Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: 1 December 2024 to 28 February 2025

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Friday 25th April 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.

Foreign Influence Registration Scheme

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the foreign influence registration scheme. FIRS is a fundamental component of the National Security Act 2023, which was a response to the evolving threat of hostile activity from states targeting the UK. Parts 1 to 3 of the Act came into force in December 2023 and have been transformative for our operational partners, with six charges already brought against those conducting activity for or on behalf of foreign states acting in the UK. A further five individuals involved in those cases have been charged with other offences.

FIRS provides crucial additional powers to protect our democracy, economy and society. It does three things: provides transparency on foreign state influence in the UK; gives the police and MI5 a critical new disruptive tool, with criminal offences for those who fail to comply; and deters those who seek to harm the UK. They will face a choice to either tell the Government about their actions or face arrest and imprisonment.

Given the benefits of the scheme, I can tell the House that FIRS will go live on 1 July. The political influence tier of the scheme, which applies to all states, will allow the UK to be better informed about the nature, scale and extent of foreign influence in the UK’s political system. It will strengthen our resilience against covert foreign influence. The political tier requires the registration of arrangements to carry out political influence activities in the UK at the direction of any foreign power. In most cases, registrations under this tier will be made available on a public register. For the first time, Members of this House will now be able to check whether anyone who seeks to influence them is doing so at the direction of a foreign power, a move that I am sure will be welcomed right across this House.

The enhanced tier of the scheme has been specifically designed to shed light on activities directed by foreign powers or entities whose activities pose a threat to the safety and interests of the UK. It enables the Government to specify those foreign powers that pose the greatest threat to our society, to ensure transparency over a much broader range of activities than just the political tier. It will provide an important tool for the detection and disruption of harmful activity against our country. Last month, I set out our intention to specify Iran under this tier of the scheme. I can announce today that we will also specify Russia under the scheme.

Russia presents an acute threat to UK national security. In recent years, its hostile acts have ranged from the use of a deadly nerve agent in Salisbury to espionage, arson and cyber-attacks, including the targeting of UK parliamentarians through spear-phishing campaigns. Clearly, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has also highlighted its intent to undermine European and global security. To ensure we are responding to the whole-of-state threat that Russia poses, the Government intend to specify the Head of State of Russia and its Government, agencies and authorities, which will include its armed forces, intelligence services and police force as well as its parliaments and judiciaries. We also intend to specify several political parties that are controlled by Russia, including the United Russia party. This means that any person—either an individual or an entity, such as a company—that carries out activity as part of any arrangement with those Russian entities will have to register with FIRS. Should any of these foreign power-controlled entities, such as political parties, carry out activity in the UK directly, they would also have to register with FIRS. I hope it will be clear what a powerful tool this is.

It is clear that FIRS has the potential to provide greater protection for our security, our democracy and our economy, but we must get the implementation right. In support of the scheme, the Government have today laid before Parliament draft regulations specifying Russia and Iran, introducing new exemptions from the scheme and making provision for the publication of information. Both this House and the other place will have the opportunity to consider and debate these regulations under the affirmative procedure. The Government have also laid a further set of regulations relating to the collection and disclosure of information under the scheme. To support the consideration of the regulations, and to assist potential registrants and others to better understand their responsibilities under the scheme, the Government have published comprehensive guidance online.

By bringing the scheme into force on 1 July, the Government will be giving sectors three months’ notice to help them to prepare for it. During that time, the Government will work closely with the relevant sectors, including academia and business, to ensure that they understand their obligations. Taken together, this package will ensure strong compliance with the scheme from day one. There will also be a three-month grace period to register existing arrangements. I know that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber recognise the challenges posed to the UK by foreign interference, and I hope that all Members can support these further steps to keep our country safe. Of course, as with all national security issues, we must stay agile, and, as I have said, FIRS will be kept under review. Any new announcements will be made to the House in the usual way.

It is our duty to defend the safety and interests of the UK. That is why we are commencing FIRS; it is why we are introducing greater protections for our democracy; and it is why we are clamping down on the threat from states that conduct hostile activities in, and against, the UK. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I start by thanking the Security Minister for advance sight of his statement, which he provided with his customary professionalism and courtesy. We on the Conservative Benches welcome the commencement of the FIRS regime, legislated for in the last Parliament, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), for their work in bringing that legislation forward. I also welcome the announcement that Iran and now Russia will be included on the enhanced list, meaning that all activity undertaken in the UK by those countries or those acting for those countries must be registered.

However, I will address the bulk of my remarks to the elephant in the room, which the Security Minister did not mention at all in his statement: China. MI5’s director general, Ken McCallum, said in July 2022, almost three years ago:

“The most game-changing challenge we face comes from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s covertly applying pressure across the globe.”

In October 2023 he added:

“We have seen a sustained campaign”

of Chinese espionage on an “epic scale”. In January 2024 the director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, said that China is

“the defining threat of our generation”.

As such, I have a very simple question for the Security Minister this afternoon. He had plenty to say about Iran and Russia, quite rightly, but why is he silent on China? We know that China engages in industrial-scale espionage, seeking to steal technology from Governments, universities and industry. It represses Chinese citizens in this country and has sought to infiltrate our political system. In 2022, MI5 exposed that China sought to infiltrate this very Parliament via its agent Christine Lee. It has set up undeclared and illegal police stations in the UK, and in December last year it placed a bounty on the head of three Hong Kong dissidents living in the UK. I would like to ask again a question that was not answered last time: why has the Chinese ambassador not been summoned to explain that?

There is no question in my mind that China should be in the enhanced tier of FIRS, and it is an astonishing omission that it has not been listed as such already. Why are the Government silent on this issue? In the past, Governments have prioritised economic growth in their relations with China, but we now know a lot more about how China operates than we did 10 or 15 years ago—we know what it is up to. Is the truth not that, in their desperation to get economic growth going after the Chancellor’s rather unfortunate autumn Budget, the Government seem to be prioritising economic links over national security when it comes to China? I imagine that is why the Government appear to be intending to grant planning permission to China for its super-embassy, which we all know will be a base for espionage activity.

The Minister has rightly spoken about the threat posed by Iran and Russia. He is right to take action, and we support him in doing so. However, MI5 and the FBI have both warned about the epic threat posed by China, so will he please answer this simple question: will he place China in the enhanced tier?

[Dan Jarvis]

To begin on what I hope will be a point of consensus, I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the gratitude he expressed in general terms for the progression of this scheme. I certainly hope that there is cross-party agreement about the importance of this new tool, and I am very grateful for his support. I am also grateful for the work done by the previous Government on the development and subsequent implementation of the National Security Act 2023.

