Civil Recovery Cost Protections

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

In December 2024, the Government published and laid before Parliament a report on the Government’s review on introducing costs protections in civil recovery proceedings in the High Court under part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

The report stated that the Government have run a targeted engagement exercise seeking views from key stakeholders across law enforcement, the judiciary, civil society, the legal profession, and other Government Departments on whether it would be appropriate to restrict the Court’s power to order costs payable by an enforcement authority in civil recovery cases in the High Court. The reference to the legal sector being engaged was incorrect. Since December 2024, officials have met with the legal sector to seek their views. This statement is being made to address the inaccuracy in the original report and to update Parliament on the legal sector’s views. The legal sector understood the rationale for enforcement authorities to have cost protections for civil recovery cases. To mitigate any civil justice concerns, it supported the inclusion of additional safeguards such as the “just and reasonable” test to afford additional judicial discretion on when this measure could be applied.

Since this engagement, the Crime and Policing Bill 2025 has been introduced to Parliament. The Bill includes a costs protections measure which will protect enforcement agencies from paying costs during civil recovery proceedings unless the authority is judged to have acted unreasonably, dishonestly or improperly. The aim of this provision is to remove barriers to using civil recovery so enforcement agencies are not exposed to high legal costs when they act in the public interest.

These civil recovery powers are a valuable tool in the fight against crime and cost protections will remove the strain on enforcement agencies’ budgets that might stop them from pursuing cases. We will continue to engage the legal sector and enforcement agencies to make sure the provisions continue to reflect the views of all those affected.

Copies of the updated report will be available in the Vote Office, and it will also be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS613]

Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the alleged incitement to murder Members of Parliament by the Irish republican group Kneecap.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his urgent question. Let us never forget that we lost two Members of this House, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, in tragic circumstances. Both Jo and Sir David were passionate advocates for their constituents, and they cared deeply about a range of issues and embodied the finest democratic qualities, traditions and values of this House. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with their families today and every day.

I want to reiterate the Home Secretary’s words and fully condemn the comments that have been made. Such remarks are dangerous and irresponsible, and this Government utterly reject the views expressed by this group. Let me be crystal clear: political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society.

I know that the House will want immediate answers on this issue, but as the Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention said yesterday, in relation to the urgent question on the Headingley case, the desire for immediate answers is often constrained by the obligation that we have, as Ministers and as Members of this House, not to do or say anything that would interfere in what is a live police investigation.

As Members know, the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine, and they are operationally independent of the Government. It is important that the police are allowed to carry out their ongoing investigations free from political interference.

However, for the benefit of the House, let me recap what the Metropolitan police have themselves said about these reports. They said:

“We have been made aware of the video and it has been referred to the counter-terrorism internet referral unit for assessment and to determine whether any further police investigation may be required.”

Although I will not comment further on this specific case, the safety and security of Members of this House, and all those who serve in elected office, is an issue to which I attach the utmost seriousness, as does the Home Secretary and as do you, Mr Speaker.

Elected representatives at all levels and across all parties must be able to perform their duties safely and without fear, and, through the defending democracy taskforce, we are driving a whole-of-government effort to ensure that that is the case. The taskforce has recently agreed a programme of work to tackle the harassment and intimidation of elected Members. The taskforce is also supporting the Speaker’s Conference that is addressing these issues.

Those of us who attend this place are all too aware of the devastating consequences of violence against our colleagues and friends. We may not always agree, but if there is one universal truth to which we would all subscribe it is surely that our politics is better when it is conducted respectfully and safely. I hope and trust that that will have the support of Members right across the House.

The Home Secretary and I condemn the comments that have been made and we will work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of all those who step forward to serve in public office.

[Mr Francois]

Two MPs—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess—have been murdered within the past decade, in the line of duty while meeting their constituents. Frankly, that could have been any of us. I should like to ask the Home Secretary, albeit in absentia, four specific questions.

First, how long is this counter-terrorist police inquiry likely to take? The video plainly speaks for itself. How could the words “Kill your local MP” possibly have been taken out of context?

