Combating Ransomware

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Today the Government have published their response to the public consultation on our proposed measures to combat ransomware. Ransomware is the most significant cyber-crime threat of our time. I would like to thank all who responded to the consultation, the Government value the feedback.

We have seen the devastating impact that ransomware has on our businesses and society, demonstrated through the recent spate of attacks on our retail sector and healthcare providers.

During the consultation, officials held several stakeholder engagement sessions and consulted across a range of industries. There were 273 responses from critical national infrastructure, industry, academia and individuals with an interest in cyber-security who wanted to have their say on the changes we proposed.

The three measures we consulted on are:

a targeted ban on ransomware payments for the public sector and critical national infrastructure—making the essential services the country relies on the most unattractive targets for ransomware criminals;

a ransomware payment prevention regime—to increase transparency of criminal demands, and provide an opportunity to give victims not covered by the ban guidance before they decide how to respond;

and a mandatory reporting regime for all ransomware incidents—bringing ransomware out of the shadows and affording law enforcement greater intelligence on criminal activity.

We received clear support from the public to continue to develop our measures, to harden our economy from these attacks and protect our critical and essential services. They will provide our operational partners with vital intelligence to expose, detect and disrupt these criminal networks. To defend the economy and our business, we need to break the ransomware business model.

We will continue listening to and engaging with organisations from all sectors and civil society, to help develop these proposals further and to ensure they are as robust, streamlined, and effective as possible.

A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on gov.uk.

[HCWS883]

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: 1 March 2025 - 31 May 2025

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 21st July 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 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.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for tabling these amendments, which propose two changes. First, amendments 1 to 5 would remove attempted unauthorised entry from the scope of the offence. Secondly, amendment 6 would bring the Act into force two months after it receives Royal Assent, rather than by commencement regulations made by statutory instrument.

It is absolutely essential that the Bill explicitly covers both attempted and successful unauthorised entry. We have seen widespread issues involving ticketless fans at football matches attempting to force entry and tailgate at high-profile matches, including the 2024 champions league final, premier league fixtures and at the Euro 2020 tournament. These forms of attempted entry place significant demands on stadium safety and security personnel and, at times, require police intervention. Maintaining provisions for attempted unauthorised entry ensures that law enforcement can act before a breach occurs and thus maintain safety and security at football matches across the country. It also enables the imposition of preventive football banning orders against persons involved in attempted entry. Banning orders are an effective deterrent against those who may seek to compromise public safety.

I turn to amendment 6. The Bill is designed to allow the measures to come into force by regulation on a date shortly before the start of the domestic football season. This approach will ensure that all organisations involved in safety and security operations are prepared to implement the new offence. A fixed date two months after Royal Assent may not coincide with the football calendar or allow sufficient time for training, communication and co-ordination. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendments.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The Minister says that the Bill will come into force before the start of the football season. We heard from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) that the season will start pretty soon, within four or five weeks. I assume that means the Bill will not be implemented until summer 2026—that is the clear implication of what the Minister said. If I am wrong in that interpretation, I hope he will intervene, because it is important to get it on the record that the Bill will not be in force until a year’s time.

On the issue of attempts, listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I thought that I had under-egged the pudding a bit, because he adduced a whole lot of extra arguments that reinforce the case for removing attempts from the Bill. Apart from anything else, I fear that if we allow attempts to remain in the Bill, the people who are still outside the stadium and never got in will be the easy pickings—they will be the ones who get arrested and penalised, while the mass of offenders who got in without authority will get away with it—because in order for any of this to work, there has to be an arrest and a subsequent prosecution. I wish to test the will of the House in relation to amendment 1.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill. As a lifelong football supporter, she has made a powerful case for her Bill, and I congratulate her on securing support for it from across the House.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who spoke movingly about her experience of these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley spoke about the rich history of football.

The Bill addresses a clear and pressing issue: the growing problem of unauthorised access to football matches, particularly at high-profile fixtures. It does so by creating a new football-specific offence of unauthorised entry to designated matches. It captures a wide range of behaviours, from tailgating and forced entry to the use of forged documents or the impersonation of match-day staff. Crucially, it will also enable courts to impose football banning orders on conviction, providing a strong deterrent and a vital tool to prevent repeat offending and protect public safety. The Bill responds directly to the recommendations of Baroness Casey’s independent review into the serious disorder at the Euro 2020 final, where thousands of ticketless individuals gained access to Wembley stadium, many through mass forced entry or tailgating.

Let me be clear: this is a recurring problem. We saw further evidence of it at the 2024 UEFA champions league final, which was again at Wembley, where groups of ticketless fans made repeated attempts to breach security. Similar behaviour is seen at premier league matches, particularly if away allocations are limited. It is a wider pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed. Such behaviour is not only selfish and dishonest, but fundamentally dangerous. It places enormous strain on stadium security, creates serious risks to public safety and undermines the experience of law-abiding fans. The Government are clear that it cannot and will not be allowed to continue. That is why we support the Bill.

Forced entry, tailgating and so-called jibbing are not victimless acts. Those involved are often aggressive, violent or threatening, and their actions can lead to overcrowding, blocked emergency exits and frightening conditions for innocent fans. In some cases, individuals have even attempted to bribe stewards or turnstile operators to gain access. That will be captured by the new offence. The offence will also apply to those who knowingly attempt to use a ticket, whether physical or digital, that has already been used.

Let me be clear: this is not about criminalising honest mistakes or punishing fans who have been misled. The Bill includes important safeguards to ensure that individuals with lawful authority, such as emergency workers or stadium staff, are not caught by the offence, and it will not apply to those who unwittingly purchase counterfeit tickets in good faith or breach the terms and conditions of a legitimate ticket. That was a point referred to by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—I agree with the points she made about enforcement.

This is a proportionate, targeted and necessary measure. It reflects the unique public order challenges associated with football, which are not seen to the same extent in other sports or events. It is also consistent with the broader framework of the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. The Bill has enjoyed cross-party support throughout its passage, and rightly so. It is a fan-friendly measure that protects the vast majority of decent supporters from the actions of a disruptive minority, and it will help to ensure that football remains a safe and welcoming environment for all. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for her excellent work on this Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Murder of Jalal Uddin: Public Statutory Inquiry Report

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Today the independent report of the inquiry into the death of Jalal Uddin was published by His Honour Thomas Teague KC.

Retired imam Jalal Uddin was brutally murdered in Rochdale on 18 February 2016, and in November 2023 the then Home Secretary asked HH Thomas Teague KC to investigate how and in what circumstances he came by his death.

The Government will review this report and consider how to respond in due course.

I would like to thank His Honour Thomas Teague KC for his work to understand what happened to Mr Uddin and to identify what we can learn from it that will help to prevent a recurrence of such an horrific event in future.

The report has been laid before the House and copies will be available from the Vote Office. It will also be available to view both on gov.uk and on the inquiry website at: https://www.jalaluddin.public-inquiry.uk/

[HCWS805]

Victims of Terrorism: State Support

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this debate on what has been a deeply important and emotive subject. It has been an excellent debate, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for bringing us all together today. I join him in paying tribute to and thanking Travis Frain. My hon. Friend rightly recognised him for his bravery in sharing his story, and for the work he has done over many years to raise awareness of these important issues. Travis’s story is a powerful one, and it is ingrained in the minds of all of us who were here in this House on that terrible day.

