National Security

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I have 60 minutes to make 60 points—no, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak very briefly, as I feel I have already taken enough of the House’s time on this issue.

I commend the Government for bringing forward the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 and for designating the IRGC almost as soon as it received Royal Assent. I gently say to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers)—who said many things that I agreed with—that while he talks about the length of time it has taken, it was a delivered by a Labour Government, despite all the time that the Conservatives had in office. But that is the only party political point I seek to make in this debate—

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

The hon. Member has 59 minutes left.

[Mark Sewards]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I am not going to take the offer.

The IRGC is a direct threat to the safety of the British-Jewish community. We have known that for a long time, and unfortunately the evidence has stacked up as the years have rolled on. We have seen Hatzola ambulances, which served the whole community, not just the Jewish community, set ablaze; we have seen synagogues and community centres firebombed; and we have seen Jewish people stabbed on the streets of Golders Green. It is past time that we designate the IRGC as the threat to this country that it is.

I am reminded—especially today of all days, after the Prime Minister’s final Question Time—that it was the Prime Minister who went to the Jewish community in April and made two promises: first, that the legislation would be brought forward in the King’s Speech and prioritised; and secondly, that he would use it to designate the IRGC. I am so pleased that today, after his final Prime Minister’s Question Time, he has fulfilled both promises.

I am eternally grateful for the work that the Prime Minister did to transform my party. I think back to 2019 and the worst defeat that we had suffered since 1935 and remember feeling that my party may never come back. But the Prime Minister turned it around, made us face the public, rid us of the poison of antisemitism and delivered the second-biggest majority of my party’s history.

As I make the short journey over to the parliamentary Labour party office to nominate my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), in the spirit of unifying behind out next leader, to succeed the Prime Minister—assuming this debate is done by 6 pm— I place on record my thanks to the person who delivered this historic Labour majority, and who is directly responsible for my job and the jobs of many of my colleagues. After all, serving as a Member of Parliament is the greatest privilege in the world, and I will always be grateful to the Prime Minister for that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Sewards, you have left many minutes on the clock for a change.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have supported the principle of the National Security (State Threats) Bill for some time. We know why it must pass, and why it must pass quickly. At present, our country is suffering from co-ordinated attacks from foreign states. Their actions subvert our democracy, intimidate the public and erode our values.

The number of state threat investigations by MI5 has surged by a staggering 48% in the last year alone. Those figures are a stark reminder of the scale of the threat we face. That is not an isolated spike; it is the frontline of an expanding and evolving threat that the United Kingdom faces from both foreign Governments and hostile foreign actors. Chief among them is the increasingly emboldened Iranian regime, which is aggressively asserting itself to undermine our national security.

Since the start of 2022, our security services have responded to 20 Iranian-backed plots, which present a direct and potentially lethal threat to British citizens and UK residents on our own soil. Let us be clear about who Iran is targeting: it is targeting dissidents, media organisations and journalists who have the bravery to report on that regime’s violent oppression. I have spoken to constituents who fled Iran and now live in Woking, and I know that they would support the Bill.

Critically, Iran is also targeting the Jewish community who live in our country. We cannot allow that to happen.

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

Hear, hear!

[Mr Forster]

I am pleased that, for once, we have cross-party consensus on an issue.

However, it has been more than a year since Jonathan Hall KC first recommended the powers contained in the Bill to tackle state-backed and state-linked threats. The Government and this Parliament have been too slow to listen to his concerns.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the legislation creates the power for state-backed entities to be designated under the National Security Act 2023. On Second Reading, my Liberal Democrat colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), raised strong concerns that the offences in the Bill might inadvertently capture the activities of humanitarian workers. Tackling state threats and protecting those who provide vital assistance and support to some of the planet’s most vulnerable people are not and should never be mutually exclusive. I therefore highly commend the amendments tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Northover, as well as by Lord Anderson, in the other place, which we are now considering. They will protect those who carry out humanitarian work, which, as colleagues have said, we never intended the Bill to capture. I am pleased and relieved that the Government are supporting the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

I am pleased that my colleagues in the other place drafted the amendments and that the Government support them. Earlier today, we were talking about the Immigration Act 1971. Parliament never intended to protect someone who had been stripped of his British citizenship and committed heinous crimes, but there is a risk that because the legislation was badly drafted in 1971, we cannot do what we all want to do now and deport him.