Before I turn to the question that the shadow Home Secretary posed, I just say to him that we are trying, through the use of FIRS and other means and mechanisms, to ensure that the UK is as hard a target as possible, and to make it the most challenging operating environment for those who would do us harm. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously, and I hope he would acknowledge that we have progressed the process of FIRS at pace, despite some accusations from one or two Opposition Members that that was not the case.

I hope that the shadow Home Secretary would acknowledge that the main geographical focus today was on Russia. We covered Iran a number of weeks ago, but in addition to the other remarks I have made about FIRS, the focus has been on Russia. He did not have very much to say about Russia, but I welcome him welcoming the fact that we have specified Russia on the enhanced tier.

For reasons that I completely understand, the shadow Home Secretary asked about China. He will recall the remarks I made to this House on 4 March, where I was very clear that countries will be considered separately and decisions will be taken by this Government based on the evidence. I said then, as I say again now, that I will not speculate on which countries may or may not be specified in future. That is the right way to proceed, and I hope he understands that.

I hope that the shadow Home Secretary recognises that the Government, with the wider strategy we are pursuing on China, are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relationship with China. I did not agree—this will come as no surprise to him—with how he characterised the nature of the relationship with that country. The Government’s policy is clear: we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and his trademark constructive and authoritative tone. Often it is frontline police officers who deal with the consequences of aggressive action by hostile states on Britain’s streets. I specifically welcome the Minister’s announcement that training on state threats activity will be offered by counter-terrorism police to all 45 territorial police forces. Can he provide a further update on the roll-out of that training?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Often where the rubber hits the road is the incredibly important work done by police officers on the beat, and I pay tribute to them and their service. It is important that we ensure as a Government that all police forces are ensuring that those police officers out and about in the course of their duties get the training they require to be able to identify and appropriately respond to matters that may constitute either transnational repression or state-directed activities. I can give her an assurance that we are working with police forces to ensure that that training is taking place at pace. Along with the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), I am liaising with chief constables and police and crime commissioners to ensure that that work is under way. That will provide a valuable tool for those policing our streets, ensuring that they have the requisite skills, training, knowledge and experience, should they encounter the kinds of issues we are discussing today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Minister, as always, for advance sight of his statement. We on the Lib Dem Benches welcome the further implementation by the Government of the foreign influence registration scheme, but I find myself in the rather unusual position of agreeing with a lot of what the shadow Home Secretary has said—very dangerous territory. Last year, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee issued the excoriating China report, which said that the Government do not have a clear strategy on China and have not devoted sufficient resources to tackling the threat it poses. I will therefore ask the Minister some new questions that the shadow Home Secretary did not.

Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to generate a human rights and democracy report, to conduct the audit on China that they have promised, and to ensure that China is fully considered in the strategic defence review? As has been mentioned, many are severely concerned by the proposed Chinese mega-embassy, for which the Government have indicated their support. Does the Minister believe that the building of this embassy will encourage the Chinese Communist party to carry on its attempts to subvert our democracy? What conversations has the Minister had with colleagues across Government about blocking this plan and making protecting our democracy a key national security priority?

Can the Minister say more about how the political influence tier will be administered? How do we ensure that every relevant foreign individual signs up to the register? It is right, if there is a top tier of the scheme, that Russia and Iran are on it, but will the Government now go further by proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?

Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms to funding to prevent foreign interference and to increase transparency in political donations. What plans do the Government have to close loopholes that allow opaque and potentially corrupt funding of political parties, enabling foreign and dark money to influence British politics?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, and I will endeavour to respond to all of them, but if I do not, I will certainly come back to her outside of the Chamber. She asked a number of questions about ongoing activity across Government, and she referenced the China audit, as well as the strategic defence review. I know she would acknowledge that those matters are not within the bailiwick of the Home Office, but sit with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. I can give her a categoric assurance that we address these matters across Government, and we work closely as different Departments. She will know that the Prime Minister made an announcement just recently about the publication of a national security strategy. The Prime Minister has committed to publishing the national security strategy in advance of the NATO summit in June. That document is being worked on across Government, and it will provide, I hope, some of the answers to the questions that the hon. Lady has rightly raised.

The hon. Lady asked about the embassy. I say to her and to all Members across the House that national security has been our core priority throughout that process, which is why the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary jointly submitted written representations to the Planning Inspectorate to reflect those considerations. I hope she will understand that I am limited in what I can say, not least because a final decision on the case will be made in due course by the Deputy Prime Minister, acting in her capacity as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It will be done in an independent, quasi-judicial role, so I am unable, for legal reasons, to say anything further on that particular matter at this moment.

The hon. Lady helpfully asked about the political influence tier, which will strengthen the resilience of our democratic institutions against covert foreign influence. It will require those in arrangements with foreign powers who conduct, or arrange for others to conduct, political influence activities in the UK to register those activities within 28 days. Most registrations made under the political influence tier will be included on a public register, and I am sure she will recognise the transparency associated with that.

The hon. Lady also asked me about proscribing the IRGC. She will remember, because she responded to it, the statement I made on Iran last month, during which I confirmed that the Government have asked Mr Jonathan Hall to conduct an independent review into the legislative framework around proscription. He is making good progress with that work, and I hope we will be able to update the House further in the near future.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about funding, and she will have seen the comments from the Electoral Commission in the past day or two. There is separate electoral law specifically relating to funding, but we look carefully at these issues and we are working across Government, not least with the work I lead on through the defending democracy taskforce, working with colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and in other Departments.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, which is of real significance given the increasing external threats that our country faces. Given those threats from hostile state actors, it is more important than ever that we take effective action to protect our critical national infrastructure from cyber-attacks and ransomware attacks. Can the Minister update us on the plans announced in the King’s Speech for a new Bill on cyber-resilience and the other actions being taken to improve our protections in this area?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point, albeit one that is not often the source of much debate. This Government take our critical national infrastructure extremely seriously, and we work with all colleagues in all Departments, not least those in the Cabinet Office. I can assure my hon. Friend that we in the Government are absolutely committed to using all our levers to disrupt cyber-threats to that critical national infrastructure, and we welcome the plan announced today by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to introduce a cyber security and resilience Bill. We work closely with the Department on these matters, and we know that that important Bill will help the UK’s digital economy to be one of the most secure in the world, giving us the power to protect our services, our supply chains and our citizens, which is the first and most important job of any Government.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It was good to hear the Minister confirm that the scheme will be kept under review. Two definitional matters will certainly need to be kept under review: first, what counts as being “at the direction” of a foreign power or specified entity, and secondly, in respect of the political tier, what is the extent of the definition of “political influence”? Up until now we have tended to think in terms of influence over elections, parliamentarians or Government decisions, but given the continuing development of technology and new media we can also see the potential for more direct action—direct to the public—which could conceivably have very high-impact effects. Will the Minister keep both those matters under review?