A good deal of ground has been covered, and I will shortly come to the various points that have been raised. Before I do, I want to add my voice to the message of sympathy and solidarity that has been a prevailing feature of this debate. This debate has served as a powerful reminder of the devastation caused by terrorist attacks and the responsibility we all bear to support those who are affected by them. It is also a timely debate. This week we mark 20 years since the 7 July London bombings—an atrocity that is seared into our national memory. Above all else, we look back and think of the 52 victims who lost their lives, and we stand with their families, the survivors and everyone who was affected.

I will shortly come on to some of the areas that were highlighted during the debate, but before I do, I want to take the opportunity to summarise the Government’s position. Just as we remain totally focus on preventing attacks, we are, of course, equally committed to ensuring that those affected by terrorism receive the highest levels of support to recover and rebuild their lives. Over the years, I have had the great privilege of meeting many victims and survivors of terrorism. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to them, and to pay tribute to and thank all who have joined us in the Public Gallery today. I have today—as I have on many other occasions—been moved by their strength and unwavering dedication to advocate for change, not just for themselves, but for others who may one day walk the same difficult path.

It was clear to me, coming into Government, that we must do more to ensure that victims and survivors receive the support they so need, and that their suffering is not forgotten. That is why the Home Office undertook to complete a comprehensive review of the needs of victims and survivors, placing their voices at the very heart of the process. The review identified the key challenges and is helping to shape our response, to ensure that support is meaningful, accessible and enduring.

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

Several Members have raised the issue of the 63 recommendations, which I know the Minister will touch on. I also recognise that the Minister published some of the findings of the Victims of Terrorism Unit report in March, which is appreciated, because previously there was a bit of black hole in terms of information. That is genuine progress, and I think we all recognise that the commitment to the support hub will make a genuine difference to people. I pay tribute to the Minister for taking that step, while joining the call for the full transparency and publication of those recommendations.

[Dan Jarvis]

That is a very helpful and constructive intervention. If my hon. Friend bears with me for a moment, I will have a bit more to say about the review and the important point he made about transparency.

We are introducing a dedicated support hub to provide a single point of contact for victims and survivors in the immediate and long-term aftermath of an attack. We are also moving forward with plans for a national day to remember and recognise victims and survivors of terrorism, following consultation on the subject earlier this year. Those plans represent the first steps in our wider commitment to ensure that victims and survivors receive the support they need and deserve.

I want to come to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen. I understand the calls for greater clarity on the publication of the Home Office’s review into support for victims and survivors of terrorism. As Security Minister, my priority has always been on implementing meaningful improvements to the support that we can offer. Although the review is an internal document and was never intended for publication, I reassure the House that the measures that we are now implementing directly reflect the insights and recommendations it contains. Those actions span multiple areas identified in the review, from mental health and financial support to legal guidance and care for children and young people.

It is, however, important to me that we are transparent about the challenges that victims and survivors experience. That is why, on 19 March, we published a summary of the review’s findings on gov.uk, so that victims, survivors and the public could see the key themes and challenges that emerged. The published summary reflects the full breadth of themes identified in the review, not just the two individual recommendations. We remain absolutely committed to keeping stakeholders informed as we move forward with implementation.

I am very grateful to victims and survivors and their loved ones, and all those members of the public who participated in the public consultation. The consultation ran from 19 March to 11 June. We are now carefully analysing the consultation responses to ensure that every voice is heard, and to help determine our next steps. We will publish the consultation’s findings as soon as that process is complete. Once the full outcomes are available, I look forward to updating the House further.

In the aftermath of a terrorist attack, people experience unimaginable loss, life-changing injuries and deep psychological trauma. No one should have to experience that, and certainly not alone. That is why, on 3 July, we launched a commercial process to establish a dedicated support hub for victims and survivors of terrorism. The hub will offer a single point of contact to help victims and survivors navigate support, while providing specialist support to address their complex needs. The intended design of the support hub was shaped directly by those who have been affected by terrorism. I want the new hub to meet those needs and provide victims and survivors with the highest level of support, by offering a 24/7 communication channel, dedicated caseworkers to provide one-to-one support, specialist psychological support and interventions, access to psychosocial treatment options, help with practical needs, tailored support for children and young people including peer-to-peer support, assistance in applying for state compensation and other financial support, and practical and emotional support through state, legal and coronial processes.

Our aim is for the hub to be available by summer 2026. The hub will set a new standard for how we care for those affected by terrorism, both in the immediate and in the long-term aftermath of an attack. It will ensure that support is not only comprehensive but trauma-informed, recognising the deep and lasting impact that terrorism has on individuals and on their families. That is more than just a change in approach; it is a transformation in how we deliver care.

Crucially, we are backing that commitment with the funding that it deserves. Just last week I was pleased to announce that, through our partnership with Pool Re, the Home Office has secured up to £3.5 million to fund those vital services, but in response to the points made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I give him the assurance that I will keep a very close eye on the numbers. I also acknowledge the important point that he made about ensuring that we retain institutional knowledge.

I should like to address a number of important matters that have been raised. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke with real authority and experience on these matters, and he rightly paid tribute to Figen Murray. We will hear a bit more about Figen in a moment, as well as about our dearly missed colleagues Jo Cox, Sir David Amess and PC Keith Palmer. I thought the right hon. Gentleman gave a very accurate picture of the threat that we face today, and I know that he will want to join me, as will all hon. Members, in paying tribute to the police, the security services and all those who work so hard to keep us safe. He also reflected on the horrific bombing in Brighton. It is right that we remember all those who lost their lives and whose lives were changed forever. It is particularly good to see Jo Berry, who is here with us today in the Public Gallery, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in sending condolences to the family of Lord Tebbit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) spoke movingly about the late great Tessa Jowell and her work, and also of his constituent Christian, who is with us today in the Public Gallery. It is incredibly hard to imagine what it must have been like for Christian on that day, but his story and his trauma remind us of why we all need to do everything that we can to support the survivors of terrorism.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke incredibly movingly about his experiences of terrorism in Northern Ireland. He and I have discussed these matters over many years. He is such a great champion for his constituents and for Northern Ireland, and I know that the House will be very grateful for the powerful testimony he gave today, including his points about the importance of truth and justice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about the trail of trauma left by terrorism. He spoke very movingly about the Manchester Arena bombing and about the extraordinary campaigning work of Figen Murray. I am sure that all Members will be aware of her extraordinary campaign. It has been incredibly inspiring, and I am so proud that this Government brought in Martyn’s law. Figen is not here today— I understand that she is having a day off, a day off that still involves her doing work—but if she were here, I can categorically guarantee that she would insist that I also mention the other members of her campaign team, Brendan, Nick, Nathan and, of course, Stuart, who is with us today in the Public Gallery. I hope that I have gone some way towards addressing the four points that my hon. Friend raised, but I am very happy to discuss it further with him should he so wish.

I do want specifically to address the point that he and other hon. Members raised about compensation, because we have heard today about the real and ongoing challenges that victims and survivors face in accessing the timely and adequate financial support that is essential to rebuilding lives and enabling recovery. We recognise that navigating compensation schemes and financial assistance can be complex and at times overwhelming, especially in the wake of trauma. The support hub will seek to address that by offering practical, trauma-informed support throughout the process, from initial application to appeal, where that is appropriate. By providing guidance and advocacy, the hub aims to ensure that victims are supported while their claims are progressed. We are also working closely with CICA to explore ways of improving the overall experience for victims, including clearer communication and the more compassionate handling of cases.