The intention of legislation is so important, and I am pleased that through the Lords amendments, we have managed to put some meat on the bones of the Government’s legislation to protect vital humanitarian workers. It is so important that we tackle state threats while also protecting those workers. I therefore highly commend the amendments tabled by my colleagues in the other place. I pay tribute in particular to Baroness Northover, whose work with the Government on these amendments deserves our praise. I also thank other colleagues in the other place for their work on the Bill.

Humanitarian workers often work in extremely challenging and unstable areas, and they need to know that the law has their back when they are putting their lives at risk. To provide essential aid, they have to work with a wide variety of local groups. Without the new legal protections, they could easily be penalised simply for doing their jobs. Sometimes, that involves landmine clearance or paying a fee to access a particular zone. We must ensure that our laws do not criminalise aid workers. My noble Friend Baroness Northover’s amendments—Lords amendments 1, 2, 4 and 6—provide a defence for those carrying out humanitarian activities. The amendments ensure that humanitarian organisations will not face significant additional barriers to delivering their invaluable work.

If the Bill passes today—and I hope it does—the Government need to work with urgency to introduce secondary legislation to finally designate the IRGC, as the Liberal Democrats and I have called for. As the summer recess looms, it is clear that such regulations must be made before the House rises on 16 July. Will Minister reassure me and the House that they will?

[Mark Sewards]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Sewards, normally when a Member is called last, they are under a time limit, but you now have more than an hour.

[Mark Sewards]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] The Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), is making a strange gesture at me, suggesting that perhaps I do not have 60 minutes in which to contribute. I can reassure her and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I intend to speak only very briefly.

When I contributed on Second Reading, during the consideration of amendments and on Third Reading, I was convinced by the Government’s argument that the Bill as drafted already contained an exemption that NGOs and humanitarian organisations could take advantage of. I therefore came to the House today keen to listen to the Minister explain the reasoning behind the Government accepting these amendments. I also wanted to hear the reasoning from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has contributed throughout the passage of the Bill and had thoughts on why that exemption was not enough. Having listened to the reasoning, I am convinced of the need to accept the amendments—they absolutely make sense—but I have some thoughts and follow-up questions for the Minister, which I will go through now.

Lords amendments 1 and 2 are about creating exemptions for humanitarian support, NGOs and the like. They directly affect the part of the Bill that is concerned with assisting designated threats. Assisting a designated state threat should bring with it grave consequences, but at the same time we should not do anything that risks legitimate NGOs stopping their engagement, their involvement and their important work in some of the most difficult regions in the world. It is clear that there needs to be space for them to operate—but, but, but. We know that nefarious state actors will seek to exploit any loophole or advantage to inflict harm on this country. Does the Minister think that amendments 1 and 2 are slightly too loose, or is she confident that designated state threats could not take advantage of the amendments to continue to carry out their actions through other bodies?

I have fewer concerns about Lords amendments 3 to 6. It is right that there should be an exemption for humanitarian bodies to share information with designated state threats when that information relates to, say, the clearance of a minefield. That makes sense and, of course, that exemption should exist.

One of the reasons I am so keen to accept the amendments and see the Bill receive Royal Assent is that it is absolutely essential that we designate the IRGC as the threat that it is to this country. I am under no illusions about Government policy—no announcement will be made at the Dispatch Box today, and rightly so—but I want to take this opportunity to spell out that the IRGC is a threat to the British Jewish community in the UK. If we do not take action to proscribe it now—or, in this case, designate it now—we are risking the safety of our fellow citizens. Let us accept these amendments, pass this Bill and protect our communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Minister to wind up. As I said, an hour and 15 minutes is yours.

