Foreign Influence Registration Scheme

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

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

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

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

In October 2023 he added:

“We have seen a sustained campaign”

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

“the defining threat of our generation”.

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his statement.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024: Implementation

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

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



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

[HCWS567]

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

[Steve Race]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[John Slinger]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

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

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

[Kevin Bonavia]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

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

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It’s time to get this done.”

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

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 13 agreed to.

Deferred divisions

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

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

Question agreed to.

Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences: Part 1 Report

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS538]

Support for Victims and Survivors of Terrorism

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS533]

Terrorism Legislation: Codes of Practice

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

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

[HCWS526]

Terrorism Legislation Review

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“equivalent in its seriousness to terrorist murders”.

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

The Met Commissioner has warned of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reviewer also concludes that within existing criminal law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS521]

Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hong Kong Democracy Activists

Dan Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists in the United Kingdom by the Chinese Communist party and other authorities in Hong Kong and China.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question on what I agree is a very serious matter.

Security is the first duty of Government. As such, we are deeply concerned by the recent bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists resident here in the UK. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement condemning those bounties. As he said at the time, the individuals were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. As the Foreign Secretary has also said, we call on Beijing to repeal the national security law, including its extraterritorial reach. We also call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of individuals in the UK and elsewhere for seeking to exercise their basic rights. Ministers have raised those concerns with the authorities during recent visits to both Hong Kong and Beijing. The continued safety of Hong Kongers remains a priority for this Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but I want to be clear that we will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially here in the UK

We have received assurances from counter-terror policing that the appropriate measures are in place for the individuals in question, and we regularly assess potential threats to the UK and use all available levers to counter them. Where we identify individuals at heightened risk, we are front footed in deploying protective security guidance and other measures as appropriate. Anyone—anyone—acting to coerce individuals in the UK is liable to prosecution under the National Security Act 2023. To date, there have been six individuals charged under the new Act.

The Government’s position is clear: we will protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals in the UK. We will use every available power and tool to uphold the principles we hold dear.

[Chris Philp]

This is an incredibly serious issue. The Chinese Communist party is an authoritarian regime which has been persecuting people in Hong Kong, mainland China and elsewhere for some time. Nearly 100 people—that we know about—have been arrested for political reasons in Hong Kong since July last year. It is completely unacceptable that harassment and intimidation takes place now on British soil. It is a gross infringement of the liberty of the individuals concerned and it is an affront to British sovereignty.

Bounties, amounting to approximately £100,000 each, have apparently been placed on three people who are in the United Kingdom: Tony Chung, aged 23; Carmen Lau, aged 30; and Chloe Cheung, aged only 17. All fled Hong Kong owing to persecution. Chloe Cheung was apparently advised by the police to dial 999 if she felt under threat, which strikes me as an inadequate response. I understand that posters appeared near the home addresses of two of those people, and that letters were posted to their neighbours, offering a reward if they were “delivered to the Chinese embassy”. That is completely unacceptable. That cannot be tolerated and robust action must be taken.

I have a couple of questions to put, respectfully, to the Security Minister. First, has the Chinese ambassador been summoned by the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Office to have it explained to him that this is unacceptable and to ask what is being done to stop it? My understanding is that no such summons has been issued, which is unacceptable. Does that not make clear that giving the Chinese permission to build a mega-embassy in London is completely inappropriate? It will simply be used as a pan-European base for Chinese spying. Are investigations into the perpetrators under way? Why is China not being placed into the enhanced tier under the foreign influence registration scheme? Surely China should be placed into that tier as a matter of urgency. What is the update on the Chinese police stations operating covertly in the United Kingdom? I was briefed on that as Policing Minister a year or so ago. Where are we with those? Finally, the Security Minister says that we will not tolerate this happening. I am sure the whole House will agree with that, but what concrete and tangible action is being taken to prevent these outrages?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his points and questions. Let me again, for the avoidance of doubt, be absolutely clear about the Government’s position. The safety and security of Hong Kongers in the UK is of the upmost importance and the UK will always stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong. Wherever we identify such threats, we will use any and all measures, including through the use of our world-class intelligence services, to mitigate the risk to individuals.