Finally, I reflect briefly on the contributions made by the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. I agree with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the matters we are debating should not be party political. We need to work together to secure the best outcomes for victims, survivors and their families. That is the approach that I will always take.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about Prevent, but I am running short of time. I can say that we have implemented the recommendations of the Shawcross review. We have also appointed Lord Anderson to be the independent commissioner for the Prevent programme. The Home Secretary and I take such matters incredibly seriously, and we do everything that we possibly can to ensure that the Prevent programme is fit for purpose.

To close, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for securing this timely and important debate, and all Members who have contributed to today’s discussion. The issue matters enormously to us all, and that has come through with crystal clarity in every contribution. I pay tribute once more to the extraordinary courage and strength of every victim and survivor of terrorism, especially those who are here with us. A number have bravely shared their stories throughout the review, to ensure that their lived experiences have helped shape its outcomes. Many have campaigned tirelessly to raise awareness of the issues impacting victims and survivors.

The Government take their responsibilities in this area extremely seriously. We have listened and I have set out that we are acting. We will transform support by delivering a dedicated support hub. We will introduce a national day for victims and survivors so that the country can stand alongside them in reflection and solidarity. We will continue that important work to deliver the change that has long been called for. At its heart, this is about doing what is right. It is about supporting people who have endured trauma and loss in the most devastating of circumstances. It is about showing compassion, empathy and humanity. Put simply, it is about upholding the values that we all cherish and that terrorists seek to destroy.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

May I start by commending my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for securing this debate? He is a very long-standing Member of this House, and I know that this is an issue of huge importance to him and his constituency, and to other Members from across the House who represent Birmingham. He has made his case passionately and powerfully, and the Home Secretary and I have heard what he has had to say, as well as the contributions of other Members, for which we are grateful.

I will respond to the points that have been made, but first, I want to say something about the bombings themselves. We must never lose sight of the fact that the bombs planted in the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town public houses in Birmingham on 21 November 1974 claimed 21 lives, injured more than 200 others, and caused untold devastation and pain. The harm caused by these brutal attacks went far beyond those killed and injured; it continues to affect parents, children, siblings and friends to this day. More than half a century has passed since the bombings, but the impact of these atrocities remains vivid and raw, not just in Birmingham, but in our national psyche.

Above all, we think of the victims and their families. I want to recognise the work of the Justice for the 21 campaign, which has continued to powerfully advocate for all those affected and to seek justice for their loved ones. I acknowledge their long-standing request for the establishment of a public inquiry into the bombings. The Home Secretary is considering advice and is determined to provide an answer to the families and victims as soon as possible. I am sure that Members will understand that we will ensure that the families are the first to hear the outcome.

My right hon. Friend mentioned in his speech that the Birmingham pub bombings are not covered by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. He is right that a public inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings is not prevented by the Act. The Act does not prevent any public inquiry from taking place. However, I want to emphasise that the Birmingham pub bombings are absolutely in scope of the legacy Act and would be eligible for an investigation led by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which the Act created. I have full confidence that the commission and its team of dedicated staff hold sufficient powers, resources and expertise to support the families in the process of seeking answers to their questions. Indeed, the commission is already investigating the Guildford pub bombings.

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

I am very glad that the Minister has concentrated on the truth and justice aspect of the legacy Act. Can he reassure the House that in their proposals to repeal the legacy Act, the Government are not going to lose the opportunity of having the trade-off, as it were, between immunity from prosecution and truth recovery, which was always the basis of the legacy Act?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of this House, will know that I am standing next to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I hope that he will understand that the work of the previous Government, while no doubt well-intentioned, did not provide a solution that had the support of political parties in Northern Ireland—nor did it have the support of veterans and those who suffered the impact of terrorism. I can give him an absolute assurance that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, working with colleagues right across Government, will do everything possible to ensure that we put in place a solution and a settlement that is able to attract wider support.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is kind of the Minister to give way one more time. I urge Ministers not to be blinded by what political parties in Northern Ireland say, because the truth of the matter is that they have to take certain positions—usually ones that favour their side and disfavour the other side—and the prospect of getting all those parties to agree on something like this is minute. That is why the legacy Act cut through all that, in the same way that Nelson Mandela came up with a similar solution that worked in South Africa.

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that none of the political parties in Northern Ireland were able to support the previous arrangements. I know that he understands the complexity of these matters, and I hope that he will see that this Government are acting in good faith and attempting to put in place an arrangement that can attract the widespread support that is required.

As I was saying, the option for families to refer their case to the commission is available now. I encourage any victim, survivor or family member affected by the troubles to give consideration to the commission in their search for answers.

A number of investigations have been conducted over the 50 years since the bombings, including West Midlands police investigations between 2012 and 2014 and between 2019 and 2023, as well as coronial inquests that concluded in 2019. As is the case with so many incidents that occurred during the troubles, the prospect of criminal justice outcomes is increasingly unlikely. The families of the bereaved in Birmingham, like so many others, completely understandably continue to seek the information and accountability that they deserve.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North raised the desire of the families for the role of the police and the criminal justice system to be investigated as part of any public inquiry. As Members will be aware, the Independent Office for Police Conduct is a respected and well-tested forum for such matters. As a Northern Ireland veteran myself, I know that the troubles were a devastating time for the whole nation—such that 25 years on from the passing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the impact lives on.

Each tragedy has far-reaching and long-standing effects on victims, survivors and the communities around them. The work undertaken by all those who sought to end the troubles has helped prevent further such tragedies. It is important that we seek to remain united across the House in our condemnation of anyone who seeks to take us back to those times.

The pub bombings in Birmingham killed or injured innocent people who happened to be in a particular place when heinous acts were perpetrated. Today, and always, we mourn the dead and hold their loved ones in our thoughts. We think too of the survivors and all those who were affected.

I want to finish by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North for securing the debate and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. Terrorist attacks have terrible and far-reaching consequences on individuals, communities and our society as a whole. We must stand united to combat terrorism, whether it is driven by political, religious or ideological causes. The Government and the people of this country are united in our condemnation of those who inflict violence on our streets.

The Birmingham pub bombings were a brutal moment in the history of that great city and of our country—a day when 21 lives were cruelly snatched away and hundreds more changed forever. We understand that the devastation caused by those horrific attacks continues for people to this day and, more than 50 years later, the fact that their quest for answers and justice goes on must be unbelievably distressing. As I have said, we recognise the frustration that causes, yet these are decisions that need to be taken incredibly carefully. The Government will respond to the request for a public inquiry as soon as possible.

I have the utmost sympathy for the bereaved families and for the survivors. Their experience for over 50 years has been deeply painful, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members across the House continue to hold them in their thoughts and prayers.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment she has made of trends in the incidence of fraud.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Fraud is the most commonly experienced crime in our country, and this Government will publish a new strategy to protect consumers and businesses later this year. Before that, our Crime and Policing Bill will introduce new measures to fight fraud, including a ban on the use of SIM farms. I hope Opposition Members will support those measures.

[Damian Hinds]

As the Minister says, fraud is the largest volume category of crime; it was coming down under the last Government, but over the past full year it has gone back up again dramatically. The Online Safety Act 2023 is a landmark reform, but criminals will always seek new channels, so what will the Minister do in his new fraud plan to address that displaced fraud, including that delivered through advertising on websites not covered by the Act?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue again. He is right: fraud accounts for over 43% of all offences recorded by the crime survey for England and Wales. Tackling fraud relies on collaboration between law enforcement, industry and Government Departments. That means everyone playing their part, and we continue to urge the tech and social media companies to take stronger action to stop consumers being defrauded when using their sites.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to reduce the use of asylum accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

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

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The Department is taking robust action to respond to state threats. We continue to implement measures in the National Security Act 2023, which include launching the foreign influence registration scheme on 1 July. We have also announced the conclusion of the transnational repression review, new police training and the establishment of a cross-Whitehall joint unit to tackle state threats.