[Dan Jarvis]

It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place. There is a relatively small band of former Security Ministers left in the House, and I think he is the only one in the Chamber at present. I always appreciate his constructive, sensible and reasonable contributions. He is absolutely right: definitions do matter, and we have taken a long time to think very carefully about how best to do this in order to ensure that we define it in the most effective and appropriate way. As he will recall from my opening remarks, we have published today regulations and guidance providing substantial detail, but I look forward to discussing these matters further when we debate them through the affirmative procedure, and I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will contribute to that process.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Border security is national security. What steps is the Minister taking, along with other Home Office Ministers, to strengthen the enforcement of the UK immigration law against those who seek to promote hostile state threats here in Britain?

[Dan Jarvis]

My right hon. Friend is right: border security is national security. She will know that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has now completed its Committee stage, and she and other Members will have noted that yesterday the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary hosted an organised immigration summit in London, which was attended by countless international partners and was a very constructive and worthwhile gathering. She will also know of the important work that is now being done by the Border Security Commander, who is working closely with our international allies. We are making good progress with these matters, which we take extremely seriously, and although we will have more to do, I am pleased with the progress that we have made to date.

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

Two of the four ugly totalitarian sisters have been included in the list so far, and I trust that China and North Korea will both be added to the enhanced tier in the fullness of time; but will the Minister take back to the Government the message that the House is concerned about the building of the biggest Chinese communist embassy in western Europe—in fact, the biggest embassy—in London? It is not clear why the Government needed to call it in on security grounds, given that the local authority wanted to refuse permission completely. Will the Minister also explain the differential between the penalty that people will face when exposed for acting on behalf of a foreign power if they have registered and the penalty that they will face if they have not registered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience and authority on these matters, and I know he will agree that the implementation of FIRS gives us a critical capability that we have not had previously. It also provides a very clear choice for those who are considering whether they want to engage in this kind of nefarious activity or not. They can declare their activities to the Government, and that is what we want them to do, but if they do not, they will face arrest and imprisonment over a protracted period. That will provide a significant deterrent that we do not currently possess, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and others will welcome it.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s points about the embassy, I know he will understand that I am very limited in respect of what I can say. The shadow Home Secretary is shaking his head. I am very limited for legal reasons because a process is under way, and if I say anything to undermine that process there will be significant consequences. However, the right hon. Gentleman has made his point constructively, so let me think about whether there is some mechanism whereby, perhaps on a Privy Council basis, there can be a briefing in which we discuss these matters in a way that is not subject to the scrutiny that the House will rightly bring. As I have said, I am very limited in terms of what I can say, but I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, and will look into whether there is a way in which we can discuss it in another forum.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

While aligning myself with the concerns expressed by the shadow Home Secretary, I am happy to take the Minister at his word. In the last decade, the previous Government badly misjudged Vladimir Putin’s aims regarding the United Kingdom, and his exploitation of our naivety. So that the current Government do not make the same mistake with the Communist party in China, will the Minister commit himself to releasing a full, unredacted Russia report, and an audit and report on the activities of the Conservative Friends of Russia—or, as they were more recently termed, the Westminster Russia Forum?

[Dan Jarvis]

I think I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, although I would probably need to consider it for a while longer to make an authoritative judgment on whether I am grateful to him or not. The Government’s position—certainly on the publication of the report—is clear, but I am happy to discuss it with him further. Mindful of the comments that he made about previous Governments, I can give him an absolute assurance of how seriously we take these matters, with Russia and other countries. I understand why he mentioned China, and I understand why other Members have mentioned it as well. I hope he understands that the focus today is on Russia, as the focus last month was on Iran, but I am happy to discuss these matters further with him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues.

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

On the subject of the political tier, can the Minister say how domestic politicians might be affected—those who have foreign interlocutors, as well as those who are simply involved by virtue of all-party parliamentary groups? As for the enhanced tier, while I appreciate that he is reluctant to be drawn on specifics, can he say whether the scope of what he has in mind might include a foreign jurisdiction with a stated intention to annex the territory of a European neighbour and Commonwealth partner?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. With great respect to him, I will not go into the specifics of his second point, because I am particularly keen not to do so, but let me respond to his important question about parliamentarians. Hopefully he, along with other Members on both sides of the House and in the other place, will welcome the fact that for the first time, collectively, we will be able to see, and check, whether those who are seeking to influence behaviour or activities in this place are doing so at the behest of a foreign state. We are not able to do that at present. The fact that we will be able to do it in the future represents a significant step forward, and I hope everyone will recognise that.

On the point about the political influence tier, let me reiterate what I said previously. This will require the registration of activities carried out at the direction of a foreign power that seek to influence Members of this House. That will help protect the integrity of Parliament by ensuring that we are all informed of any attempts to influence us where a foreign power is driving the influence. Where a parliamentarian is named on a registration as a potential target of influence and the registration is to be published, the FIRS case management team will be in contact with that parliamentarian. This is a good and positive step forward for parliamentarians, and I hope that will be recognised across the House.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I welcome the statement from the Minister, but if the Government are so concerned, and rightly so, about malign foreign interference with national security, what does he make of the statement from the Trump Administration that tariff decisions will be contingent on judicial decisions in the UK, or of the letter sent from the White House to US embassies in Europe last week ordering foreign companies with US contracts to obey Trump’s Executive orders not to promote diversity, equality and inclusion, and would those companies require FIRS registration?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am reluctant to get into the specifics of the way in which particular arrangements may work, as that is not entirely helpful. However, I hear what the hon. Member has said, I will consider it further and I will come back to him with a considered response.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Although I welcome the Government’s invoking and activation of the FIRS scheme, like a curate’s egg, it is good, but there are missing bits. The elephant in the room—and it is a very big elephant—is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and other Conservative Members have said, which is the missing bit about China. The fact is that China is behind all this. We know that China is involved in supporting Russia in the war that is named in this report. It is also behind Iran and the work it has done in destabilising Gaza and so on, and it is behind North Korea.

Therefore, the question for us is: if it is shown that China is a danger and a threat to us internationally, is that the case internally? We know that the United Front Work Department reports directly to President Xi. It is made up of thousands of organisations that set out to disrupt life here in the UK, and it enters into organisations that have influence. We know that it has put a bounty of 1.2 million Hong Kong dollars on the heads of people here who have fled tyranny in China. We know that the illegal police stations still exist that have been dragging in Hong Kong dissidents. We know they have made attacks on dissidents in Manchester, physically and brutally attacking them. We know that China has spies involved inside the House of Commons and outside it as well. We know that slave labour exists in the net zero arrays and the wind farms we are putting up, and we say nothing about that. In fact, we voted to continue with slave labour last time around. The truth is that we have a real problem because China is at the epicentre of everything to disrupt democracy and freedom. Why is China not in the statement today?