Secondly, we now know that Kneecap applied for a £14,000 Government grant, during the previous Parliament, which was vetoed, quite rightly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch). Kneecap then appealed against this decision as “discriminatory”. The incoming Labour Government concluded that fighting the appeal would be

“not in the public interest.”

Can the Home Secretary tell the House which Government Minister approved that absurd decision to effectively surrender to Kneecap over this, and why?

Thirdly, Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury—the organisers of which, incidentally, received some £1.5 million of taxpayer subsidy during the covid pandemic. Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be unconscionable for Kneecap to appear, at least while the police inquiry is under way? Kneecap should surely be barred today. To be crystal clear, do the Government agree with that—yes or no?

Finally, Kneecap have now offered a “crocodile tears” apology to Katie Amess. Have that family not been through enough already? So, as it is within her gift, will the Home Secretary now seriously reconsider their request to examine potential failures by Prevent that may have contributed to David’s death, via the auspices of the Southport inquiry? Is that not the least we can do? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this matter, because it provides us with an opportunity to discuss these issues, which is something I have been keen to do for some time. Let me gently say to him that he mentioned the name of the band on a number of occasions. I deliberately did not do so, and I will not do so. It is for right hon. and hon. Members to choose what language they use, but my advice is not to give the band or its members any further publicity by naming them. I will not be doing so and I suggest that other Members do not either.

The right hon. Member spoke about the Home Secretary. Let me tell him what she said about this. She said that this is a “total disgrace”. She said:

“It’s dangerous and irresponsible to say these sorts of things, and I hope that everybody involved—not just the band but also those involved surrounding them and those involved in events—also take some responsibility on this and looks very seriously at the consequences of these kinds of remarks, not just what’s been said.”

Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that I chair the defending democracy taskforce. Clearly, the Home Secretary has overall responsibility, but the judgment was that I would be here as the person who chairs the taskforce, but we both, of course, take the matter incredibly seriously. He asked about the length of the investigation. As I know he will understand, that is a matter not for Ministers but for the Metropolitan police. He also asked about the funding of the group.

Let me say again, gently and respectfully, that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the case relating to the group’s funding. I did not raise this point proactively; I refer to it now only in response to his specific question. The truth of the matter is that we inherited this situation from the previous Government. We inherited the scheme and we inherited this situation. After approving the grant, the previous Government then U-turned on it being given. They did not take proper legal advice and ended up in a costly legal battle that they lost. This Government have a duty to bring that situation to an end and protect taxpayers’ money. We are deeply concerned about all the things that made up this case. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday, that is precisely why we are rightly taking the opportunity to review the scheme now.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Glastonbury. It is for the organisers of the festival to decide who appears.

[Mr Francois]

Cop out!

[Dan Jarvis]

If the right hon. Gentleman can be patient, he will hear the entirety of my response. It is not for Government Ministers to say who is going to appear at Glastonbury; it is for the organisers of the festival. As I have said, there is a live police investigation ongoing, so the Government urge the organisers of Glastonbury to think very carefully about who is invited to perform there later this year.

For reasons that I completely understand and appreciate, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Amess family. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the Amess family, as they are with the family of Jo Cox. The House will be aware, because I have spoken about it previously, that we have published the Prevent learning review to ensure that there is public scrutiny and transparency over the perpetrator’s dealings with Prevent. We will also publish the findings from Lord Anderson’s review.

The Home Secretary and I want to ensure that every avenue has been explored. That is why we will appoint a senior figure to scrutinise all of the previous reviews that have taken place, to see whether any questions still need to be answered or any issues still need to be addressed. We will act as necessary if any such gaps are identified as a result of that process.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. Nobody but those in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) know what it is actually like when somebody kills your MP. The reverberations are still being felt in Southend West and Leigh three and a half years later by the constituents, never mind the family of Sir David Amess, who will never recover from the loss. Does my hon. Friend agree that those in the public eye—anyone, in fact, but especially those in the public eye—should be careful with their words, because words have power and can be incredibly dangerous. We should condemn with all force the type of incitement we have seen from this particular group.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarks he has made, and not just today but previously. I totally agree; he is absolutely right that words have consequences. All of us, both in and outside this House, should treat others with respect and dignity. I join my hon. Friend in condemning the words that have been used, and I give him and the House my categorical assurance that we will do everything we possibly can to ensure the safety and security of all who serve in elected office.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks. He is right that when a threat is made to a Member of this House or anyone who serves in elected office it is an attack not just on that individual but on our democracy. That is precisely why this Government have placed, as the last Government did, so much emphasis and importance on the work of the defending democracy taskforce.