[Mr Bailey]

Twenty years ago, after the horror of the 7/7 bombings, we joined up how we work on security threats of all kinds, creating an enduring multi-agency approach. Now, with the added challenge from far-right extremism and the rapidly mounting threat to Europe from malign Russian activity, we need to bolster our responses across borders as well as across our agencies. Will my hon. Friend look at the concept of a joint UK-French national security council meeting to push that forward at Thursday’s summit?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure we will all be reflecting on where we were 20 years ago. He is right about the nature of the threat we face today and he makes a very good suggestion. As he will know, we work very closely with our French neighbours. Important conversations will be taking place against the backdrop of the state visit, but I will consider more carefully the point he makes.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

We know that terrorists and potential terrorists are coming on small boats across the English channel, so why is Border Force picking these people up and bringing them to the UK?

[Dan Jarvis]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that we are strengthening those checks. We continually assess potential threats in the UK and ensure that we guard against them.

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

20. What steps her Department is taking to tackle knife crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

One of my constituents found that, despite taking precautions, their identity had been assumed, and their PIN for online banking was changed. That was repeated across other accounts, and thousands of pounds were stolen. What steps is the Department taking to combat sophisticated cyber-crime and ensure that, in particular, older constituents like mine remain protected?

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituent. Combating these crimes is a key priority for the Government. We continue to collaborate closely with the financial industry, organisations such as Cifas and regulators on strengthening account security and supporting victims. I would be happy to meet him to discuss this further.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s comments about 7/7. I remember that day too well, and we supported the Government then, too. In more recent times, there have been a number of major cyber-attacks, ransomware attacks and associated blackmail of major companies. It has come to my attention that one such company paid a very large sum to its blackmailer recently. I will share the name with the Home Secretary afterwards; it would not be appropriate to share it in the Chamber. Will she update the House on the progress of the Government’s actions to ensure that blackmailers of this sort do not succeed in future?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, and will happily meet him to discuss it. The Home Office recently closed a consultation on a world-leading package of legislative proposals to counter ransomware. A public response will be published shortly.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

The chair of the Met Police Federation, Rick Prior, and the chair of the West Midlands Police Federation, Rich Cooke, have both been removed by the unelected chief executive of the Police Federation after speaking up for the officers they were elected to represent. Is the Home Secretary as concerned as I am that the only staff association that police officers are legally allowed to join is no longer fit for purpose?

State Threat Prevention and Investigation Measures: 20 December 2024 to 19 March 2025

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 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 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 imposed to date.

[HCWS772]

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 30 June, be approved.

I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see three distinct groups proscribed: Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a bit of progress, which I do not think is unreasonable.

The proscription of those three organisations will reaffirm the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology.

It may be helpful to set out some background to the proscription power. To proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is concerned in terrorism. That means that the organisation commits or participates in terrorism, it prepares for terrorism, it promotes or encourages terrorism, or it is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Proscription is, rightly, ideologically neutral: it judges an organisation on its actions and the actions it is willing to deploy in pursuit of its cause. The UK’s definition of terrorism was established in law a quarter of a century ago, and it has stood the test of time and extensive scrutiny since.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a little more progress before giving way.

The definition has three limbs. First, the use or threat of action must reach a certain level of seriousness, such as serious violence or serious damage to property. Secondly, the use or threat must be designed to influence a Government or intimidate the public or a section of the public. Thirdly, the use or threat must be made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Successive independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have upheld the UK’s terrorism definition as effective and fit for purpose, even as the threat from terrorism has evolved.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dan Jarvis]

I will give way in just a moment.

Proscription is one of the most powerful counter-terrorism tools available to Government. Any decision to proscribe is taken with great care and follows rigorous consideration, as noted by Jonathan Hall KC in his report on the operation of the terrorism Acts of 2022.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am grateful to the Minister. The question that many of us want to put to him is this: why has he linked these three organisations together? He clearly has made a judgment on each of the three organisations independently of each other. I and many others outside, I am sure, think it would be fair if we took individual votes on the three. Many of us are very concerned about the issue facing Palestine Action, and that is the issue we wish to address in the debate.

[Dan Jarvis]

I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that I will move on to that and will explain with real clarity precisely why we have proceeded in the way that we have. I suspect that he has a long memory. I am sure that he will recall that he has voted against proscribing a number of organisations previously, including al-Qaeda in 2001, when the motion was bundled along with 20 other militant organisations, so there is clear precedent for doing this. The reason we seek to do it is to demonstrate that we do not attach any kind of ideological prism with which to seek to make a judgment. The Home Secretary will take a view based on a legal threshold, and that is the basis on which we have proceeded.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for bringing forward this motion. If it comes to a vote, as some have indicated they wish it to do, my party will support the Government. I come from Northern Ireland, and we understand what it means to have security. It is important to have Government, Ministers, the police, the Army, MI5 and MI6, and they all have a responsibility. In relation to the membership of those organisations, is there a list of those who may be members of Palestine Action, for instance? I do not know where they are—there might be some in this House; if there is, perhaps we would understand. Will they be subject to the ruling and proscription as well?

[Dan Jarvis]

I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on these matters, borne out of his extensive experience of dealing with these matters in Northern Ireland. If he is a little patient and if the House allows me to make a bit of progress, I will explain and respond to the point he has raised and the points that other hon. Members seek to raise.

If the House will allow, let me turn to the specific measures before us today, taking each of the proposed additions to the list of proscribed organisations in order. First, there is the Maniacs Murder Cult, also known as MMC, which is an insidious white-supremacist and neo-Nazi organisation operating online and across borders. It aims to encourage individuals to engage in acts of violence against people it perceives to be antisocial, including homeless people, drug addicts and migrants, all to further its own ideology and degrade human society through violence.

The Government assess that MMC commits, prepares for, promotes and encourages acts of terrorism. MMC members and leaders have claimed a number of violent attacks globally that were committed in pursuit of the group’s aims. MMC supplies instructional material that could increase the capability or motivation of an aspiring attacker, including a guide that provides information on how to fatally attack someone with a knife and use a vehicle as a weapon. MMC’s members and non-members share its material and other online content, including videos of violent attacks, to encourage further violence in support of its ideology.

On 22 May, a 21-year-old Georgian national known as Commander Butcher, considered to be one of MMC’s leaders, was extradited to the United States, and he is set to stand trial in New York for soliciting hate crimes and acts of mass violence. As set out in the indictment, he is alleged to have recruited individuals online to promote MMC’s ideologies by committing acts of murder, arson, bombing and mass poisoning in New York—acts targeted at members of ethnic minority groups, homeless people and Jewish schoolchildren. As this case illustrates, MMC has a truly transnational audience, which includes people in the UK. It does not matter where the leaders of this network are based if they are capable of inspiring acts of violence and terror in any country. Vulnerable individuals, such as minors, are particularly exposed to the horrific material MMC publishes and distributes online.