The shadow Home Secretary asked a number of questions, so I shall attempt to respond to them. First, he asked about raising concerns with the Chinese authorities. I can tell him that concerns have been raised at every opportunity, including by the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who has met with the families of the individuals involved.

Secondly, he raised a point about the Chinese embassy. A final decision on China’s planning application for a new embassy has yet to be made. As I am sure he will be aware, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in her independent, quasi-judicial role, will make the final decision in due course. However, the House should be aware that a joint letter sent by the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to the Planning Inspectorate on 14 January outlines that the Home Office, working with the Foreign Office, has considered the full breadth of national security issues in relation to this planning application. In the joint letter, the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary also made it clear that they would want to see the implementation of suitable mitigations for any public order and national security risks before China was permitted to build a new embassy at the Royal Mint Court site.

Thirdly, the shadow Home Secretary asked about overseas police stations. As I am sure he will understand, the police have carefully examined these allegations. We have made clear to the Chinese authorities that the existence of undeclared sites in the UK is completely unacceptable and that their operations must cease, and the Chinese authorities have confirmed that they have been closed.

Fourthly, he asked about FIRS. As he will be aware, I am due to make a statement shortly that will include an update on the implementation of FIRS, so I will not get ahead of myself. However, I will say that FIRS strengthens the resilience of the UK political system against covert foreign influence and provides greater assurances on the activities of certain foreign powers or entities that are a national security risk. As a result, the UK will be better informed about the nature, scale and extent of foreign influence in this country.

As I am sure he will be aware, since coming to power in July, we have ensured that more people than ever are now working on FIRS implementation. The case management team have been recruited and are in place in dedicated accommodation, and an IT system has been identified and a contract signed for its delivery. We plan to lay before the House the regulations underpinning the scheme shortly ahead of the scheme going live in the summer.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I also spoke to Chloe Cheung this morning, and I want to reiterate what the shadow Home Secretary has said. I want to ask the Minister whether guidance can be given to police forces, not only to give reassurance to Hongkongers who have a bounty on them or threats made against them, but to carry out target hardening and security work to ensure that Hongkongers are safe in their own homes in the UK and not under threat of abduction. It is a real, serious and live threat, and we need to do more than just tell people to call 999.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important point. I can reiterate what I have said specifically in this case, which is that we sought and received assurances from counter-terror policing that the appropriate measures were in place for the individuals in question.

On his broader, important point on transnational repression, I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the defending democracy taskforce is reviewing the UK’s approach to transnational repression to ensure we have a robust and joined-up response across Government and law enforcement. The Government will update on the conclusions of that work in due course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for raising these appalling incidents. I also thank him on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), whose constituents have been affected and have received some of these letters.

For me, these incidents are a reminder of the pernicious threat we all face as the Chinese Government try to infiltrate every level of British society. I have been filmed by a drone while filming at a pro-Hong Kong democracy rally in Edinburgh; Members have been sanctioned by the CCP; secret police stations have operated across the UK, including in Glasgow; there is the issue of the embassy in London; and the attempts of Chinese companies to be involved in our energy provision in a way that, if not mitigated, will threaten our energy security and national security. The list grows longer almost daily. We must strengthen and make clear our response to China and stop more of our citizens and brave activists being threatened on British soil.

How will the Government bring these bounty hunters to justice? Will they enforce Magnitsky sanctions to crack down on those in Hong Kong and Beijing who are responsible for this and every other insidious attack on our freedoms and democracy?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those questions. I can reiterate the points I have made previously about how these concerns have been raised at every opportunity and about how seriously the UK Government take these matters. We will use all the tools at our disposal to ensure that everybody who lives in this United Kingdom can go about their lawful business uninhibited by the activities of those in other countries. We take this matter incredibly seriously, and we are working at pace to ensure that every protection is in place.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Since the launch of the British nationals overseas visa route for Hongkongers, more than 209,000 people have been granted a visa, of whom more than 150,000 have arrived in the UK, including in my community in Erewash. I welcome the Government’s continuing support for Hongkongers. What steps is the Immigration Minister taking to support the integration of those coming into the UK via the BNO route?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He will understand that the BNO route reflects the UK’s historical and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up this status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997. I am sure he will be aware that to be eligible for this route, applicants must have BNO status or be the eligible family member of someone with this status.