The right hon. Member will know from his time in government that the taskforce is the fulcrum on which all the different bits of Government join together, ensuring that our response to the threats we face is properly organised and that the resources are marshalled correctly and appropriately. It is how we enable all those who wish to serve in public life to do so without fear of the completely unacceptable attacks we have seen in recent years. I agree with him on that, and I hope it is a matter on which we can all agree. I also agree with his points about the remarks themselves. I will not name the band, but I reiterate that the Government unreservedly condemn the remarks that have been made.

The shadow Home Secretary asked specifically about funding. In my earlier response I gave detail about the sequencing of the funding that was agreed under the previous Government. He asked about future funding, so let me be clear with the House: we do not think that individuals expressing the views we have heard should be receiving taxpayer funding. That is a non-controversial thing to say. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday, officials are reviewing the music export growth scheme in the light of the comments that have emerged. I would add—the right hon. Member will probably agree—that it seems strange to me, and I am sure to other Members of the House, that a republican group who are seemingly opposed to the British Government would want to receive funding from them. I find that baffling.

The right hon. Member mentioned proscription and Hamas and Hezbollah; he knows well that those are proscribed organisations. It is a criminal offence to belong to, invite support for, recklessly express support for or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing, carry articles in public or publish an image of clothing or any article in a way that arouses reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or a supporter of a proscribed organisation. The Government are crystal clear: support for proscribed organisations is wholly unacceptable, and where an offence has been committed, the Government trust that the police will use the full extent of the offences available to them.

The right hon. Member’s final point was about Lady Amess and Katie Amess. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the response I gave to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about the seriousness with which we address these issues. I am acutely conscious that we have with us in the Chamber a member of Jo Cox’s family, and it is right that we conduct ourselves in a way—as we are—that remembers the loss that the families have suffered, and that this House has suffered. The Government will do everything we possibly can to ensure that those families are supported and those terrible events never occur again.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is disappointing to see how Conservative Members have approached this question. I would have hoped that this was an issue on which the whole House could remain united. The way in which it has been approached is to be regretted.

I have no desire to pour cold water on the daft political posturings of adolescents given voice in pop music—that has been going on for decades and is somewhat of a rite of passage—but the comments of this band go far beyond what is remotely acceptable in a civilised country. Will the Minister therefore please use his good offices to look to minimise the number of mainstream platforms—not just Glastonbury—across the board on which this band appear?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right about the comments that have been made; we unreservedly condemn them. He makes a point that I want to raise about the importance of the way in which we work co-operatively and collaboratively across the House. I chair the defending democracy taskforce on behalf of the Government, but I also chair it on behalf of all Members of this House and the other House and on behalf of those who serve in local government. My approach has always been, and will always be, to work co-operatively with every political party. I am happy at any point to meet any Member or any political party to discuss these matters. My door is always open.

On the point my hon. Friend made about the profile of the band, he will have heard my words with regard to Glastonbury. That is specifically why I am not naming them—I do not want to give them any further publicity—but I agree with the sentiment of his point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The remarks by members of the band are completely unacceptable, and it is right that they have apologised to the families of Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, but clearly those comments should never have been made in the first place. Incitement to violence against Members of Parliament cuts to the very heart of our democracy. The reality is that two MPs have been murdered in the last decade. It is absolutely right that the authorities are looking into other comments relating to encouraging support for proscribed terror organisations.

I want to look at what more the Government can do. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly where there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that comments like these may have on community cohesion?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, for the sensible and reasonable way in which she framed her remarks. She is absolutely right. Incitement to violence is utterly unacceptable in any context, and it is completely unacceptable in the context of Members of this House and other elected politicians. That is why the Prime Minister recently refreshed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce, and that is why, as chair of that taskforce, I am working closely with law enforcement, all Government Departments, the Electoral Commission and a range of different organisations, including the police, to ensure that right around the country we have the most coherent, joined-up and properly resourced response.