This Government will not stand by and allow the terrorist threat and wider societal harms caused by MMC to persist. Proscribing MMC is key to deterring and diverting individuals from engaging with its violent content, and it sends a clear signal to social media companies to remove MMC’s material from their platforms. The threat posed by MMC must be taken extremely seriously, whether it is inspiring acts of violence against our people or influencing young people to commit those acts. We will not hesitate to take action against such groups to keep our country safe.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I agree with the Minister that MMC clearly meets the threshold for proscription, but when did its actions first come to the attention of the Government? Why have they left it so long to bring forward this order? Why did they leave it until it was politically convenient?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to make that final point. There is no political convenience in what we are seeking to do today. We are seeking to ensure the security of our country, and if he has a little patience, I will further make that case to him and to the House.

Let me turn to Palestine Action. The public attention it has garnered should not be confused with legitimacy, nor should a group formed five years ago be conflated with the legitimate campaign for Palestinian rights and statehood, which has existed in our country and in this House for more than five decades. Let me be clear: the proscription of Palestine Action is not aimed at banning protest that supports Palestine. There are many ways in which people can continue to lawfully express their support for Palestine without being a member or supporter of Palestine Action.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

The Minister will be aware that the High Court has granted Palestine Action permission for a legal challenge. Rather than the Home Secretary, who is not here, rushing this order through Parliament, should it not be delayed until the judicial process has concluded?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

We are certainly not seeking to rush this through Parliament; these are matters that the Home Secretary and I have considered for some time. There is a clear route to legal challenge, and if an organisation is proscribed, it has the opportunity to pursue that route. That is entirely within the rights of any organisation that is proscribed, and is a matter for them.

Let me make the important point that freedom of expression and assembly are cornerstones of our democracy. They are fundamental rights, and this Government will always respect and protect them. We will always defend the right of the British people to engage in legitimate and peaceful protest, and to stand up for the causes in which they believe.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I often show visitors the statue of Viscount Falkland and its missing spur, removed when a suffragette chained herself to it. I was here when protesters superglued their buttocks to the glass panel above us, causing some scandal and damage. Will the Minister confirm that criminal damage, no matter how creatively or indeed scandalously undertaken, will always be dealt with under criminal law, and not as a terrorist act?

[Dan Jarvis]

I know that my hon. Friend has given this matter serious consideration, and she makes an interesting point. In my remarks, I will seek to evidence to her and others why we have chosen to take this course of action on this group. I hope that when I have made my speech, she will understand why we are proceeding in this way. I was just making a point about the importance of the right to protest. Essential as such rights are, they do not give this group carte blanche to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that many of us in this Chamber think that Palestine Action is in a different category from the other two organisations that he is seeking to proscribe. Is he aware that several UN special rapporteurs, including those protecting human rights, say that they have told the UK Government that

“acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the Mother of the House, because she makes an important point. Before I respond to it, let me say politely and gently to her and others that my strong sense is that if the actions of the group that we are considering had been conducted by an organisation with different ideological motives, she and some of her colleagues would strongly recommend that the Government proscribed them. [Interruption.] That is, I am afraid, the conclusion I have arrived at.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the United Nations. The Government received a letter from the UN special procedures mandate holders at the end of 2024, and the UK Government provided a full response, which has been published. I gently say to her that national security and keeping the public safe are very much matters for this country, not other organisations.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

This heavy-handed approach threatens basic freedoms and sets a dangerous precedent for all political dissent in the UK. Does the Minister acknowledge that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I do not acknowledge that, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the decision we have taken. If he will listen to what I have to say, I hope he will understand why we are progressing in this way.

The attack at Brize Norton on 20 June has understandably provoked shock and anger in this House and across the country, but it was just the latest episode in Palestine Action’s long history of harmful activity. It has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the threshold between direct criminal action and terrorism. I hope that goes some way to responding to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) made. Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene of attacks. For their role in co-ordinated attacks, members of the organisation have been charged with serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and for some of the things that he has said. Everything he has spoken about could be dealt with under criminal law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) mentioned the suffragettes. I think we need to give the context of a little bit of history. The suffragettes carried out a campaign of window-smashing, poster and paint defacement, cutting telegraph and railway lines and targeted bombing and arson, but specifically avoided harming people. There is a long history in this country of direct action that pushes the boundaries of our democracy. It is very difficult for all of us, but this is still direct action, not terrorist action.

[Dan Jarvis]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point about history, and it is entirely reasonable context for him and others to raise, but ultimately this Government must respond to events taking place in the here and now. The Government have to make sometimes difficult decisions about what measures are required to keep the public safe. He is absolutely within his rights to make comparisons with other groups, but as I will explain, fundamentally the Home Secretary has to take a view on whether a legal threshold has been crossed, and if it has, she has to make a judgment on whether she wishes to proceed.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I must make a bit of progress, because I still have some way to go.

Despite some of its rhetoric, the group’s own materials state that it is not non-violent, and that is echoed in the actions of its members, who have committed atrocious attacks. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has concluded that Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism and should be proscribed. The House will understand that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence or to go into details about incidents that are sub judice. However, I can provide a summary of the group’s activities, and it is right that I make the position clear to the House.

Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated and enacted a campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies that support Ukraine, NATO, our Five Eyes allies and the UK defence industry. Over time, and most notably since the start of 2024, Palestine Action’s activity has increased in frequency and severity. Its targets have broadened to include financial firms, charities, universities and Government buildings. Its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will, but I must then make some progress.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister has spoken about some of the history of this, but there is more recent history. The last Government introduced the Public Order Act 2023 to deal with Extinction Rebellion. The Home Secretary, who was then on the Opposition Front Bench, listed all the various crimes that could be dealt with. She said then:

“the Government are extending powers that we would normally make available just for serious violence and terrorism to peaceful protest. Police officers themselves have said that this is, ‘a severe restriction on a person’s rights to protest and in reality, is unworkable’.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 63.]

She was right then, and is wrong today, is she not?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a bit of progress, because I hope to answer some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am about to explain to him that specific recent incidents have informed the decision. I understand why he may not want to listen to that, but I invite him to do so, because the context is very important.

[Zarah Sultana]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

No, I will make some progress now.

Palestine Action’s own materials state

“we are not non-violent and we have specific targets”.

The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK, and has pledged to escalate its campaign. This disgraceful pattern of activity cannot be allowed to continue. In applying the legislative framework, the Government assess that Palestine Action commits acts of terrorism. In several attacks—

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will not give way, because I need to get these important points on the record.

Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property, with the aim of progressing its political cause and intimidating and influencing the public and the Government. These include attacks against Thales in Glasgow in 2022 and against Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol last year. In such attacks, Palestine Action members have forced entry on to premises while armed with a variety of weapons, and damaged or demolished property, causing millions of pounds’ worth of criminal damage. As the House has heard, Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene.

During Palestine Action’s attack against the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over £1 million-worth of damage, including to parts that are essential for our submarines. Palestine Action caused panic among staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown into the area to which they were evacuating. When passing custodial sentences for the perpetrators, the sheriff said:

“Throwing pyrotechnics at areas where people are being evacuated to cannot be described as non-violent.”

The Government also assess that Palestine Action prepares for terrorism. The organisation has provided practical advice to assist its members in carrying out significant levels of property damage at targets right across the UK. For example, Palestine Action has released an underground manual that encourages its members to create small groups or cells and provides guidance about how to conduct activity against private companies and Government buildings. It explains how to operate covertly to evade arrest and provides a link to a website, also created by Palestine Action, which contains a map of target locations across the UK.

The Government assess that Palestine Action promotes and encourages terrorism, including through the glorification on social media of its attacks involving property damage. Palestine Action’s attacks are not victimless crimes; employees have experienced physical violence, intimidation and harassment, and they have been prevented from entering their place of work. We would not tolerate this activity from organisations motivated by Islamist or extreme right-wing ideology, and we cannot tolerate it from Palestine Action.