[Dan Jarvis]

I always appreciate the contributions made by the right hon. Gentleman. As I have explained to the House, in addition to announcements about FIRS in a more general sense, the focus today has fundamentally been on Russia. The House will have heard the comments he has made, and I hope he will accept that this Government take these matters incredibly seriously. I hope he has heard the remarks that I made, both earlier and in my previous statement in response to the threat from Iran, about how we will consider countries on an individual basis and take evidence-based decisions about how best to proceed.

I am sorry that I will not be able to speculate on which countries may be specified in the future, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the announcement we have made offers real value in three particular areas. There is the point about transparency, and he will have noted the point on the political tier about requiring all countries to register. He will also have noted the point about disruption and the point about deterrence. This policy will introduce a difficult choice for those who are seeking to influence the UK in a way that has not previously been the case. That is the right way to proceed, but as I say, we keep these matters under very close review. I am always happy to discuss them outwith this Chamber should he wish to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his statement.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024: Implementation

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 (the 2024 Act) received Royal Assent in April 2024. The 2024 Act made targeted changes to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) to enable law enforcement and intelligence agencies to continue to tackle a range of evolving threats in the face of new technologies and increasingly sophisticated terrorist and criminal groups.

The IPA provides a framework for the use and oversight of investigatory powers by the intelligence services, law enforcement, and other public authorities. It helps safeguard people’s privacy by setting out stringent controls over the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It consolidated regulatory oversight of the use of investigatory powers into a single body: the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. It also created the “double lock”—the requirement for IPA warrants for the most intrusive powers to be approved both by a Secretary of State (Yvette Cooper) and then by a Judicial Commissioner. One of the key cornerstones of the regime is a requirement that public authorities must be able to demonstrate that any use of the powers is necessary and proportionate.

Today I have laid before Parliament the draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025, which are necessary to implement the 2024 Act. The regulations will bring into force eight new and revised codes of practice—the codes, which have also been laid before Parliament, and which provide operational guidance for public authorities to have regard to when exercising functions to which the codes relate. They also include a number of provisions relating to the IPA’s notices regime, including to specify what types of changes may be included in the new notification notices, introduce timelines for the review of technical capability, data retention, and national security notices, and amend existing regulations in relation to notice processes with regards to membership of the Technical Advisory Board.

These regulations, and the codes of practice, have been informed by a public consultation which closed on 6 January 2025. The consultation responses included various suggestions for amendments to the draft codes of practice and regulations. We have made several changes as a result, including stylistic changes, further clarity on processes, and changes to the Technical Advisory Board’s membership requirement. A copy of the Government’s response to the consultation has been published on www.gov.uk.



These regulations are a crucial step in implementing the 2024 Act, which will ensure that the UK’s investigatory powers framework continues to protect our national security and to prevent, investigate, disrupt, and prosecute the most serious crimes. The Government have published an explanatory memorandum alongside the regulations.

[HCWS567]

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The taskforce is driving forward work to ensure that the UK’s democracy is strengthened and protected. This includes work to tackle the unacceptable harassment and intimidation of elected representatives. I have recently provided detailed evidence on the taskforce’s progress to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, and I will give evidence to Mr Speaker at a Speaker’s Conference evidence session on Wednesday.

[Steve Race]

People in Exeter want to be sure that the elections and referenda we hold are safe and secure from outside state actors who want to manipulate our politics for their own ends. We already know that Russian disinformation on social media in many African nations is already having a huge impact on their domestic politics. Can the Minister confirm that the taskforce will be taking into account our own Russia report and that this Government will do everything they can to defend our politics from the malign activities of external state actors?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is and always will be a priority to protect the UK against foreign interference. The Government are absolutely committed to safeguarding the UK’s democratic processes and have established measures to protect it. While there is no room for complacency, Kremlin disinformation operations largely fail here in the UK, despite their best efforts. That is in part because of the discernment and judgment of the British public but also because of the actions of our intelligence services.

[John Slinger]

I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that aside from the security measures that are sadly increasingly necessary to protect candidates and elected representatives, it is vital that everyone who believes in the importance of defending our democracy plays their part in doing so, and that this must include Parliament, social media companies, the traditional media, the education system, businesses, charities and civil society organisations? That way, we can collectively create a healthier and safer environment within which our democracy can flourish.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the defence of our democracy is something that every sector of our society, business and the media need to play their part in. I assure him that defending our democratic processes is an absolute priority for the Government, and that there is work across Departments to understand the nature and scale of harassment and intimidation of candidates and campaigners. I assure hon. Members across the House that the joint election security and preparedness unit will continue to co-ordinate cross-Government work on all threats, including candidate security.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution recently spoke at an iftar hosted by the European Islamic Centre, which is connected to Jamaat-e-Islami and Abul A’la al-Maududi, the Minister for Social Security and Disability attended the Muslim Council of Britain’s annual dinner, and the Prime Minister hosted Adam Kelwick, an imam who celebrated the 7 October attacks and told followers to “pray for victory” for Hamas. Why are the Government so keen to spend time with and lend legitimacy to organisations and people they say they oppose? What will the Minister say to the Prime Minister?

[Dan Jarvis]

We are not, and I do not agree with the proposition that the hon. Member has made. All Ministers —of course, including the Prime Minister—take these matters incredibly seriously, and we always engage in the most responsible way.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When the defending democracy taskforce was established, it was proclaimed that its primary focus was to protect the democratic integrity of the United Kingdom. What work, therefore, has it done on the fact that there is a part of this United Kingdom—namely, Northern Ireland—where the democratic integrity of the United Kingdom has been upended by the fact that, in 300 areas of law, our laws are made not by this Parliament and not by the Stormont Assembly, but by a foreign Parliament: the European Union? What work has been done to restore democratic integrity to the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland?

[Dan Jarvis]

I give the hon. and learned Member an absolute assurance that we work closely with all the devolved Governments on this matter. In fact, I was in Northern Ireland just recently to discuss this with the Justice Minister. The work that we are conducting as part of the taskforce is cross-party and designed to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to prevent interference in our democratic processes. We take the matter seriously, and we will work with others on it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was unable to get a meaningful answer, but with Islamist extremism behind three quarters of MI5’s caseload, it is essential to shield our democracy from its pressure. The Minister has repeatedly reiterated the Government’s non-engagement policy with the Muslim Council of Britain, despite a Government Minister attending its annual dinner. More recently, there have been concerns about attendees at Government events who have publicly expressed some frightening views. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government remain committed to a non-engagement policy with those who seek to promote extreme views that undermine our democracy? Where Government Ministers go against that, how does the defending democracy taskforce respond?