Back at the general election last year, I am sure all of us saw things that we consider completely unacceptable. It is my ambition as the chair, and that of the Government, to ensure that electoral events—I am conscious that we are working through one at the moment—are fought in a way that enables and encourages reasonable and robust debate. It is absolutely right that in the cut and thrust of politics there should be the rough and tumble of debate, but I think instinctively we all know where the line is drawn, and this incident went miles over where the line should be drawn.

We will continue to look carefully at the circumstances of this case. As I said, it is ultimately for the police to make an operational decision about where they want to go with it, but I give the hon. Member an assurance that through the DDTF we take these matters incredibly seriously. I would be happy to work even more closely with her, her colleagues and all Members of the House in that endeavour.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I take a moment to thank the Speaker’s Office for the support it gives new MPs to ensure that we all feel safe? I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question and equally for his commitment to ensuring that Members of the House feel safe and secure in their work. Does he agree that when we think about the security of MPs we must also consider the safety of MPs’ staff? I think about the staff who work in my constituency and do their jobs solely because they want to help people in my constituency. They should never feel intimidated or unsafe.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes some really important points. I join him in thanking Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and all the Speaker’s Office for the work they do with the Parliamentary Security Department in ensuring that all Members of the House are safe and secure. The Speaker’s Conference into these matters is an important process that the Government are supporting. A couple of weeks ago, I gave evidence to Mr Speaker along with the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who is responsible for elections. We consider the process to be hugely valuable, and we look forward to Mr Speaker’s conclusions. We will want to work closely with him on implementing the findings.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to reference MPs’ staff. All of us will know that often where the rubber hits the road in our constituencies is the extraordinary, dedicated work being done on our behalf by our office managers, our parliamentary assistants and our parliamentary caseworkers. They are absolutely in my thoughts when I think about these matters. The Bridger network around the country is there for them as well as for Members of the House.

It is worth adding that in addition to Members and their staff, we need to ensure that our family members are properly protected. I have been in recent touch with the police specifically about incidents that have occurred on a couple of occasions at Members’ home addresses. That is totally unacceptable. I have written to the police constructively to remind them of the powers they have in that regard.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I know that the Minister will agree that part of the service that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has done the House today is that he has given us all the opportunity to make a point that really should not need making, namely that incitement to violence against Members of Parliament is no more acceptable than incitement to violence against any other member of our society. The Minister is entirely right to be cautious about prejudicing an investigation into whether the criminal law has been broken, but does he agree that what we can and should say today is that artistic licence is not a defence to a breach of the criminal law?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on both counts.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The concern is not just the glorification of violence against MPs, and the impact that has on the families of MPs who have been murdered in terrorist incidents, including Jo Cox and Sir David Amess; the same band has expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are proscribed groups, and that has an impact on the feeling of safety and security in the Jewish community. The rhetoric that the band uses represents a return to an ugly rhetoric about communal differences in Northern Ireland—a return that I know will cause fear and pain to hon. Members from Northern Ireland who lost friends and colleagues due to terrorism.

My main concern, however, is about the impact on democracy as a whole. Calls for violence against politicians of any party have a chilling effect on the willingness of any normal citizen to think, “I could run for council,” or “I could run to be an MP.” They think that they will put themselves and their family at threat of violence. Does the Minister agree that it is vital for the future of democracy in this country that people feel that they can engage in public life without putting their life and safety in danger?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend made two really important points. I completely agree with his remarks at the beginning of his question. He is also absolutely right to raise concerns about the chilling effect that there could well be on our democracy. I am sure that all of us in this place know exceptional people who, for reasons that we all understand, have decided not to step forward to serve in public life. This House, local councils and police and crime commissioners are not getting people who could otherwise make a significant contribution to public life.