Civil Service Pensions

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is right that that situation is totally unacceptable. People should not have to battle in that way at vulnerable moments in their life. He can be assured that we will look at every method to ensure that people get the level of service that they deserve.

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

Can I place on record my thanks to the pensions recovery taskforce that the Minister deployed? They have been working with my team in my constituency to resolve at least one of my constituents’ cases, so I am grateful for that. I am now being contacted by civil servants who are due to retire but are really worried that they will be swept up in this too. What reassurances can he give them?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is a good question. First, we will continue to prioritise operational delivery day to day, so people who are to retire in the very near future have that reassurance. Secondly, they can be assured that we are looking in the medium term at the best, most effective way to have a proper service level.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is just all talk. What did the Conservatives actually do? They cut defence, from 2.5% to 2.3%, in their 14 long years. And what did they do on welfare? They put the bill up by £88 billion, so we will take no lectures from them. They failed in the first duty of Government, and they will not defend their record, will they? Never do they stand here and defend their record, because they cannot—14 years of failure. They do not get up and apologise, which is what they should do, because they would have to admit what we all know—how much they failed—so they just sit there pretending it did not happen. Well, it did happen. You hollowed out the armed forces; we are correcting that now.

I will tell you what else. When we came into power, public services were on their knees. Today we have seen the fastest fall in NHS waiting lists for 17 years. When I became Prime Minister, we inherited a broken economy. Today we are outperforming the other G7 economies. When I became Prime Minister, our international alliances had been shredded. Now other countries are looking to us to lead on defence and security—foundations of a stronger and fairer country. Britain is in a better state than we found it. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

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

Q3.   Two of my constituents, Cody and Liam Townend, and another mum from Leeds, Zoe Ward, all lost babies in different tragic circumstances, but they all went to the same funeral director, who did not treat their babies’ bodies with the dignity, care or respect that they deserved. I will not repeat the shocking details here—the BBC, for its part, published what it could last year—but more shocking still is the fact that the police found nothing actionable in either case, because there is no regulation of the funeral industry. The individual in question is still operating in Leeds today. Given that the Department of Health and Social Care is due to make a decision about changing the law in this area, possibly before the Prime Minister leaves office, will he speak to Ministers and officials in that Department to ensure that when they consider the question of whether to regulate the funeral industry, their answer is yes?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case; he has been a committed campaigner on this issue. I have seen the details of that particular case, and he is right not to repeat them in this Chamber—they are horrifying. The lack of dignity and compassion is unacceptable, and I simply cannot imagine the pain that Cody, Liam and Zoe experienced and are still experiencing. The status quo here is not working for families, and people deserve to know that their loved ones are treated with dignity and compassion. We are going to consider this issue closely, and I thank him for raising it. I do want stronger standards and oversight. I think that is absolutely needed, particularly in the light of appalling cases like this.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I want to begin by restating that Liberal Democrats support this Bill. We have long called for action to tackle the threat posed by the IRGC, and we have repeatedly been disappointed by slow progress. The Bill represents a positive step, and a rare moment of agreement on a principle across this House. When it comes to important matters of national security, this is a desirable outcome.

The UK is increasingly targeted by hostile state-backed groups, and the IRGC has been involved in such activity, as we know. Attacks on Britain’s Jewish community in recent months have laid bare the clear and ongoing threat to that community, and also to UK national security. The uptick in antisemitism and the threats against our national security continue, regardless of the politics in this House, and we must bear that in mind when we act urgently to protect Jewish communities. That is why I urge Members across the House to support new clause 3 on the designation of the IRGC. This will provide, after long delays, much-needed certainty for the Jewish community and others that the Government will act at pace by bringing forward regulations within a month of this legislation passing.