[Dan Jarvis]

I assure the shadow Minister that our policy on engagement has not changed. I have responded on this matter on a number of occasions. What I can say to him, addressing the substance of the issue, is that we will tackle extremism wherever we find it. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. We will never allow them to be used as a political football. We will address these matters and tackle them head-on.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to tackle shoplifting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to tackle mobile phone theft.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Street theft increased by more than 40% in the last year of the previous Government, largely due to soaring rates of snatch theft involving mobile phones. There is clear evidence of organised criminality in those crimes—this is not just about petty criminals and opportunists. That is why the Home Secretary recently convened a mobile phone theft summit with tech companies, policing leaders and the National Crime Agency, and why our Crime and Policing Bill includes a new power enabling police to enter premises identified by electronic mapping if stolen items are believed to be there.

[Kevin Bonavia]

Mobile phone theft is a widespread concern in my constituency. Between 2019 and 2024, the spate of mobile phone thefts has risen by 22.3%. Can my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that this Government will take all steps to ensure their safety?

[Dan Jarvis]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Our recent mobile phone theft summit resulted in clear commitments from attendees to work in collaboration to tackle mobile phone theft and the organised criminality driving it. That is also why our Crime and Policing Bill will give police the power, where it is not practical to wait for a warrant, to enter and search premises where stolen mobile phones are believed to be.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The rising number of mobile phone thefts has caused great concern among many of my constituents. By the way, I am not technically minded—I know very little about how my mobile phone works—but many people have everything on their phones: their bank details are on that phone; their life is on that phone. If their phone is stolen, they are in big trouble. How will we restore confidence in the general public on mobile phones and having all our details on them?

[Dan Jarvis]

I think it is worth reflecting on the impressive results we have seen in recent months from the Metropolitan police in their work to intensify action on mobile phone theft. The hon. Gentleman is right: this is an important subject and we need to see that kind of activity around the country, including in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

T7. This month, we marked eight years since the Westminster bridge attack, a cowardly assault on our parliamentary democracy that killed five people, including the late PC Keith Palmer, and injured almost 50 others. As the survivors seek to rebuild their lives, what measures is the Department putting in place to support the survivors and honour the victims of terrorist attacks?

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The victims and survivors of terrorism need and deserve the highest levels of support to recover and rebuild their lives. The Government will set up a new, dedicated support hub for victims and survivors, supporting their needs in the immediate and long-term aftermath of a terrorist attack. Proposals for a new national day for victims and survivors of terrorism will also be consulted on, helping the country to remember and honour those who have been tragically killed or impacted by terrorist attacks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T6.  Yesterday, Mail Online reported on the leaking of a report from the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the Leicester riots of 2022. The report blamed Hindu extremism; however, during the riots, 105 Hindu homes were attacked, but no Muslim homes, and two Hindu temples were attacked, but no mosques. Will the Minister ensure that the report is published, so that we can scrutinise it and ensure that the blame is put where it should be?

[Dan Jarvis]

We take these matters very seriously. I will look carefully at the details of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I am happy to discuss it with him further.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

There has been a recent slew of successful European sting operations that have resulted in the arrest of prominent individuals involved in people-smuggling gangs. Does the Minister agree that this highlights the crucial importance of international co-operation, and signals that Labour’s plan to smash the gangs is working?

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 13.

[Dan Jarvis]

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill—Martyn’s law—has returned to this House in good shape. Only a small number of amendments were made in the other place, with all but one made by the Government, all of which we shall consider this evening.

The Government have been particularly grateful for the collaborative approach to scrutinising the Bill across both Houses, and I hope that this will continue this evening, as we take the final steps to passing this important piece of legislation.

I shall begin by speaking to Lords amendments 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 13. These amendments, brought by the Government in the other place, make minor and technical changes to further clarify the conditions for qualifying premises and qualifying events. Specifically, these amendments clarify the intention that premises and events are not in scope where attendance is in a personal or private capacity—for example, a wedding attended by relations and friends, or an office party attended by employees and customers. These are private events, not publicly accessible, and the amendments make it even clearer that they should be out of scope. These amendments do not alter the intended policy or the scope of the Bill. They are technical changes to provide further clarity on who will be within scope of this legislation.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 5, which was tabled by Baroness Suttie on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This amendment places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult as appropriate before publication of the guidance under clause 27. As my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint made clear in the other place, the Government are happy to accept this amendment. We are acutely aware of the importance of the guidance that will accompany this Bill and it is vital that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have both the time and the information needed to ensure that they can plan, prepare for, and, ultimately, implement the requirements. It is also essential that the guidance is informed by proper consideration and engagement. This had always been the Government’s intention and we are content to enshrine the principle of appropriate consultation in statute by virtue of this amendment.

I turn finally to Lords amendments 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, which were brought by the Government in light of the clear cross-party support to further strengthen the safeguards on the use of certain Henry VIII powers in the Bill

Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 9 consolidate into clause 32 the powers previously found in clauses 5 and 6, which allow the Secretary of State to add, omit or amend the description of public protection procedures or measures.

Amendments 7 and 8 place conditions on these powers that the Secretary of State must satisfy. These conditions are also added to the powers in clause 32 that enable the Secretary of State to alter the qualifying thresholds for standard duty premises, enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. These conditions limit the use of the powers to lower the thresholds—or to add new procedures or measures—to where the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for public protection.

Conversely, the thresholds can be raised—or procedures or measures omitted or amended—only if the Secretary of State considers that their retention is not necessary for public protection. Additionally, Lords amendment 8 will require the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before exercising any of the powers specified in clause 32, including those I have just described.

The Government consider that this approach provides an extra level of assurance if future Secretaries of State are considering using these powers. It strikes the right balance between ensuring the Bill can be kept up to date, while providing in the Bill an important set of further safeguards to ensure that these powers, if used, are used appropriately and with proper consideration.

I am grateful to those in the other place for their considered scrutiny of these measures and for continuing the collaborative approach that has flowed through the passage of the Bill. I particularly want to thank Lord Anderson of Ipswich for his constructive challenge, and I am pleased that he felt able to add his name to the Government amendments. I am sure this House agrees that the amendments provide further safeguards and ensure that if and when the powers are used, they are used appropriately and with sufficient consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Those questions may not fall within the scope of the debate. With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), for the constructive way in which she has approached the debate. I assure her that the Government completely understand that we need to strike a balance, and I hope that she will acknowledge that we have been at pains to consult extensively and work across the House. I am happy to discuss these matters with her further.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) not just for his contribution this evening but for his support of his very special constituent. I am also grateful to the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and join her in thanking Baroness Suttie for the important contribution she made in the other place.