Since the route opened in January 2021, close to 220,000 visas have been granted to Hongkongers, who are making much-valued contributions to communities across the UK, including in his constituency. We will work closely with those constituencies and local authority areas to ensure that all those people feel properly valued and supported. If my hon. Friend has any specific concerns, I am happy to meet him to discuss them further.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

First, I want to say that one of the proudest things I was able to achieve over the past few years was the BNO visa route, which was a correct correction of a mistake made by this House nearly 40 years ago. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who was in her place as shadow Foreign Secretary a few moments ago, was able to introduce it when she was Home Secretary. The support I received from the Minister at the time was also gratefully received.

Turning to the threat to activists, as someone who is sanctioned and who occasionally gets letters to my home and text messages from random Hong Kong and Beijing numbers, I can only imagine how much more threatening that activity would be if I had connections or relatives in Hong Kong and mainland China. Will the Minister assure me that he is advertising as widely as possible the role of the counter-terrorism police in fighting not just terrorism, but the state threats that are appearing before us? The reality is, we do not expect war today to take its old nature of massed armies or invasions. We are instead seeing a pernicious undermining of the confidence in the British state and the credibility of our ability to protect our citizens and friends, which, in turn, undermines not just our position, but our economy and the freedom of our citizens.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he did in government. He raises some important and valid points. Let me say, first of all, that the matter of sanctioned Members of this House is something that we take incredibly seriously. The Foreign Secretary has personally raised his concerns about it at the highest levels. We will continue to keep it under very close review.

The right hon. Member made some other important points. I hope he will join me in welcoming the additional resource that the Prime Minister announced the other day for our operational partners and the intelligence services. He will know from his previous service what a hugely important role they fulfil in keeping our country safe. He knows, too, the seriousness that we attach to these matters, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on a cross-party basis to ensure that we maintain our national security.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

The director general of MI5 has highlighted the increasing risk of state actors operating in the UK. What steps is the Minister taking to support MI5 in protecting the UK from these intrusions?

[Dan Jarvis]

This provides us with a very good opportunity to pay tribute as a House—I hope collectively—to the extraordinary work of our operational partners and the security services. By the very nature of their work, they serve in the shadows. It has been an extraordinary pleasure and privilege to work very closely alongside them in recent months. They do difficult work, but they do it incredibly well, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for doing it.

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

I hear what the Minister says. As somebody who is sanctioned by the Chinese Government, who has been pursued by low-level intelligence operatives around the world, and who, like others in Governments elsewhere, has had falsehoods about me placed in newspapers, I can say that this goes on and on. Most of all, for those who have fled here from Hong Kong, what we are seeing is extraterritorial attacks in plain view, yet it seems that, ultimately, nothing ever happens. I have here a copy of a redacted letter about an individual who has been threatened. His neighbours have been offered a bounty if they hand him in to the Chinese embassy. I ask how much longer will we keep on saying all these wonderful words in this House about what we stand for, because when it comes to those who need our protection, nothing ever seems to happen. What will the Minister do about the embassy? Wherever China has a super-embassy in the world, we see extraterritorial activity grow massively. Will he now reject that and start arresting the people responsible and kicking them out of the country?