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

The hon. Gentleman will know that I have called for the proscription of the IRGC numerous times in this House, and that it is something I absolutely want, but does he not accept that we have to pass this legislation, set the framework up and allow the Home Secretary to make an evidence-based decision before proscription is brought into effect? Should he not withdraw this new clause, and allow due process to take its course?

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The new clause will not be withdrawn. The sentiment is shared between us, and I think we should appreciate that.

New clause 3 reflects the Government’s stated intention to move by the summer recess, and it ensures that this commitment will be honoured in practice; that would give much reassurance to those watching from outside the House. Importantly, the new clause does not force the Home Secretary to designate the IRGC prematurely; it would have to do so only in line with the coming into force of the rest of the Bill. It does not override due process; nor does it lower the evidential threshold required under the legislation. It ensures that the intelligence gathering and preparatory work necessary for designation are treated as an urgent priority, rather than something that can be continually delayed. This urgency is long overdue.

Liberal Democrats will also support new clause 4, which provides for an independent post-legislative review within 12 months of this legislation passing. This is a crucial safeguard. The Bill introduces significant new powers, and it is essential that their effectiveness and proportionality are independently assessed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

The Bill asks how our country confronts the greatest threat it faces: states that behave like terrorists. We support the Bill, and have today set out its weaknesses—the places where, as drafted, it is found wanting. We tabled 13 amendments and new clauses, with not one designed to delay the Bill, not one designed to wreck it and, tonight, not one accepted—not a clause, not a line, not one additional defence for our country. There are two ways for a Government to show their contempt for the House: they may deny it time or deny it influence. They may rush this House or overrule it. This Government have chosen both.

[Mark Sewards]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that Jonathan Hall, whom Members on all sides of the House respect, backs the Bill as a narrow and focused measure to designate state threats?

[Alicia Kearns]

I am not sure that anyone has disputed that Jonathan Hall backs the Bill. I had a lengthy call with him to discuss the gaps in the Bill, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has not had. I will not share a private conversation, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman to have a similar call with Jonathan Hall to discuss those gaps.

We are here in this place to find the gaps while they can still be mended. That is the whole of our purpose, but we were not permitted to fulfil it today because scrutiny was declined. I have to admit that it feels like our suggestions were not even given due consideration. So I must tell the House what in the Bill now leaves this Chamber unaltered. The sponsor remains more gently treated in law than the proxies that it arms. The world’s largest sponsor of terrorism keeps a protection denied to its terrorist proxies.

The self-directed actor—the lone individual that our terrorism law learned to tackle, at great and terrible cost, two decades ago—will fall through a gap that we were forbidden to close. Britain may be used as a base from which to plot against our friends in Dublin, Berlin or Brussels, or even those in Hong Kong and Tehran.

The flag of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps may still be flown, lawfully, on a British street, glorifying every threat against our Jewish communities that the regime has directed here. [Interruption.] The Minister may say, “Not necessarily,” but she specifically ruled out our amendment on the basis that we should not prevent members of the Iranian diplomatic corps from wearing uniforms here. The Bill does not apply to members of the diplomatic corps; it applies specifically to UK persons. That is therefore still the case and there is no protection against seeing those flags walked past Jewish people’s homes. In Committee, I asked the Government how we look the people the regime has hunted in the eye and tell them that the banner of the hunter is still welcome on our streets. Tonight, I have no answer to offer them.

A law passed in good faith but built wrongly fails as surely as one that is passed in bad faith. When a prosecution comes, it will turn not on the speeches given today, the Government’s good intentions or our warnings, but on what a defendant did. When that day comes and there is a gap that was identified in this House today that could have been closed in an afternoon, let the record show that it could have been mended.

The Bill now passes to the other place, and I have every confidence that their lordships will give it the scrutiny it deserves. We will not oppose the Bill tonight. We will support it, not because it delivers the full protections it should, but because a flawed shield is still a shield of some form and the men and women that the Bill is designed to protect cannot be left with nothing. We support it, having placed on the record of this House what was refused and whose hand refused it. The threat we face is patient, it is ruthless and it will not be deterred by a law that we were too rushed to finish and that the Government were too proud to mend.