It is a tragedy for our country that some people might feel that they should not step forward because of the risks, pressures, harassment and intimidation that go with service in public life. That is precisely why we take the defending democracy taskforce so seriously, and are working with colleagues across Government, in local government and in the devolved Administrations to ensure that people do not feel that politics is too dangerous for them. It would be terrible for our country if we got to that point. I am absolutely determined, as is the Home Secretary, to make sure that the defending democracy taskforce is as successful as possible in ensuring that nobody feels that they do not want to step forward because of the risks.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

May I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for making that reference? Although it is natural that we refer to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, it is important for Members of this House to recognise that there are also four plaques in this Chamber for Ian Gow, Airey Neave, Robert Bradford and Sir Anthony Berry, all of whom were murdered by the Irish republican antecedents to Kneecap. Over the last 24 hours, we have seen crocodile tears and heard confected apologies and whataboutery, but nothing can be said that will mask the naked hatred within those individuals whose balaclavas have slipped.

I have heard the Minister speak about his defending democracy taskforce and his aspiration for coherency across this United Kingdom on the glorification of terrorism. For far too long, a blind eye has been turned to the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. When confined to Northern Ireland, it apparently seems to be quite acceptable, yet it keeps the wounds of our past open and frustrates reconciliation. To my mind, there is no coherency on the application of laws to prevent the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister meet my colleagues and me to ensure that there is?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, and he is absolutely right to refer to all the plaques in this Chamber. We think about all those who have lost their life serving our country. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that I was in Northern Ireland recently, where I met the Justice Minister to discuss this and other matters. He may also be aware that in the autumn of last year, I wrote to the leaders of all the Northern Ireland political parties, offering a meeting.

[Gavin Robinson]

indicated dissent.

[Dan Jarvis]

He says that he did not receive the letter. Let me say therefore that I would, of course, be very happy to meet him, and I am keen to do that as quickly as possible.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

Yesterday, I wrote to Glastonbury festival, urging it to remove this music group from its line-up because they have allegedly called for the murder of Conservative colleagues in this House, and because we have seen footage of them appearing to show support for Hezbollah and Hamas, including by waving a flag of a proscribed organisation. Words, as others have said, have tragic consequences. Beloved colleagues Jo Cox and Sir David Amess were tragically murdered, and 16 June 2016 remains one of the worst days of my life. I know many colleagues in this House feel the same. We all have a duty to prevent that from ever happening again.

I welcome the Minister’s comments about Glastonbury. Does he agree that iTunes, Spotify, YouTube and others should strongly consider taking the group’s music off their platforms until the police investigation is over? May I also note the absence of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is not present and not involved in this discussion? Will the Minister join me in condemning the right hon. Member for Islington North’s appearance in a photograph with the group, and in calling for him to apologise for that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members that if they make specific references to a colleague, they ought to give them notice in advance?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with my hon. Friend about words having consequences; he is absolutely right about that. He is also absolutely right that we all have a duty in this House to do everything that we possibly can to conduct our politics in a responsible and reasonable way, as do others. He mentioned Glastonbury; and I am grateful to him for the care and attention with which he has written to the festival’s organisers. He heard my earlier comments. I heard his remarks about streaming platforms; my sense was that there was a lot of agreement from Members from right across the House. With respect, I am not aware of the other matter he mentions, and I am keen not to annoy Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not refer to the right hon. Gentleman who is not in his place on this occasion.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Given the proximity of my constituency to the Glastonbury festival, many local people are concerned to learn that a pop group promoting harmful and extremist rhetoric are scheduled to perform there this summer. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly when there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? Also, will the Minister work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) to engage with the Glastonbury festival organisers on finding an appropriate resolution?

[Dan Jarvis]

Yes, I am happy to do all the things that the hon. Lady asks.

She mentioned funding. I hope that she heard the remarks that I made earlier, not least about the Government thinking that individuals expressing such views should not receive taxpayer funding. I do not think that is a controversial thing to say. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the music export growth scheme.

