National Security

Debate between Fred Thomas and Dan Jarvis

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member and he is right: I believe that this is a shared endeavour across the House and across our country. I was pleased to discuss these matters recently with the First Minister, and I have received positive correspondence from him. I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not respond to him now on the precise point about Barnett consequentials, but I will write to him.

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

I join colleagues across the House in strongly condemning the ongoing campaign of attacks and intimidation against our British communities, and I thank the Minister for his leadership on those and other security matters. He said that he has initiated a review of the national threat level system, which currently captures only the threat from terrorism. Can he expand on that? Does he mean that, following review, it will now capture the threat from state-based actors and other countries? Can he do that in the light of the fact that one key theme of last year’s strategic defence review was that we need an open, national conversation that is not behind closed doors, in the light of both ongoing delays to the defence investment plan and many colleagues across the House needing to understand better the threat that this country is under, and some of the funding decisions that we need to make to keep our citizens safe?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. and gallant Friend has asked an astute question. He obviously heard my reference to the initiation of an internal piece of work, and a review of the national terrorism threat level. In truth, that has long been on my mind, and I want to satisfy myself that current arrangements are fit for purpose. Those current arrangements have served our country fairly well for a number of years, but I feel as if they have now been overtaken by events. It is therefore appropriate to look carefully at the way the threat level is not only calibrated, but communicated, and I want a system that makes some sense to the public. We will look carefully at that.

I will consider the recommendations over the coming months, and I am obviously happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend and other Members. He made a further important point about the strategic defence review and the need to have an ongoing conversation with the public, and he is right to remind us of that. I discuss such matters not only with colleagues across Government, but also with our European partners who, it is not unreasonable to say, have taken a somewhat more forward-leaning approach than UK Governments going back a number of years. We must ensure that the public understand the nature of the threats we face, and do so in a way that ensures they are alert but not alarmed.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Debate between Fred Thomas and Dan Jarvis

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for the points he has raised. Let me take them in turn. I lead on behalf of the Government on vetting, and a lot of work has taken place in government since we came into office to ensure that the systems and processes that underpin our vetting are fit for purpose. The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about it. Although it might seem like a reasonably niche point, it is an important one because our national security is underpinned by our ability to vet those who have access to privileged information. He, for reasons that I completely understand, made reference to a link between the work that we are doing in government and the importance of ensuring that the appropriate vetting procedures are in place for this House. I know he will understand that, fundamentally, that will be a matter for the Speaker and for this House, but I can give him an absolute assurance that we will work closely with Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and all those in this place to ensure that we look carefully at what happened and satisfy ourselves that the vetting arrangements are absolutely fit for purpose.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point related specifically to two Members of this House. I do not believe that either of those two Members are in their place today. I am keen to meet them and work closely with them, and to ensure that the Government are providing the support that they may want or require. I am happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman and to those Members about the point that he has made.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s final point, which was specifically about China, I hope he will acknowledge that the Government have been crystal clear about our position with regard to China—[Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members may chuckle, but we have had this debate previously. If there are Members who think that the nature of our relationship with China can be defined by a single word, then I do not believe that they are serious about the nature of the relationship. All Members in this House have an absolute responsibility to decide for themselves what meetings they take. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that it is for Ministers to opine from the Dispatch Box about whether individual Members should take meetings or not.

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

Personally, I am very clear that China remains an active, persistent and everyday threat to our country and has done so for many years. In the light of this, what steps is the Minister taking on behalf of the Government to ensure that parliamentarians across this House are much better protected in the years to come from the kind of foreign interference that we saw—regularly, unfortunately—on the last Government’s watch?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not only for his question but for his previous service and for the work of his constituents with regard to underpinning our national security. He makes an important point. He will know—as will you, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the National Protective Security Authority recently published guidance designed specifically to provide hon. Members with advice and guidance to ensure that they are best able to deal with the risks and threats that all of us in this House face.

On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, that is something that the Government take incredibly seriously. We inherited the defending democracy taskforce from the previous Government. That was a good institution, and I have on many occasions paid tribute to all those Conservatives Members who were involved in setting it up. The Prime Minister has renewed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce. It is the fulcrum point across Government that brings the different Departments and law enforcement together, alongside Members of this House, to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to address and tackle the threats that we face. I have always believed and maintained that that should be a shared endeavour right across this House, and my door will always be open to Members of the House who would like to discuss it.

Southport Attack

Debate between Fred Thomas and Dan Jarvis

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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