I have supported this Bill at every stage, and it is because of that that I lament what the Bill could have been and that the House was given a single afternoon to try to get it right. I hope this Bill is as watertight as the Government assert, but if they wish to be absolute and to remove risk or ambiguities, we ask those in the other place to shut down any risk that the shield this aims to be might let even one traitor succeed in harming our nation. I hope they will do that on the basis of the way we have put forward our amendments: in the national interest.

National Resilience

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Reed]

The hon. Member raises a serious points, which I will come on to, on interconnectedness. We saw how covid-19 affected so many different parts of society—it closed down industry and the economy. We have to start to think about these things cross-departmentally.

The Government’s definition of national resilience is a society’s ability to anticipate, withstand, respond to and quickly recover from severe crises, whether natural disasters, pandemics, geopolitical shocks or deliberate attacks. It rests on a whole-of- society approach in which Government, business and the public work together to protect critical national infrastructure and maintain vital services.

Last year’s strategic defence review made precisely that point. One of its central recommendations was a national conversation on defence and resilience built on that whole-of-society approach and premised on a simple idea: that defending the nation is no longer the job of the armed forces alone. A year on, however, I think it is fair to say that that conversation has barely begun.

One critical central challenge, both to having that conversation with the British public and, more importantly, to making the preparations to be resilient, is that living memory of needing to be resilient in this country is fading. I often speak to my father about this. He was born in 1942 in Plymouth during the blitz. His generation is the last with a direct lived experience of national insecurity on home soil. The contrast is stark. To the young people I speak to about the risks we face, the idea that we might have to defend our homeland, our democracy and our way of life, remains abstract—something that happens to other people in other places.

We are in a more vulnerable position still, however, because beyond the fading of that memory, resilience is no longer woven into our national story. In Taiwan or Finland, the people I speak to have a geographical proximity to the threat, which they feel in their bones: the Chinese dragon across the strait and the Russian bear across the border. Those threats are real and they are close, and that is precisely why those countries do resilience well: their people and their institutions understand in their core the need to be strong. A quotation that has stayed with me since my Royal Marines training puts that well:

“You cannot dream yourself into a strong character: you must hammer and forge yourself into one.”

As a country, we must wake from that dream, and it is incumbent on the Government to have the hard conversation with the public about how we fund our national resilience.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and making an excellent speech. Clearly, the UK faces malign threats from Russia, from China and especially from Iran, as recent examples have shown. I commend the Government for bringing forward the tackling state threats Bill—reportedly next Wednesday, but we will see the business statement tomorrow—that will allow us to deal with the threats, but the public do not necessarily know just how severe they are. Does he agree that, as well as dealing with the threats, we need to educate the public on just how threatening these state actors are and why we need to deal with them now?

[David Reed]

There must have been a leak, because I am going to come on to that paragraph straight away.

Beyond the issue of funding, the obvious question that flows from this is who in Government should take the lead in having that conversation with the public about the panoply of threats that we face. That leads to the central argument of this debate: is the British state structured to deal effectively with them? I accept that the machinery of government is a surefire way to send those in this Chamber to sleep, but it is central to the direction of travel we must take.

I was waiting with bated breath to see who the Government would send to respond to the debate this evening, because logic would dictate that the Minister responding should come from the Department that the Prime Minister has charged with leading the national conversation on resilience. Here lies the first problem. The Security Minister sits across both the Cabinet Office and the Home Office. His portfolio is broad, but it clearly does not cover anywhere near the full range of threats set out in the Government’s own definition of national resilience.