I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contributions in terms of both quantity and quality. In fact, I was thinking about him just the other day because I had the privilege of visiting his part of the world, which is a part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that I hold in the highest regard. I hold him in that high regard as well. He raised some important points, and I am grateful to him for saying that he would be happy for me to write to him about them. To ensure that we address them properly, I will do so. I guarantee that he will get a very good response.

The Bill was a manifesto commitment, and I am proud to say that the Government have delivered it, and done so early in the Session. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events, and the cross-party approach to passing the Bill and getting it right will demonstrate to the public that nothing matters more than security; it is the foundation on which everything else rests. I very much hope that this will continue and that the House will support the amendments.

I take the opportunity again to thank all of those who have aided in the passage of the Bill. I also take the opportunity to thank Lord Hanson of Flint, my colleague in the other place, whose long experience and sound judgment have been much appreciated. I also thank the excellent team at the Home Office. I am grateful for all their hard work, support and dedication. They have been particularly impressive throughout the Bill’s passage—they have always gone above and beyond—and I am grateful for their service.

I want to restate the Government’s thanks to the intelligence agencies and all those who serve in law enforcement who work tirelessly around the clock to keep us safe. This is the most vital work, which they do every day, and we as a country owe them a debt of gratitude.

Finally, there is someone, above all, who we must pay tribute to and that is Figen Murray. Her campaign has been nothing short of extraordinary. To have lost her son, Martyn Hett, in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017 and to have yet still found the strength to drive the campaign forward is both inspiring and phenomenal. I know that all Members right across the House will join me in paying tribute to Figen. She previously said,

“It’s time to get this done.”

I am very proud to say that this Government have done just that.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 13 agreed to.

Deferred divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Jonathan Reynolds relating to Terms and Conditions of Employment. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences: Part 1 Report

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I am pleased to inform the House that the Home Office has today published Jonathan Fisher KC’s independent review of disclosure report, “Disclosure in the Digital Age”.

The review’s findings highlight the significant challenges caused by the exponential growth of digital material in criminal investigations, particularly in serious and complex cases. This has placed significant burdens on law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and criminal courts. The growing scale of the problem now impedes the ability of the Crown to swiftly bring criminals to justice.

In response, Jonathan Fisher KC has made 45 recommendations which mirror the disclosure regime’s impact on the full breadth of the criminal justice system. As published today, his key overarching recommendations for reform are:

to modernise existing legislation and reduce administrative burdens by utilising advanced technology.

to improve criminal court processes with consideration for an entirely new intensive disclosure regime court pathway, designed for the most complex criminal cases.

to enhance disclosure quality by designing a new national learning standard across all law enforcement agencies.

I thank Jonathan Fisher KC for his work in providing us with such a comprehensive review. The Government will now carefully consider all recommendations made in the report and will work at pace to provide a Government response later this year.

I am confident that we can work together to design a modern disclosure regime that can keep pace with the rising level of digital material, facilitate swifter justice for both victims and defendants and continue to build public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The report has been laid before parliament today (CP 1285) and it will also be available on https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/independent-review-of-disclosure-and-fraud-offences

[HCWS538]

Support for Victims and Survivors of Terrorism

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The impact of terrorism on individuals and their families is long lasting and evolving. In a single moment, their worlds are turned upside down and lives are changed forever. We hold in our thoughts everyone tragically lost, bereaved, and injured, physically and mentally, by terrorist attacks, both at home and abroad.

It is essential that each and every one of these individuals receives timely and compassionate support to help them recover from the impacts of an attack.

The Home Office has carried out a comprehensive review of the support needs of victims and survivors of terrorism, to identify ways to better address the needs of victims and survivors. The Government pay tribute and give thanks to each and every victim and survivor who contributed to the review and to those who continue to raise awareness of the lived experiences of victims and survivors, and to campaign for better support.

Today we have published the review’s findings, which fundamentally signal that more needs to be done to better support victims and survivors of terrorism.

The review identified that victims and survivors need consistent and co-ordinated support, with streamlined communications to enable clarity on what support they are eligible for, how to apply, and where to receive help in applying. The review also found that acknowledgement of victims’ and survivors’ lived experiences is crucial to their individual recoveries.

Today the Government have affirmed this commitment by announcing plans to implement a dedicated support hub to deliver timely and compassionate support to victims and survivors nationally. The Government have also launched a consultation on a national day for victims and survivors of terrorism to better recognise those impacted by terrorist attacks.

Next Steps

Today we have announced that we will deliver a dedicated support hub for victims and survivors of terrorism. The support hub will better support victims by streamlining communications through a single point of contact and will provide specialist support addressing their diverse needs in the immediate and long-term aftermath of an attack. We are aiming for the support hub to be available to victims and survivors from next year.

There is currently no single focal point to allow the nation to come together in reflection and remembrance of those sadly lost and impacted by terrorism. It is only right that we consider the ways the Government could appropriately acknowledge their experiences.

In recognition of this, today the Government have also launched a public consultation on a national day for victims and survivors of terrorism. The consultation seeks specific feedback on the proposal for a national day, together with exploring other forms of recognition for victims and survivors. It also seeks respondents’ input on key aspects of a national day, including their views on a potential name, date, the ways it could be commemorated, and any consequences that may arise. We welcome responses from those impacted by terrorism including, victims, survivors, their loved ones and those that support them.

The consultation has launched today for a period of 12 weeks. It is available on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk and is open to members of the public.

We understand the outcomes of the review have been long-awaited. It is important to this Government that we are transparent about the unique challenges victims and survivors experience. Today we have also published a summary of the review and its key recommendations. The review summary is available on the www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk website and accessible to all members of the public.

These reforms are an important first step towards better support and recognition for victims and survivors of terrorism. I personally pay tribute to their courage and resilience, and I pledge my commitment to ensuring they receive the support they deserve.

A copy of the consultation—and related privacy information notice—and the review summary will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS533]

Terrorism Legislation: Codes of Practice

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Today the Government are launching a consultation on our revised codes of practice to schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT) and schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 (CTBSA). These powers are key components of the UK’s national security infrastructure, providing examining officers—accredited constables and immigration and customs officers—with the power to stop, question and, when necessary, search and detain individuals who pass through the UK’s borders, for the purpose of determining, under schedule 7, whether that person is, or has been, involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and, under schedule 3, to determine if they are engaged in hostile activity. These powers are non-suspicion—officers may stop and question a person whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that the person is or has been concerned in terrorism or hostile state activity.