By implementing this measure, we will remove Palestine Action’s veil of legitimacy, tackle its financial support, and degrade its efforts to recruit and radicalise people into committing terrorist activity in its name. We must be under no illusion: Palestine Action is not a legitimate protest group. People engaged in lawful protest do not need weapons. People engaged in lawful protest do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics around innocent members of the public. And people engaged in lawful protest do not cause millions of pounds’ worth of damage to national security infrastructure, including submarines and defence equipment for NATO. Proscribing Palestine Action will not impinge the right to protest. People have always been able to protest lawfully or express support for Palestine, and they can continue to do so.

I am conscious of the time, so I will briefly turn to the Russian Imperial Movement. RIM is a white supremacist ethno-nationalist organisation that seeks to create a new Russian imperial state. The methods that RIM uses to try to achieve those aims threaten UK, Euro-Atlantic and wider international security and prosperity. RIM conducts combat activity via its paramilitary unit, the Russian Imperial Legion, and has actively fought alongside Russian forces and other pro-Russian right-wing extremist groups in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. In doing so, the Government assess that it has committed or participated in acts of terrorism.

RIM also prepares for terrorism. It manages a paramilitary training programme known as Partisan, which increases the capabilities of attendees to conduct terrorist attacks. By proscribing RIM, the UK will reinforce our steadfast support for Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression and our commitment to counter future threats from extreme right-wing terrorism in the UK and Europe.

Almost two years ago, it was my task on behalf of what was then His Majesty’s Opposition to strongly support the action taken to proscribe the Wagner Group, an organisation that rightly stood condemned for its acts of indiscriminate violence and terror in Ukraine and elsewhere. I hope the whole House will be as united today as it was on that occasion in endorsing the action taken against the Russian Imperial Movement.

To conclude, the first duty of Government is to keep our country safe. When our collective security and our values are threatened, we will not hesitate to act. Today’s proscriptions will send a clear and unambiguous message that this Parliament stands against terrorism however and wherever it manifests itself. Only in applying the UK’s counter-terrorism framework without bias can we maintain confidence in it. I therefore urge Members to support these proscriptions, and I commend the order to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate. The proscription of these three organisations affirms the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism. To be clear, these proscriptions will not affect anyone’s legitimate and lawful right to protest, whether it is about Palestine, Gaza or anything else.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

The Government have to take action when Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of property damage, featuring attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will not give way.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I think it is clear that at this point the Minister does not wish to give way. He has until 5.27 pm, so let us see how this progresses.

[Dan Jarvis]

These attacks have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism. Members have used violence against people responding at the scenes of attacks, and have been charged with a series of serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon. This order would degrade their harmful activity. It will also reduce the threat—particularly to vulnerable individuals—from MMC’s violent content, and it will reinforce our support for Ukraine and our commitment to countering extreme right-wing terrorism in Europe.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was not a point of order. The Minister may wish to respond—he has a few minutes in which to do so—but that was not a point of order.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am happy to respond directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The process of proscription requires this House to agree such action. Should the House do so later this evening, it would then go to the other place, and it would be for the other place to agree the action or not. It would then be for the Home Secretary or myself to sign an order, and that order would then become law at midnight on the night it had been signed.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[John McDonnell]

What if I oppose it tomorrow? What if I suggest it is wrong?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister, continue.

[Dan Jarvis]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said—I just explained to him the process that is in place.

I am grateful to all of those who have considered this matter. This order is a necessary and proportionate step to protect the public and defend our values. That is, after all, the first duty of the state, and under this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend this order to the House.

[Carla Denyer]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

Of all the duties of Government, none matters more than keeping our country safe. It is an awesome task, and one to which we attach the utmost significance, as this House and the public would expect. For people to flourish, they must have confidence that they are safe as they go about their lives. For a society to excel, its values must be protected from harm and its laws upheld. For a nation to thrive, its leaders must be unrelenting in the pursuit of these critical aims. That is why the Prime Minister has made national security a foundation of the plan for change, and it is why we work around the clock with our partners in policing and the security services to keep the United Kingdom and its people safe.

In the face of a complex and evolving threat picture, it is essential that we keep the powers, tools and measures available to us under constant review. Where steps are needed to maintain the safety and security of our country, this Government will not hesitate to act. It is with that intention that we have brought forward this Bill, which, although narrow in its scope and intent, is vital to our ongoing efforts to protect the United Kingdom.

Before I come to the detail of the Bill, I will provide a little bit of background. The British Nationality Act 1981 provides for the removal of an individual’s British citizenship. This is also known as a deprivation of citizenship. Deprivation is an important and effective tool to maintain public safety and preserve national security. It is used in two different situations: where citizenship has been obtained by fraud, or where deprivation is conducive to the public good, which means that it is in the public interest to deprive a person of British citizenship because of their conduct and/or the threat that they pose to the United Kingdom.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I accept the Minister’s point that this is a very narrow Bill, but is he able to tell the House how many individuals who currently have an appeal that has not yet been heard, and to whom this Bill will ultimately apply, have been deprived of their citizenship?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am happy to do that. If my hon. Friend bears with me for just a couple of moments, I will provide him with the information that he has requested.

In the latter category especially—where deprivation is conducive to the public good—deprivation is used against some of the most dangerous individuals, including terrorists, extremists, and serious and organised criminals. Someone in the UK who has been deprived of their British citizenship no longer has any immigration status, steps may be taken to remove them from the UK, and they may be held in an immigration detention in the interim. If they are overseas, they cannot re-enter the UK using a British passport. In both circumstances, this is clearly an effective way to disrupt the threat posed by dangerous individuals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the Minister and the Government for bringing forward this Bill. There is no doubt but that it is absolutely necessary. National security is paramount when considering revoking citizenship, as the Minister has outlined, and the Bill is necessary to close a particular loophole and ensure that no person can bypass it.

In Northern Ireland, many people claim both Irish and UK citizenship, as they are able to. I understand that the Bill will make sure their UK citizenship can be revoked, but they will still have the right as an Irish passport holder to travel to Northern Ireland. That is a very peculiar case. I am quite happy if the Minister wants to come back to me on this, but I just want to make sure that no one can get around these measures by using an alternative passport—an Irish passport or whatever it may be—and that Northern Ireland will be under the same laws as the rest of the UK.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, as I always am, and he is absolutely right that it is necessary to close this particular loophole, and that is the purpose of the Bill. He has raised a very interesting example, and I am grateful to him for saying he is happy for me to come back to him. If he lets me reflect on it further, I will respond to him when I make my concluding remarks at the end of the debate.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

The Minister keeps referring to a “loophole”. In fact, it has been an important principle of British justice that successful appeal equals vindication. This Bill is trying to remove that presumption. That is not a loophole; it is a basic judicial right on which we all rely.

[Dan Jarvis]

Again, if the right hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come to his specific point in a moment, and if he is not satisfied that I have responded adequately then, I am happy to give way again. I will make some progress.

Deprivation decisions are made following careful consideration of advice from officials and lawyers, and in accordance with international law. Each case is assessed individually. Decisions to deprive, where it is conducive to the public good, are personally taken by the Home Secretary. The power is used sparingly. It complies with the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, and always comes with a right of appeal.

Turning to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), let me give the House a sense of the frequency with which deprivation powers are used. From 2018 to 2023, on average 12 people a year were deprived of their citizenship where it was conducive to the public good. The available period for fraud-related deprivations is slightly different, but from 2018 to 2022 there were an average of 151 cases per year in that category.