The Cabinet Office has a resilience directorate, which does important work co-ordinating civil contingency planning, crisis management and emergency response across national and local levels. I would not diminish the work that it does for a moment, but let us consider its design: a directorate for preparedness and a Cobra unit for crisis response. Risk and response. Notice what is missing. There is machinery to assess the threat and machinery to manage the emergency, but nowhere is anyone charged with turning to the public and saying, “Here is the threat we face, here is your part in it, and here is what is being done in your name.” The national conversation that we need therefore finds no natural home. It does not emanate from the directorates whose remit is risk and response; nor has the Ministry of Defence acted on the strategic defence review’s own call for a national conversation on defence and resilience.

The result is a system in which responsibility is spread so thinly that no single Minister owns the problem. The danger of that is not merely administrative tidiness but that when a crisis strikes, command and control will fracture at precisely the moment it must hold. For example, the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill—which hands the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology sweeping new powers to direct critical entities—illustrates the trend rather than reversing it. Individual Departments are accruing resilience powers of their own, with each cooking up policies to support their own patch. A whistle must be blown on this approach, because we risk spreading responsibility through legislation so thinly that no one truly understands where it lies.

When I speak to civil servants—all of whom want to see a stronger and safer country—I notice that the word “resilience” has itself become something of a buzzword, a phrase to attach to a business case to secure a bigger departmental budget. That is a sign of a system without a clear centre of gravity, not of one that is working. That led me to research in depth how our near neighbours have approached this problem—countries with national stories like our own and populations whose memories of insecurity have faded, just as ours have.

The clearest exemplar I found is Denmark. The Danes have grasped something that we have not yet acted upon: in an age of interconnected threats—where cyber-attacks become supply shocks become public-safety emergencies—danger no longer respects departmental boundaries. For decades they had run, as we still do, on a principle of sectoral responsibility—each Department minding risk in its own lane. They concluded that a system in which everyone is responsible is one in which, in practice, no one is.

In August 2024, the Danes acted, creating a dedicated ministry of resilience and preparedness, the first of its kind in the region, with a Cabinet Minister in charge. Within months, they established a resilience agency beneath it, drawing scattered functions into one organisation—one ministry, one Cabinet Minister, one clear line of accountability.

If truth be told, it is too early to say with certainty whether the model delivers the better outcomes that the Danes expect. The real test will come in the next crisis, not the last reorganisation. But the logic is sound because the alternative—broadly what we have—is a system where resilience is everyone’s second priority and nobody’s first. As someone who wants to see a smaller and sharper state, the answer is not a new layer of governance, but collapsing many duplicated ones into a single, accountable home. It is an idea that the Government should actively investigate.

I have also been struck by how our Danish and Dutch friends have begun to share the responsibility for resilience with their citizens, reinforcing civic duty in a far more deliberate way than we do here in the UK. Both have started speaking plainly to their people about preparedness and, strikingly, they tell them much the same thing: “Be ready to look after yourself for three days, or 72 hours.” The Dutch Government now tell every household to hold enough to manage for 72 hours in the event of war, a cyber-attack or a major disaster—things such as water, food, medication, a battery radio, some cash and key documents. They did not merely issue advice; they delivered a printed survival guide to every door and published it online in dozens of languages. Its message was carefully chosen, and the aim, Ministers said, is not to frighten people but to prepare them, because those who think through the first 72 hours of a crisis feel safer, not more fearful. The campaign’s slogan is simple: “Think Ahead”.

Denmark’s advice is almost identical, and the reasoning is the same: if ordinary people can get through the first three days, the authorities can concentrate on those who cannot. Denmark sent that guidance to every adult through its secure Government messaging system and placed 300,000 printed copies in libraries and public offices. It does not shy away from naming why, either. Its Defence Minister told Danes plainly that they and their allies face hybrid war and that each of us should prepare to be without power, water or shops for a short while. In both countries, the principle is the same: resilience is not something the state can simply hand to its people; it is a habit that the public must share in.

Antisemitic Attacks

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely reasonable point. Before I come to the substance of his question, I reiterate our commitment to ensuring that no state, regardless of who it is, is able to target people in this country, whether that is members of Jewish communities, as in this case, or Iranian dissidents. I can assure him that a huge amount of work is under way to ensure that cannot happen.