The codes of practice set out the processes and safeguards governing the exercise of schedule 7 and schedule 3 powers by examining officers. They provide detail on how the power should be used, including examples where relevant, and are intended to ensure the highest standards of professionalism and compliance with these important powers.

The Government are proposing several changes to the codes of practice to clarify use of the powers, clarify the rights and protections of individuals subject to the powers, and impose additional modest safeguards. These include responses to recommendations made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

The consultation will run for six weeks, until 27 April 2025. The Government will publish their response thereafter, and will then amend the codes through secondary legislation at the next available opportunity. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS526]

Terrorism Legislation Review

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I would like to update the House on the report commissioned by the Home Secretary and published today by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation into law in the wake of the Southport attack.

The barbaric murder of three young girls in Southport last Summer is a scarring moment in our history. We think of those little girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar, whose lives were devastatingly cut short. We think of their families’ agony. And we think of those who survived the attack but live with physical and emotional scars.

In January, the perpetrator was sentenced to 52 years in prison for his horrifying crimes. It is highly likely he will never be released.

As the Prime Minister said, the responsibility for this barbaric act lies with the vile individual who carried it out, but that provides no comfort.

When the Home Secretary addressed the House on this matter in January, she set out the next steps the Government would take—including on establishing a public inquiry, on reforms to Prevent and on the legislative framework.

The inquiry will examine the issues raised in this case but also wider challenges around the rising levels of predominantly young men and boys fixated with extreme violence who may pose a risk to society. We are moving swiftly to set up the inquiry. It is expected to begin within weeks, once we have completed the important consultation with the families and victims. We intend to announce further details by the end of this month.

Within the wider Prevent system, we are learning lessons to get ahead of this changing threat, and to ensure we have the early intervention capabilities we need to keep the public safe. The Home Secretary has previously announced new measures to strengthen Prevent decision making.

Since then, we have extended channel multi-agency support to new cohorts, launched new pilots to ensure those below Prevent thresholds get the support they need, and appointed an interim Prevent Commissioner to bring robust independent oversight.

The appalling attack in Southport terrorised an entire community. The police and CPS determined that it was not an act of terrorism under the legal definition of terrorism set out in the Terrorism Act 2000, because there is no evidence that the perpetrator’s purpose was to advance a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. The court accepted that conclusion.

However, we should be in no doubt about its seriousness. The judge described the attack as

“equivalent in its seriousness to terrorist murders”.

And as the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have set out, this case comes against a backdrop of growing numbers of cases of violence-fixated individuals and young people being drawn into extreme violence and radicalisation.

The Met Commissioner has warned of

“young men who are fixated on violence... grazing across extremist and terrorist content”,

while Five Eyes counter-terror partners have also warned about growing radicalisation of minors.

The most significant terror threat remains from Islamist extremism, followed by extreme right-wing activity, and we must be continually vigilant against these ideological threats.

But we also need to ensure that the legal framework is strong enough to respond to extreme violence where ideology is not apparent or is less clear.

In the light of this serious and growing problem, the Home Secretary announced to Parliament in January that she had asked the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to examine the legal framework around terrorism and the powers available to tackle this kind of extreme violent attack. The reviewer has published that report today.

First, we are grateful to the independent reviewer for his thorough analysis of the terrorism framework in response to this horrific attack and his important conclusion, which the Government accept, that the law does need to change to respond to the rise in extreme violence in cases where ideology is unclear or cannot be proven.

Jonathan Hall KC concludes that the legal definition of terrorism is already wide and should not be changed any further. The Government accept his conclusion.

However, the independent reviewer considers there is a gap in the wider criminal law. The Prime Minister has been clear that if the law needs to change to recognise this new and dangerous threat, then we will change it—and quickly.

The reviewer notes there is no offence currently for possession of an article in private with intent to carry out a mass casualty attack, or other offence of extreme violence.

We are grateful for his consideration of this point and his conclusion that this point is already being addressed by a new measure, currently before Parliament in the Crime and Policing Bill. This will make it an offence to possess a bladed article with intent to cause unlawful violence and applies whether the possession is in public or private.

The reviewer also concludes that within existing criminal law

“there is a real and not theoretical gap for lone individuals who plan mass killings”.

On that basis, he recommends that the Government consider creating a new offence where an individual intends to kill two or more persons and prepares for such an attack. We accept and strongly support this recommendation. I can confirm we will fix the legislation to close the gaps identified.

Finally, the independent reviewer draws attention to the challenges of communicating transparently and effectively following an act of extreme violence in the digital age.

It is a cornerstone of our democracy and our tradition of trial by jury that trials are fair, and justice is served. For that reason there have long been restrictions on what can be said before and during a trial.

However, the tragic events in Southport in July last year showed how social media is putting those long-established rules under strain, especially where partial or inaccurate information appears online.

That is why the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General have asked the Law Commission to expedite elements of their ongoing review into contempt of court, and why counter-terrorism policing are also already considering what information can be released in the aftermath of major incidents.

The Government have been clear that we wish to maximise transparency and ensure that public authorities are able to take into account the wider risks to public safety to counter misinformation and disinformation. We are grateful to the Law Commission for agreeing to accelerate their consideration of this important issue and will carefully consider their findings when they are published later this year.

I would like to reiterate our thanks again to the independent reviewer for his comprehensive report and contribution to our efforts to fully learn the lessons of this terrible case. As the Home Secretary has already set out, today’s report is an important step in the search for answers, and to tackle horrific acts driven by a fixation on extreme violence.

[HCWS521]

Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for introducing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He framed it at the outset in a very sensible and reasonable way, and the whole House will be grateful to him for contribution he has made.

Eagle-eyed Members will have noticed that I am not the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, who is away on ministerial duty. Given that our national security is underpinned by our border security, I am pleased to be here this evening to reply on behalf of the Government.

A range of topics have been discussed and a broad range of views have been put forward, and I will come on to some of the areas highlighted during the debate shortly. Before I do, let me take the opportunity to summarise the Government’s position on these matters. Starting with legal migration, both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been crystal clear that levels are too high and must come down. Net migration rose to a record high of more than 900,000 in the year ending June 2023. According to the latest figures, estimated net migration was 728,000 in the year ending June 2024.

Any debate about this issue needs to recognise the position that this Government inherited when they took office. Net migration has spiralled out of control in recent years, driven largely by overseas recruitment. We are determined to bring numbers down through continued implementation of tough restrictions on visas, particularly in relation to family members and dependants, and through measures such as increasing the general salary threshold for skilled worker visas.