On the hon. Lady’s point about the Glastonbury festival organisers, I suspect and hope that, as a neighbouring MP, she will have a good and constructive relationship with them. I also very much hope that they have listened to what she has said.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

The comments made by this group are chilling and disgusting, and they risk dragging our politics and our country to a very dangerous place. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). When I go to schools in my constituency, the message I take to young people is: “You have a place in politics. You can represent your community. You can make a change.” Does my hon. Friend agree that incitement to violence, and violence against MPs, have a chilling effect, particularly on people from under-represented groups in our country? They push those people not to get involved in politics, which is deeply wrong.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I agree wholeheartedly with it. He is right about the chilling effect. It would absolutely extend to young people, as well as older people and others; it applies to anyone considering stepping forward to serve in public life. The strength of our democracy and our country depends on people who are prepared to step forward and serve their constituents as Members of this House, and we need to ensure that people feel that they can do that without being subjected to completely unnecessary harassment and intimidation. That is why a key theme of the defending democracy taskforce is incidents of harassment and intimidation, and whether there are gaps in legislation. Where there are gaps, we will fill them.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Every time I come to this House, I stand underneath the plaque for Jo Cox, and I look over at the plaque for David Amess. It seems impossible that within 10 years, two of our colleagues could have been murdered. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for raising this question, because it gives us a moment to reflect. When I read the words:

“The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP”,

and “Up Hamas! Up Hezbollah!”, I cannot see what time interval needs to pass before that is deemed an offence. I entirely recognise what the Minister says about these processes needing to happen independently, but speed of justice contributes to confidence in justice. As a former arts Minister who worked to support masses of creative groups, probably very few of which supported me or my party, I am clear-headed about the use of the music export growth scheme. I hope that the Minister, who I know to be a decent man, will, in his work on the defending democracy taskforce, proactively ensure that no taxpayers’ money goes to any organisation or creative group that uses language that has such a negative effect on the way that politics is conducted, and the way that we in this place are seen.

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that the urgent question has provided us with a moment to reflect. The words that he repeated—I completely understand why he chose to repeat them—are utterly vile. They make my blood boil. I also agree with the other points that he made. He knows, as a former senior Minister, about the importance of the operational independence of the police, but he made his point in a very reasonable way, and it will have been heard. Finally, on his comments about funding, he is absolutely right again. That is why the Secretary of State, as a matter of urgency, will now look at these matters.

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

It is good to hear that the House is united in its condemnation of the appalling comments by this band, inciting hatred and supporting terrorism, and our thoughts and prayers today are with the families of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Does the Minister agree that there can never be any excuse for inciting violence against MPs, or for supporting the vile, antisemitic terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, and that a threat to MPs is a threat to democracy itself?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There can never, ever be any excuse for these kinds of words. This is not about free speech or artistic licence; it is about incitement. He is absolutely right to frame his question in the way that he has, and I can give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. Kneecap’s so-called apology simply underlines their hatred and refusal to see that they cannot call for murder simply because they do not agree with political beliefs. We know that they glorify IRA terrorist campaigns, and they make no apologies for that. No one can support a group who are proscribed, and this must be dealt with. I look to the Minister in particular, since the responsibility lies on his shoulders, and ask him how he will send the appropriate message from this House that although we may not agree politically, there is a line, and Kneecap have crossed that line. There is right and wrong, and if someone has done wrong they are accountable in law for it, so no half-hearted, grudging, fake apology will suffice. They need to be brought to justice by the police and taken to court. Better still, put them in jail.

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the hon. Member, and I think he framed the appropriate message very effectively himself. He is right to say that it is never acceptable to utter the kinds of words that we have heard today, and this Government take these matters incredibly seriously. He will also have heard the agreement I made earlier to meet the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland—of course, I am happy to meet the political leaders of any party—to discuss these matters. I am grateful to him for his contribution.

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

Does the Minister agree that there is no context at all in which it would be acceptable to utter the remarks attributed to this group? Does he hope, as I do, that the criminal justice system pursues them with the utmost rigour, without any thought to mitigations such as so-called artistic licence? Does he share my disappointment as a south-west MP that, as of this afternoon, Glastonbury is still listing this outfit for a performance on Saturday 28 June?