[Dan Jarvis]

I know the right hon. Gentleman speaks with long experience on these matters. The Government are crystal clear that the activity that he has just described is not acceptable. We will do everything that we can to prevent it from taking place. He referred to the embassy. As I think he knows—I know that he has raised specific concerns about this previously—a decision on the embassy will be made by the Deputy Prime Minister in her capacity as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I refer him to the letter that has been written jointly by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, which takes into account the full breadth—[Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary tuts from a sedentary position. I do not know whether he has read the letter, which is available online. He should read it, because it takes into consideration the full breadth of national security concerns. This Government will stand against all those who seek to repress others or behave in the way that he has described, and use all the tools at our disposal to stop it from happening.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

Across the UK, including in Exeter, where we have a very large and welcome Hongkonger community, we have seen rising threats from state actors who seek to influence and intimidate peaceful dissidents. Will the Minister update the House on how the foreign influence registration scheme will help to tackle these threats?

[Dan Jarvis]

I do not want to get too far ahead of myself, as I will be making a statement shortly. I can say that we are working at pace to implement the FIR scheme. This is an important tool in the Government’s armoury. It will strengthen the resilience of the UK political system against covert foreign influence, and it will provide greater assurance around the activities of certain foreign powers and entities that we know to be a national security risk. We are getting on with the work, and we plan to lay the regulations that underpin the scheme in the near future, ahead of it going live in the summer.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a privilege to represent a substantial community of Hongkongers in Richmond Park. I notice from Hansard that I was last here two months ago to ask the Government about renewed reports of repression against Hongkongers in this country, yet here we are again and nothing has been done to reassure my constituents about their continued safety and security in this country. I was interested in the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who talked about reviewing transnational repression. I urge him to give us some more detail about when we in this House, and my constituents in Richmond Park, can expect to hear more about what the Government plan to do about this.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Let me give her an absolute assurance that we take these matters incredibly seriously. That is why, through the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, we have continued a process that was initiated by the previous Government to review the issue of transnational repression. For the sake of clarity, I can say to her that any attempt by any foreign Government to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm critics overseas, which undermines our democracy and the rule of law, is completely unacceptable. We have at our disposal now the National Security Act 2023, which enables law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of modern-day state threats, including actions that amount to transnational repression. As I say, the defending democracy taskforce is looking very carefully at the issue of transnational repression. There has been a lot of work taking place across Government, and we will have more to say about it shortly.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Birmingham has a large and growing community of people from Hong Kong. Although most are now well settled in the wider community, some of my constituents are fearful about continued monitoring and surveillance, especially if they speak out on human rights. Will the Minister give me and my constituents an assurance that if they are subject to those utterly unacceptable practices, they will receive protection and support?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for his representation of his constituents. Yes, I can give him that assurance. Hopefully, my comments today convey the seriousness that we attach to this particular issue. We work incredibly closely with counter-terrorism policing, policing right around the country, operational partners and the intelligence services, and I can absolutely give him the assurances that he seeks on behalf of his constituents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers to our questions. The activity of Chinese operatives on our shores has to stop. No steps taken thus far have deterred the Chinese from overstepping the mark on our shores. If those who legally and peacefully oppose China are not safe here, just where are they safe? Putting bounties on people’s heads sounds like something from a film, but this is real life for those living lawfully in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland right now. What will the Minister do to tell China that the line has been crossed and that there will be consequences?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful, as I always am, to the hon. Member. He has a long-standing track record of standing up for repressed minorities wherever they might be. Clearly, that is particularly relevant in the context of today’s urgent question. He will have heard my opening remarks, in which I referred to the statement that had been issued by the Foreign Secretary specifically condemning the bounties, and in which he called on Beijing to repeal its national security law, including its territorial reach. We take these matters incredibly seriously. We are working with the police and local communities and will do everything we can to make sure that people get the support that they deserve.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I want to come back to the embassy. I have been contacted by several constituents on this matter. At 700,000 square feet, it would be China’s largest embassy in Europe. As we know from the incident at the Manchester consulate in 2022, such an embassy would be contributing to the transnational repression that Hongkongers, Tibetans and the wider Chinese diaspora in the UK experience. Have the Government made an assessment of whether this new super-embassy would contribute to transnational repression and, if so, on what basis has that assessment been made?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend’s question has been asked by others. I assure him that national security is the overriding priority for this and, I hope, any Government. We look incredibly carefully at these matters. We will consider every aspect of this application, which ultimately is to be decided on by the Deputy Prime Minister. But as I have said, both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have written a very clear letter—I invite those Members who appear not necessarily to have read it to do so—and I can tell him and the House that the letter covers the full breadth of national security issues in relation to this planning application.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister is talking about the national security position in relation to the super-embassy. In January the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary wrote a letter about the application to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has to make the decision. In the light of the new information that has become available, will the Minister review that letter and take advice on whether the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary should be writing to the Deputy Prime Minister to recommend that the planning application is refused, rather than taking all these things into account?