More broadly, we are focusing on delivering much greater alignment between the immigration and employment systems. We need a stronger, more effective skills and training offer in the UK so that vacancies can be filled from the domestic workforce rather than by overseas recruitment. The independent Migration Advisory Committee has been commissioned to review key sectors, and we will set out our long-term plan in an upcoming White Paper.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) raised an interesting point at the beginning of the debate about economic value and family migrants. We want to ensure that family immigration rules allow immediate family members to join British or settled relatives in the UK where they can be financially supported and integrate into society. That needs to be balanced with properly managed and controlled migration. Therefore, the Migration Advisory Committee has been commissioned to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules to ensure that we have a robust basis for change.

Turning to illegal migration, it is important to recognise the situation we inherited. In 2018, only a few hundred people arrived in the UK by small boat. By the time this Government took office, the number was running at tens of thousands a year. Over that period, an entire criminal industry built up around our borders and beyond. The dire consequences of that dreadful trade are familiar to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Having gained the upper hand, ruthless smuggling gangs saw the United Kingdom as an easy target. Our border security was relentlessly and repeatedly undermined. Lives were tragically lost in the channel and elsewhere, and public confidence in the immigration and asylum systems collapsed. That cannot go on. Since the general election, we have been working at pace to stop the chaos and to return order to the system.

Hon. Members will no doubt be relieved to hear that, in the interests of time, I will refrain from giving an exhaustive account of our approach. However, among other actions, we have established the Border Security Command to mobilise various operational agencies against the criminal gangs, in an effort backed by £150 million of funding; significantly deepened Britain’s co-operation with key partners including France, Germany, Italy and Iraq; ramped up illegal working visits and removals of those with no right to be in the UK; and begun work to clear the asylum backlog. There is much more to do on that, which is why we have made secure borders the foundation of our plan for change and brought forward the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to strengthen the UK’s border security and bring in new counter-terror-style powers to dismantle the smuggling gangs.

I will turn to the substance of today’s discussion and the petition that prompted this debate. I will directly address the suggestion that all immigration should be suspended for five years. The UK has a long history of helping those fleeing conflict, tyranny and persecution. That generosity and compassion is part of our national identity. But let me be absolutely clear: our borders need to be secure and the rules will be enforced. As we have seen over recent years, when that does not happen, the consequences are severe.

Equally, legal migration has benefited our country in all sorts of ways. For generations, people have come here from around the world to work and contribute to our society. It is in all our interests for the UK to be able to access the best talent from around the world, and this Government value and recognise the role that legal migration can play in supporting many sectors of our economy and our essential public services. The issues arise when the numbers become unsustainable and the system lacks order and control. Therefore, I would respectfully make the point to the petitioners that the answer to these challenges lies not in the closure of borders or the suspension of immigration, but in making sure that our approach is fair, effective and firmly in the national interest.

Let me turn to the specific issues raised during the debate. We heard a very interesting speech from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings made a very interesting speech. He quoted CS Lewis—twice, I think—in the context of the failure of successive Governments. He is right about that, which is why this Government take these matters so seriously. He helpfully took us through the numbers and illustrated very clearly the scale of the challenge. He also made some very good points about training and skills.

The right hon. Member also mentioned a trip to Clapham—something that appeared to appeal to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). I should perhaps gently remind them both that trips to that particular location—including, of course, the common —have not always served Members of this House particularly well. [Laughter.] However, I will leave it to their judgment as to whether they select an alternative location.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) made an important point about the NHS relying on 160,000 workers who have come here from overseas. However, he also firmly made the point about recognising the need to bring migration down to manageable levels. He spoke about secure borders being essential, which is why this Government are working to ensure that our border is secure, including, of course, through new legislation.

The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) was commendably clear in her views but, with great respect, I am afraid to say that I did not agree with many of her conclusions. However, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield framed the debate in terms of having a balanced range of views, I thought she made a valuable contribution. She challenged the Government to respond in a balanced and fair way, and I will leave it to her to judge whether she thinks that that is the case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made his first speech in Westminster Hall, and I congratulate him on it. It gives me the opportunity to reflect on comments that were made in this place by a west midlands counterpart of his, Lord Spellar, who memorably said that if you want to keep a secret, tell it in Westminster Hall. We will see whether that proves to be the case, but my hon. Friend did make a number of important points, not least about linking immigration policies with skills, training and education policies. He is right about that, and I can assure him that that is the approach that this Government will always seek to take.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness made a thoughtful and constructive contribution. He spoke about the importance of having a plan, which is an entirely fair challenge. I think he would agree with me that there was not one previously, but I hope that he will be patient and that, in time, he will see that this Government do have a plan, that we recognise both the challenges and opportunities that come from a managed migration policy, and that we will always approach these matters with the seriousness they deserve.

The hon. Member suggested—perhaps a little unfairly—that our strategy was to smash the gangs and pray that that works. I can assure him that that is not our approach. The Government are prioritising important work to tackle organised immigration crime and reduce irregular migration to the UK, by adopting a new approach that considers the end-to-end process of organised immigration crime, targeting each stake to make facilitation unviable and to disrupt the activity of the organised criminal gangs.

That new approach to tackling organised immigration crime draws on the success of our world-leading counter-terrorism system and will prevent, by disincentivising migrants and deterring organised criminal gangs from participating in organised immigration crime; pursue, by disrupting organised criminal gangs and their criminal activity; protect, by detecting and acting on organised immigration crime at the border; and prepare, by managing, learning from and adapting the UK’s response to tackling organised immigration crime. As he knows, none of that is easy, but rather than employing gimmicks such as those we saw previously, we are working properly and at pace to address the issues he raised.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) spoke interestingly about his Polish heritage, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging the scale of the challenge. I agree with his point about the importance of good, functioning public services, and the example of the UK Space Agency as an employer was very interesting. The Government will always remain happy to debate these matters with him further.

It is good to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), in her place. I agreed with her when she said we should respond not with platitudes but with real change. She was right to speak about having a sustainable immigration system that is fair and sensible, and I hope we can continue to debate these matters in the way we have done today. Before she sat down, she asked me a number of questions about ILR. She will perhaps understand why I will ask the Minister for Migration and Citizenship to write to her with the answers she requested; I hope that that will be satisfactory.

I again thank the hon. Member for Lichfield for introducing this constructive and thought-provoking debate, and all Members who contributed to it. As I have set out, the Government are getting on with the job of securing our borders and reducing net migration. In both areas, what matters most is that we restore order and control. For too long, those essential ingredients have been missing from our systems, but we are determined to put that right because the people of our country deserve nothing less.