The hon. Gentleman made an entirely reasonable point about ensuring that the Metropolitan police have the resources they need to do a very difficult job at a point of challenge. As he would expect, I have been in regular contact with the police over the course of this weekend, and, as I mentioned earlier, I met with Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes this morning to discuss what further support we can provide. The hon. Gentleman’s question about assistance from other forces is interesting—clearly, that will be for the Met to determine. However, I can say to him that we will work very closely to ensure that the police have the resources they require.

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

Tonight, a “Panorama” documentary will air featuring members of the Jewish community talking about the existential fear that they feel in this country and about wanting to leave. I urge all hon. Members to watch it when they can.

We know that an IRGC-linked group has claimed responsibility for some of the recent firebombing attacks. I appreciate that the Minister does not want to comment on active police investigations, but whatever the facts of those cases, we can all agree—I am sure he does too—that the Iranian regime poses a threat to the British-Jewish community. Can he set out exactly when the Jonathan Hall recommendations will be implemented? Will he commit to implementing them in full?

[Dan Jarvis]

I know that my hon. Friend will understand that it is not for me as the Security Minister to set out future parliamentary business—I would get into quite a lot of trouble with the Leader of the House, and no doubt others. My hon. Friend will have heard, however, the commitments made by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and me. We have accepted Mr Hall’s recommendations. He delivered an important piece of work at the Government’s behest and we will move at pace to make good on those commitments. My hon. Friend and the House should understand, however, that we will not wait to take the necessary actions to keep the public safe.

China: Foreign Interference Arrests

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

Middle East

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Can I respectfully suggest to colleagues that by the time they get on to page 2 of their question, that question is too long?

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

The Iranian regime kills its own people, funds terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah, backs Putin’s aggressive war in Ukraine, and now puts British civilians and our armed forces in the firing line. By some accounts, it is already a failed state. I absolutely back the Prime Minister’s decision to allow UK military bases to be used by the US for defensive strikes, given the attacks on our bases in the Gulf and Cyprus, but does he agree, given the threat that Iran poses on our streets here, that the absolute minimum we should do is proscribe the IRGC, along with any other organisations that threaten British civilians?

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep that under review, and we have already put in place a considerable number of sanctions.

Chinese Embassy

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Well, it is a statement of truth, and I think it undermines the right hon. Gentleman’s argument.

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

Even if we accept that the national security concerns about this new embassy have been mitigated, as evidenced by the letters from the security agencies today, and even if we accept that consolidating the seven properties that China owns into one gives us a security advantage, that is still cold comfort to the Hongkongers whom I represent in Leeds South West and Morley. They still have to live with transnational repression. In the case of Chloe Cheung, she still has to live with a £100,000 bounty on her head. Of course, they now have to live in fear that this new embassy might become their prison. What assurances can the Minister give Hongkongers in my constituency and, indeed, the UK that they will be protected from the ever-lengthening arm of the Chinese Communist party?

[Dan Jarvis]

I do not accept the basis of the argument that my hon. Friend has made. He would be well advised to place more emphasis on the point about consolidation, because I am confident that that will deliver meaningful operational benefits; that has been agreed by the security experts. Let me find what I hope is an important point of consensus: I am absolutely clear about how unacceptable it is for China, or any other nation for that matter, to seek to persecute individuals who are resident in the United Kingdom. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. That is why the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, has completed an extensive piece of work looking at transnational repression.

A number of actions have come from that piece of work, which have been routed right across Government. We take this incredibly seriously; I have met a number of people who have been the victim of TNR. It is completely unacceptable for China or anyone else to persecute people in this country. However, I ask my hon. Friend to consider the fact that we are talking about a proposal that will deliver an embassy for China at some point in the future. The Government and I have to deal with the level of threat as it is. Given the point about consolidation, I am confident that this is a proposal that we will be able to make work in the national interests of our country and all the people who live here.