[Dan Jarvis]

I understand the concerns that the hon. Member has raised. He will understand that I have already referred to the letter that was written back in January. If new evidence comes to light that is material to the planning application, no doubt that will be looked at very closely both by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, but I can assure him and the House that we take these matters incredibly seriously and look very closely at them. The letter that was written on 14 January does consider the full breadth of national security implications.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong.

I welcome the Minister’s recognition that the bounties on the heads of these British Hongkongers are for exercising rights guaranteed to them under the joint declaration. I do not wish to repeat what other right hon. and hon. Members have said, but at some point, when Ministers come to the House again and again to talk about the infiltration of the royal family by Chinese agents, the putting of bounties on people’s heads or secret police stations, there have to be consequences for the relationship with China.

I have a practical question. The fear felt by those who have bounties on their heads here is nothing compared with those who remain in Hong Kong who fear that they may not be able to leave. What practical assistance can we give to Hongkongers who have had either their BNO passport seized or other travel documents frozen, so that they are able to come to the safety of the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work through the APPG and his long-standing interest in this particular matter, and for his practical question. BNO status holders and their families are making significant contributions to our economy and local communities. He asked an important question about passports. I can assure him that there is no requirement for a person’s passport to be valid in order for them to apply to extend leave or for indefinite leave to remain under the BNO route. I know that colleagues in the Foreign Office will have heard his point about those who remain in Hong Kong, but I would be happy to discuss it further with him should that be helpful.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Intimidating pro-democracy Hongkongers living in the UK, placing them on a wanted list and circulating reward notices to their neighbours is simply unforgiveable. I am sure that the Minister will agree that no trade deal is worth subverting our values and allowing the rights of our people to be abused in such an appalling fashion. What discussions has his Department had directly with the Chinese ambassador? What has the ambassador been told the consequences will be for those found to be responsible? What is the status of the current investigation, or does everybody just accept that this matter is now closed?

[Dan Jarvis]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises these concerns in the way that he does. I hope that he will be reassured that the UK Government, especially the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, take these matters seriously and take every opportunity to raise these concerns at the appropriate level. We will continue to do everything that we can to protect the public in our country.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

At the recent lunar new year celebrations, I met democracy activists who have had bounties placed on them. The fear in the room was palpable. People chose not to attend the event so that they would not be photographed with people who have a bounty on their head. I fear that that chilling effect is already very real. I thank the Minister for confirming that transnational repression is being looked at by the defending democracy taskforce, but could he give us a bit more detail on the practical measures that can be put in place now to better protect those in the UK with a bounty on their head, and their family members still in Hong Kong, for whom they are deeply concerned, given the possible knock-on effects for them?

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point about the fear felt, and the chilling effect that I am certain there will be in a number of communities. He has asked me for practical measures; I gently ask him to be a little patient, because I will have more to say about these matters very soon.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Government and Opposition Members have asked the Minister several times whether the Chinese ambassador has been summoned to be held to account for these actions. This House deserves an answer from the Minister. A lot of these people face kidnap plots. What investigations are being undertaken into those?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman will know from his time in government that, in the first instance, these matters will relate to the ambassador in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I can give him the same assurances that I previously gave: the UK Government take these matters incredibly seriously and raise them at every opportunity. He asked about investigations; the police are working incredibly hard alongside operational partners, and will investigate all these matters, using the appropriate resource, in order to bring perpetrators to justice and ensure that victims are provided with the support that they need and deserve.