Let me turn to the Bill, dealing first with why it is required; I hope this will go some way to responding to the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). In a recent case, the Supreme Court decided that, if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, the initial deprivation order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be a British citizen. This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted by the Home Secretary.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am going to make a little bit of progress, if I may. I will give way in a moment, but I want to address the point that has been raised.

There are very good reasons why the Government may wish to stop citizenship being regained until all appeals are determined, withdrawn or abandoned. These include to prevent someone who is outside the UK and who poses a risk to our national security from returning when a further appeal may be upheld pending the Home Secretary’s decision, or to prevent a person from renouncing their other nationality and putting themselves in a position where, if further appeals are successful, a further deprivation order would not be possible as it would unlawfully render them stateless.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for that explanation, but hypothetically there exists a circumstance in which the Home Secretary could deprive an individual of their citizenship, that individual could go for an appeal and have it reinstated, and this law would prevent them from retaining that citizenship and the Department could simply choose not to appeal further. How does the Department ensure that the individual is then allowed to access future appeals to try to regularise their citizenship status?

[Dan Jarvis]

For reasons that I do not understand, my hon. Friend is progressing a hypothetical scenario; I do not know whether it is based on a particular case that he has in mind. I have not personally dealt with such a set of circumstances, but I am happy to look at the matter he has raised.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Southall Community Alliance in my constituency has long been a defender of human rights. Would the Minister confirm to the alliance that this Bill means we will continue to use the power to deprive people of their citizenship very sparingly, and that there will be no changes to the existing right of appeal or any widening of the reasoning under which we would deprive somebody of their citizenship in this country?

[Dan Jarvis]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend and the organisation in her constituency that assurance. This Bill is very narrowly drawn; it has two clauses.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I am confused. If the individuals in question have done something so bad that they have to be deprived of their citizenship, why would we not simply jail them? Why would we need to deprive them of their citizenship?

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope my hon. Friend heard the point I made a moment ago about how the Government have brought forward this legislation in response to a recent Supreme Court decision. Essentially, an appeal against deprivation has resulted in a requirement for us to bring forward this clarification of the law. In response to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), this does not represent any widening of the existing arrangements. The right of appeal is completely unaffected by this legislation, which is incredibly narrowly drawn.

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

I am sure the Minister understands that due process is important and appreciates that the appeals process must be respected fully. He is intending making people temporarily stateless, so can he guarantee that the appeals process will be speeded up and people will have an opportunity to have their case heard in a timeous manner, so they can have their case resolved, not hanging over them for a long time?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member is absolutely right about the point of due process. I can say to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall that these powers are used very sparingly. Each and every individual case is decided on by the Home Secretary. I know that this Home Secretary has—and I am sure previous Home Secretaries have—taken these responsibilities incredibly seriously. Decisions are made carefully, on advice and in accordance with international law, and I am happy to give the hon. Member and others that assurance.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me make a bit of progress, and then I will happily give way again.

The key point is that deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves very high harm. We are talking about some of the most serious cases handled by any Government. Where a loophole is identified in the processes underpinning it, it is the job of any serious and sensible Government to close it, and that is precisely what this Government will do.

Let me turn to the substance of the Bill. The House will note its brevity and narrow scope; it contains just one substantive clause, focused solely on addressing the specific issues that have already been discussed. Its primary objective is to protect the United Kingdom from dangerous people, which includes those who pose a threat to our national security. The Bill will achieve that by preventing those who have been deprived of British citizenship from regaining that status automatically when their appeal is successful, until further appeals have been determined. That will replicate the approach taken on asylum and human rights appeals; in those cases, the effect of an appeal is suspended up to the Court of Appeal and extended to appeals to the Supreme Court.

To be clear, the Bill does not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons why a person could be deprived of their citizenship. Should an appeal mounted on behalf of the Government prove unsuccessful, then where there is no possibility of further appeal, British citizenship would be reinstated with immediate and retrospective effect.

[Kit Malthouse]

The Minister keeps referring to a loophole in justice. I do not understand why he cannot see that “innocent until proven guilty” should apply in these cases, as in any other. The idea that my winning an appeal would not automatically mean I was innocent, as it does in every other case, seems a breach of a fundamental tenet. He is also not correct to say that the power is used sparingly. Since 2010, dozens of people have been denied citizenship on the say-so of the Home Secretary, despite there being nothing proven in court. That is what is different about these cases. This is effectively something that is done in secret, behind closed doors, without the facts necessarily being proven in any way. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but this is a case in which we should be even more reliant on due process, rather than trying to legislate judges out of the room, as we are trying to today.

[Dan Jarvis]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will understand and appreciate, from his time as a Home Office Minister, the huge responsibility that the Government invest in the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary of the day has to make some incredibly difficult, finely balanced judgments. I hope that he would agree that we have to ensure that the Home Secretary, whoever they are, and whatever political party they are from, has the necessary power to make decisions that safeguard the security of our nation. I am certain that he and I agree on that. The Bill essentially ensures that the Government can continue to do that, precisely as the Government whom he served could.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I am again completely confused. His specific example at the beginning aside, I still do not understand why, if the individuals concerned pose such a huge threat, other pieces of legislation will not deal with them and keep the public safe. He also pointed to the fact that somebody could win their appeal and he could still wish to deprive them of citizenship. I want to understand the circumstances in which, after someone’s appeal was upheld by a judge, the Minister would still wish to deprive them of their citizenship.

[Dan Jarvis]

Forgive me, but I do not think I said that; I think I said the opposite. I am very happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend. I hope she understands, and I hope I have made it clear, that the Bill is incredibly narrow in its scope. It seeks to take us back to the legal position we were in a matter of months ago, prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court. It does not in any way undermine the right of appeal. If she has further concerns, I am very happy to speak to her, but I can give her an assurance. She is very welcome to look at the Bill. It will not take her very long to read it. It is two clauses, with a single substantive clause, specifically designed to take us back to the legal position we were in just a few months ago. I hope she will be reassured by that.

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

I have come to this debate without any prior knowledge of what is proposed, so I am making this point as a result of what I have heard so far. Am I right in thinking that what the Minister particularly has in mind is people with dual citizenship who might, for example, have gone abroad to fight for a terrorist organisation, such as ISIS. There would, in such a case, be nothing forbidding us from removing their British citizenship. If they came back, even if they could be convicted of anything at all, they would be imprisoned for only a relatively short time, if at all, and then the security services would probably have to spend many years monitoring them. Is that the sort of scenario the Minister has in mind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is. Perhaps he did not hear me make that point earlier, but I specifically said that one of the reasons for the Bill was to prevent someone who is outside the UK, and who poses a risk to our national security, from returning when a further appeal may be upheld by the Home Secretary’s decision. He is right: that is a potential scenario that we have to guard against, and the Bill will enable us to do that, just as Governments could prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court. I hope he finds that reassuring.

As I set out, deprivation is one of the most powerful tools we have in our ongoing efforts to protect the United Kingdom and its citizens from harm. For it to remain an effective part of our armoury, we need to legislate. Before I finish, I pay tribute to our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In turbulent and uncertain times, their tireless work to maintain stability and security at home has never been more crucial. They must be supported at every turn, because the safety of our country stands apart from everything else we do. It is the cornerstone of our society, and ensuring that safety is the primary purpose of everyone involved in public service, including in this House. It is a responsibility borne not just by those of us on the Government Benches, but by parliamentarians of all parties. In that spirit, I urge Members to support the Bill, which is required to preserve our national security. I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

As I hope the Minister knows, I have devoted much of my adult life to keeping individuals, neighbourhoods, towns, cities and indeed the entire country safe, but I have to confess that I have never been entirely comfortable with the deprivation of citizenship regime. Unfortunately, his Bill, which he is trying to pass off as an innocuous correction, has sparked that sense of unease.