[Dan Jarvis]

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to there being no excuse whatsoever for these remarks. I know that he will understand the limitations placed on me with regard to what is an ongoing live investigation by the police, but the words that he has used are entirely reasonable and appropriate. With regard to Glastonbury, he will have heard the contributions made by other hon. Members and the words that I used earlier with regard to the organisers of that festival considering whether it is appropriate to have in their line-up a group who are currently subject to a live police investigation. I hope very much that they will take that seriously and listen to the concerns that have been expressed by Members right across this House.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The phrase, “Kill your local MP,” carries a sincerely sinister connotation right across this House. To my party, which has lost councillors, Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Members of this House to republican terrorists, those words are not clever or smart; they are an incitement to terrorist activity, which this band have glorified in the past. This band present a real danger, through what they call their art, of glorifying the actions that caused the murders and deaths of so many people in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give a reassurance that the Government will do all in their power to look not just at what has been said in the recent videos that have come to light but at what the band have said in the past? As he looks to Glastonbury and gives the organisers advice, will he also look at a forthcoming event in Belfast and provide Belfast city council with the same advice?

[Dan Jarvis]

I can give the hon. Member that reassurance. The words we have heard are chilling anywhere, in any corner of this United Kingdom, but I completely understand the point he makes and the particular significance they will have in his constituency and his part of the world, so I can give him the reassurances he seeks.

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

The Minister has a point about the name. An Irish republican band with a name that must send a shudder down the spine of so many in Northern Ireland, and which the hon. and gallant Minister chooses not to use, ought to have raised alarm bells long before they got their hands on any public money. Is there any prospect of getting that money back?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. On the issue of the money, that is something the Secretary of State will be looking closely at.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, the term “kneecap” is related to a violent criminal act. When a grouping take that as their name, express a desire for MPs to be murdered and support proscribed organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas, we have to question why they have been awarded so much UK taxpayers’ money. Yesterday, I took the opportunity to write to the US and Canadian authorities asking them to refuse any visa applications from these hatemongers ahead of their publicised tour of North America to prevent them from spreading their violent message across the world. Will the Minister join me in lobbying for that?

[Dan Jarvis]

As the hon. Member may be aware, I am—not to the same extent as herself—intimately familiar with the connotations of the name from my previous professional experience, so I completely understand why she has made the point in the way that she has. Let me undertake to go away and think more specifically about the points she has raised, but I am happy to discuss them further with her or with any of her colleagues should she wish to do so.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

If this band remain on the bill at Glastonbury this year, will the Minister undertake on behalf of the Government that no Ministers will attend the whole festival?

[Dan Jarvis]

I was not intending to attend myself. Let me reflect on the question, not least because I am not responsible for other Ministers’ diaries. However, as I have said previously, I am sure—I am certainly hopeful— that the organisers of Glastonbury will be listening to the contributions that have been made and will reflect on the decision that they have previously taken.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the tone and manner in which he has answered questions. I am cognisant of the ongoing legal action that may be pursued in this case, so to generalise the point a little, how are the Government ensuring that public funding mechanisms, such as the music export growth scheme, are not inadvertently supporting entities that propagate extremist rhetoric and incitement to violence? This is not just about the money; it is about the official imprimatur that schemes like that offer to the entities involved.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes an entirely reasonable and legitimate point about the public funding. I say again that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the scheme, and I am sure that she will have more to say about it in the not-too-distant future.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Minister has responded to the urgent question and given an unequivocal condemnation, which I am sure is shared across the House. Does he understand, though, that many of us have suffered threats down through the years? We have the plaques in the Chamber for those who have suffered and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Does he agree that while that condemnation is universal across the Chamber, our comments amount to diddly squat for the group concerned, but the actions that follow from the Minister’s words would matter? Will he come back to the House after he has taken the actions he has undertaken to take to update Members and the general public on them?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for and completely understand the points the hon. Member made, which he made in a fair, reasonable way. I give him that commitment to come back and update the House. I give him my personal assurance of the importance that I attach to these matters. I chair the defending democracy taskforce. I have personally invested a huge amount of time and effort working closely with officials not just in the Home Office but right across government. It is an important mechanism that brings together the collective resource of the UK Government, and it is on me to ensure that those resources are properly marshalled in the right place at the right time, so that we can be ambitious about ensuring that people are not subject to completely unacceptable harassment and intimidation. I give him the assurance that I will do everything I possibly can, working with colleagues across Government, and I would be happy to speak to him and to come back and update the House accordingly.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

