clearly gaps and there are lessons that still need to be learned. That requires independent scrutiny and independent oversight. Will the Minister tell us how the new Prevent commissioner will be able to provide the scrutiny we need?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and I completely agree with his characterisation of Sir David as a model for all Members—he is absolutely right about that. He raises a very important point, and I completely agree with his assessment of the learning review. It did identify a number of gaps, and those are gaps that will have to be closed. He will understand what I mean by this, but I need to be careful not to seek to provide too much direction and guidance to the independent Prevent commissioner, not least because, knowing Lord Anderson, I do not think he would take too kindly to it. What I am completely confident in is that Lord Anderson has all the requisite skills, experience and credibility to provide that function. He is an outstanding appointment. The Home Secretary and I look forward to working very closely with him. Further to the work he will be seeking to do, I can give my hon. Friend and the House an assurance that we will leave no stone unturned in doing what needs to be done to ensure that Prevent is fit for purpose and provides the confidence that people rightly want.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As we have heard today and previously in this place from so many hon. Members on both sides of the House, Sir David was a loved and valued colleague, and not just an MP, but a man with family and friends. Sadly, I did not have the privilege of working with him in this place.

We know that Sir David’s killer exited the Prevent scheme many years before the attack took place. Future actions are, tragically, too late for Sir David and his family, but what steps will be taken to ensure that all relevant agencies along the line do not just learn from but act on the lessons from the killer’s ability to evade detection in the period leading up to his attack?

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes. She is right to highlight the difference between learning lessons and implementing and acting upon them. I can give her an assurance that, through the processes announced previously and today, we have the mechanisms to do that. That said, we will continue to have conversations with the Amess family and others to look at areas where we might want to do more. I want to have those conversations sooner rather than later.

My final word, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, is to reiterate a collective tribute to Sir David Amess. He was an outstanding parliamentarian. He is greatly missed and we will never forget him.

Southport Attack

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“a line in the sand”

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

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

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

“make him susceptible to being drawn into terrorism.”

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

[HCWS416]

Extremism Review

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

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

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

[Clive Efford]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Mr Cleverly]

Answer the question.

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Mike Tapp]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Chris Philp]

indicated dissent.

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Chris Philp]

Answer the question!

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

[HCWS377]

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

[Greg Smith]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

Yes, we can confirm that that is the case.

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

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

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

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I beg to move,

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

[The Chair]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

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

Resolved,

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