The reason I am uneasy is that, although the objectives that the Minister proposes are laudable, I believe that the cost to our sense of self and the corrosiveness to our sense of citizenship and to the judicial process are perhaps too high. I will not detain the House for too long, but I want to raise three points. We have covered them to a certain extent, but they are worth reiterating.

First, the Minister’s sense is that the Supreme Court has created a loophole; my view is that it has corrected an anomaly. It has long been a tenet of the protections with which the judicial process provides me as an individual that an appeal equals vindication and that it is for my accuser to appeal, on the basis that I remain innocent, even prior to the first action that is taken against me. This regime will reverse that.

The second alarming point is that the legislation is retrospective. As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) asked, there may be a number of cases going through the courts for which this law will have a highly prejudicial impact. The Government are effectively moving the goalposts mid-litigation to get what they want. That, again, is not something we would normally tolerate, and it is a further development of the power.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I always enjoy our debates. He says that the Government are moving the goalposts, but does he accept that we are ensuring that we have the same powers to deprive that he had when he was a Home Office Minister?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken.

As I mentioned right at the beginning, the Bill is extremely narrow in its scope and intent, focusing solely on closing a loophole in the existing deprivation of citizenship process. As I outlined, the Supreme Court decided in a recent case that if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, or a deprivation of citizenship order is withdrawn, that initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be British. That means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

The Bill will therefore protect the UK from people who pose a threat to our national security by preventing those who have been deprived of British citizenship and are overseas from returning until all appeals have been determined. It will also prevent a person who has been deprived of citizenship on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good from seeking to undermine deprivation action while an appeal in their case remains ongoing by renouncing their other nationality and putting themselves in a position whereby a deprivation order would render them stateless. The Bill does not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship. It is crucial that our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the necessary powers to protect the public and secure our borders.

Let me reflect briefly on the contributions made during the debate. I am very grateful to the Opposition Front Benchers for their support and their speeches. It is always my intention that national security should never be a party political issue. That was the basis on which I approached it in opposition, and that is the basis on which I approach it in government. I am very grateful for the constructive and reasonable way in which they have presented their points today.

I am also grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), for her contribution. She took the opportunity, as is absolutely her right, to call for wider reform, and she raised specific concerns about the process and about transparency. The Government believe that the measures in the Bill are necessary and proportionate, but I listened carefully to the points that she made about transparency. The Government believe that there is sufficient oversight and transparency of the use of the deprivation power. The Home Office publishes data in relation to the number of deprivation of citizenship orders, and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration has the remit to review the power. The ICIBI has conducted independent reviews of the deprivation power, with reports published relatively recently, in 2018 and in 2024.

I also want to take the opportunity to further reassure the hon. Lady that deprivation decisions are made following careful consideration of advice, both from officials and from lawyers and, under this Government—I am sure it was the case under previous Governments as well—strictly in accordance with international law. Each case is assessed individually by the Home Secretary, and decisions to deprive, where it is conducive to the public good, are taken by the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary alone. The power is used sparingly, it complies with the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness and it always comes with the right to appeal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) made a thoughtful speech, including about what citizenship means, and I know that the House will be grateful for the contribution that he made this evening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) raised a number of specific concerns, and I want to do my best to respond to them. The deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves a very high harm. Deprivation on fraud grounds is for those who obtained their citizenship fraudulently, so were never entitled to it in the first place. Decisions are made following careful consideration of advice from officials and—in respect of conducive deprivations—lawyers, and in accordance with international law, including the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness. The Government take these matters very seriously, and I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that we have to ensure that we have the powers necessary to keep the public safe.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I hope the Minister understands the assurances I have been asking for. This will be the third time I have asked. I genuinely want to understand why someone who is such a danger to our public cannot be dealt with under other pieces of legislation. At the moment it seems that we cannot even stop them coming into the country because of the existing legislation. He also keeps saying that the Bill does not widen the situation under which people can be deprived of their citizenship, but it does; it does so on the basis that someone can win an appeal and then be told that they are not going to be given their citizenship back because the Government have further rights of appeal. The Bill does widen that situation. We genuinely need those assurances and an understanding as to why such dangerous people cannot be dealt with under other pieces of legislation.

[Dan Jarvis]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s second point. This Bill has been very carefully and narrowly drafted, and I do not think it does the things that she has said it does. As to why the Government would seek to use these powers, I hope she understands that we will do everything we possibly can—as I am sure the previous Government did—to keep the public safe and protect them from high-harm individuals such as extremists, terrorists, and serious and organised criminals, and that this Government, as was the case with the previous Government, consider that this is an appropriate, necessary and proportionate way in which to do that. I hope that the public and the House will understand why we are progressing in the way that we are.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) made a very thoughtful speech. He has clearly thought about this matter long and hard, and he has done the House a great service with his contribution.

I want to reflect briefly on the contribution made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I enjoy debating these matters with him, and I am genuinely grateful for his contribution. He suggested at one point that he might be an old romantic. I couldn’t possibly comment—but I could possibly say that he has advanced some interesting points. They are not points that the Government agree with, and I hope he does not mind me saying that they are not points that the majority of Members of this House agree with, but he has ensured that this debate has been richer than it would otherwise have been had he not made those contributions.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the Government are acting in good faith in order to ensure that we are best placed to keep the country safe. I know that he is not satisfied with the measures that we have brought forward and does not agree with them. That is absolutely his right. I respect his right to make the case in the way that he has, but I would ask him briefly to consider an alternative scenario in which the Government of the day, regardless of their political party, did not put in place the necessary powers to keep the public safe. One can only imagine the criticism that any Government would face, were they not to do that.

[Kit Malthouse]

I can imagine that situation, but I have been an enthusiastic supporter of lots of powers to protect the public from people from whom the Minister cannot remove citizenship. For example, terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or TPIMs—previously control orders—were specifically designed to put restrictions on individuals who presented a danger to the country but from whom the Government could not remove citizenship. If those measures are good enough for those people, why are they not good enough for the people on whom the Minister is conferring second-class citizenship? He must see that this legislation applies only to certain of our citizens, and that they are not the only ones who present a danger to this country.

[Dan Jarvis]

Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do not doubt that if he and I and others sat in a room and sought to design a system, we probably would not end up with the one that we have, but I hope he understands that, given the constraints on parliamentary time and the bandwidth of Government, we are seeking to go back to the position that we had a number of months ago—I know that he did not agree with it then—to ensure that we have the powers that we need so that we are best placed to respond in the circumstances that I have described.

I want briefly to come back to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because I gave him an assurance that I would do so. I can say to him that a dual British-Irish national could be deprived of British citizenship and excluded by the Home Secretary. An Irish national who had been excluded from the UK would then require leave to enter. I hope that responds to his point.

This Bill, although short in length, will have an important impact on the safety of those in our nation. It will ensure that those who pose a threat to the safety and security of our country do not have their citizenship restored until all appeals have been determined. The safety and security of those in our country is the foundation on which everything else is built and, as I have remarked in this House before, for this Government nothing will matter more. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Martin McCluskey.)

Question agreed to.