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

Today I spoke with Chloe Cheung, the youngest person to be sanctioned under the national security law. I know that she will be pleased to have been at least referenced by Members on both sides of the House. Chloe conveyed to me the anxieties and concerns of the Leeds Hong Kong community, which were not new to me, given the conversations that I have been having with that community, who form a substantial part of my constituency.

I understand that the Minister cannot comment on specific cases, so I have two general questions. First, can the Government give a cast-iron guarantee that any future trade deals with China will not compromise the protections that we have offered Hongkongers living in the UK? My second question is about MI5. Will the Government consider facilitating a meeting between MI5 and those Hongkongers who have had a bounty put on their head as a result of the national security law, to ensure that robust protections are in place for those who have been sanctioned?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is an assiduous constituency MP. He has raised the plight of his constituent previously in this House, and I am grateful to him for doing so. On his first point, national security is the first priority of this Government. His second point is probably more a matter for counter-terrorism police and West Yorkshire police, but I have heard what he said, and I will take it away and come back to him with a fuller response.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for securing the urgent question. I am lucky enough to represent, in my constituency, one of the largest Hong Kong communities, and they tell me that the proposed Chinese super-embassy is a chilling prospect for Hongkongers who have moved to our country to escape repression in Hong Kong. As we all understand, the decision is with the Deputy Prime Minister at the moment, but surely the Minister agrees that it is unconscionable that a foreign state should be allowed to massively enhance its operations in this country while it flagrantly conducts extrajudicial acts on the streets of the UK. Does he agree that if permission is given, it would undermine any assurances given that foreign states will be held to account for hostile actions targeting British residents on British soil?

[Dan Jarvis]

Given the hon. Member’s strong constituency interest, I completely understand why he raises those concerns. I hope that he and other hon. Members will understand that, from a national security perspective, we take these matters incredibly seriously.

There is a limit to what I can say about the specifics of this case, but let me put this in a slightly more diplomatic way than I might normally seek to. There seems to be something of a misunderstanding about the circumstances of this case. I give the hon. Member an absolute assurance that we look incredibly carefully at these matters, and some of the suggestions that have been made are not correct. A process is under way, and I am legally bound not to interfere with it. No hon. Member would expect me to do so, but I point him again to the very carefully considered letter written by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, which includes reference to the full breadth of national security issues to do with this application.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is conducting an inquiry on the important issue of transnational repression. Will he commit to looking very carefully at any recommendations that come from that inquiry, so we can ensure that we have the correct measures in place to uphold the fundamental British values of democracy here in the UK and, of course, safeguard our national security?

[Dan Jarvis]

I know about the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry; in fact, I believe that I am due to give evidence to it. I can absolutely give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will look carefully at the findings of that important piece of work. I have written to the Committee Chair about it, and I look forward to meeting the Committee and giving evidence. I look forward to progressing the work through the defending democracy taskforce, so that we can say more about the work against transnational repression that the Government intend to do.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I recently met Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien and his legal team, and I was horrified to hear that his UK legal team from Doughty Street Chambers recently faced a concerted and co-ordinated campaign against them, including intimidation, surveillance, hacking of bank accounts and rape threats aimed at their children. It appears that the Chinese state is now undermining our legal system.

The Minister has repeated at the Dispatch Box that the Government will take all steps to prevent persecution of Hong Kong nationals in the UK. Will he support the call from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for high-profile visits by UK and Chinese officials in our respective countries to be paused until the security situation is resolved?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the case of Jimmy Lai. I too have met Sebastien Lai. Jimmy Lai’s case is a priority for the Government, and we have made that clear in our engagements with China. We call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and immediately release Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister raised his case with President Xi at the G20 summit in November; the Foreign Secretary raised it with China’s Foreign Minister in October; and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), raised it with Hong Kong officials during her visit to Hong Kong in November.