An apology to the families of David Amess and Jo Cox was the only slim chance for redemption. The use of inciting language is to be condemned when it becomes apparent, just as violence against elected representatives is always to be condemned. Politics is about being alert to the right to use words powerfully and the risks and responsibilities of doing so. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is right and necessary to condemn incendiary language and to ensure freedom of speech right across the political spectrum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

Yes, I agree. I was in Wales recently where I discussed these matters with the First Minister. As I mentioned earlier, it is very much the Government’s intention that our approach and response is not just conducted at the UK Government national level, but is wired through local authorities and the devolved Assemblies. I am acutely conscious of the fact that elections will be taking place in Wales next year, and I want to ensure that everybody who participates in those elections can do so in a safe and secure way. I want to work with the First Minister, the right hon. Member and all her colleagues in Wales to ensure that that is the case.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I join in the condemnation from across the political spectrum in this House and from the Minister of the comments from this group, which are abhorrent, evil and twisted. Does the Minister agree that any local government authorities—I think especially of Belfast city council—that are allowing groups such as these to use their property for concerts should rethink that policy? Will he give a further commitment that he will contact Belfast city council to ensure that this group are not allowed to use council property for spewing out sectarian hate and evil comments?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the point he has raised. All public bodies have an absolute responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent in an appropriate way. I will take away the comments he has made and reflect on them, and I am happy to correspond with him further about them.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Is the Minister confident that the existing framework that prevents public funds from being used to platform individuals and groups who seek to stoke division is robust?

[Dan Jarvis]

As the hon. Member will understand, these public funds have not been allocated via my Department, so I will look carefully at the points he has made. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is looking carefully and reviewing this scheme. However, as I have just said to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), all public bodies and certainly all Departments have an absolute responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely, and that is the approach that this Government will take.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

With the scale of imprisonment that we have seen in recent months for those who make inappropriate comments on social media, does the Minister agree that confidence in policing and the prosecution services is on the line in this appalling incitement to murder, and that such confidence requires action against this group—a group that have made their hateful career out of advocating and supporting terrorism, be it Hamas, Hezbollah or the IRA? In that regard, will the Minister consider the adequacy of the offence of glorification of terrorism, which has so many let-outs that such groups are adept at exploiting and needs to be tightened up? Will he do that as a consequence of this episode?

[Dan Jarvis]

The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have a difficult job to do in general terms, and I am determined not to make it more difficult in these circumstances. The hon. and learned Gentleman’s second point is reasonable; I will reflect on it and come back to him.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Every time Members enter this Chamber, they walk through a door that has plaques in memory of Robert Bradford, Airey Neave and Ian Gow, who were murdered by the IRA simply because they served as MPs. This group have, through their music, glorified that kind of terrorism, just as Sinn Féin has done on a regular basis in Northern Ireland, right up to the level of First Minister. To that extent, the group could be called the musical wing of Sinn Féin. Will the Minister assure us that he will encourage the police to investigate this quickly, that the funding formula will no longer allows such groups to obtain funding, and that he will do his best to deny the group any further platform? I suspect that their panicked apology was more about getting visas for their lucrative tour in Canada and America than it was about being sorry for what they have done.

[Dan Jarvis]

Incitement to violence is completely unacceptable and there is never an excuse for it. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention the former Members of this House who lost their life serving their constituents and our country. I underline again the Government’s commitment and determination to ensure that all of us in this place, and all who serve in public life, can do so safely and securely. He spoke about the investigation. As I have said, that is on the way, but I take and understand his point about speed. He will understand that I have already responded to the point about funding. The Secretary of State will look at that—as will other Departments, I am sure.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the fact that Members of this House who have served their constituents in good faith have lost their life in so doing. That is utterly vile. We all have a responsibility to ensure that it does not happen again. That is the body of work of the defending democracy taskforce. I will ensure that it means we are best placed to address the threats that we all know about.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding, as a new MP, is that there is a long-standing convention by which a Member who intends to refer to another Member during proceedings—particularly in a critical or contentious manner—should inform that Member in advance. That courtesy gives the Member concerned the opportunity to be present and, if necessary, to respond. Earlier, reference was made to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) without prior notice. I seek your guidance on whether that is in keeping with the expected standards of conduct in the Chamber.

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]