Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Debate between Judith Cummins and Dan Jarvis

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I find it genuinely astonishing that at no point did the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge that all the acts that we have been talking about this afternoon happened when she was in government, on her watch.

I believe that it is important to discuss these matters in a fair and reasonable way, so I particularly made sure that the right hon. Lady had early sight of the statement, to give her ample opportunity. She has clearly not read the statement—she either did not read the statement or did not listen to what I have said, because she has asked me a number—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. This statement is very important, both to me and my constituents. Please let us hear the Minister.

[Dan Jarvis]

I took every opportunity to give the right hon. Lady as long as I possibly could so that she could look at the points that we were seeking to raise today. But she has asked me questions that I answered in my earlier responses. I say that to her because it is important that we seek to discuss these things in a reasonable way. Matters relating—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) guffaws from a sedentary position, but I think it is important that we should seek to discuss matters relating to national security in a reasonable and consensual way. That is the approach of this Government.

I am genuinely really sorry that the right hon. Lady has taken the opportunity to make a whole series of baseless smears this afternoon. Perhaps we should not be too surprised: the statement that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition is sadly typical of what we have heard from some of her colleagues in recent days. For days, the Conservative party has been making baseless claims that the Government deliberately collapsed an independent legal process through political interference. There is not a shred of evidence to back up any of the accusations that she has made. I do not think that is a responsible way to discuss matters of national security.

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that, whatever Members might say this afternoon, we are here today because of legislation and policy that existed under the previous Government. The Leader of the Opposition referenced the letter that she had written to the Prime Minister. We want to respond to her in a timely fashion, so I will now respond to the points that she made to the Prime Minister. In case she has forgotten, it was she herself who said in September last year:

“I have shied away from calling China a threat”.

She articulated the previous Government’s policy as Business Secretary, saying in September 2023:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.

Those are the right hon. Lady’s own words.

Opposition Front Benchers have raised a number of questions, including in the letter published by the right hon. Lady earlier today. I am very happy to set out the Government’s response to her questions. First, on the question of what Ministers knew about the Government’s interactions with the CPS, Ministers were aware that evidence was being provided by the deputy National Security Adviser to the CPS as it built a case for prosecution, as was first agreed under the previous Government. Ministers and special advisers did not take decisions about that evidence and they were not cited in the contents. The deputy National Security Adviser was given full freedom to provide evidence without interference, as was the case before the general election.

Secondly, the right hon. Lady asked in her letter whether the Prime Minister was briefed by Ministers or the National Security Adviser about the case. The Prime Minister has already confirmed that he was briefed on the case by officials, not least because the case began under the previous Conservative Government.

Thirdly, there have been various reports alleging that in a meeting in September, the National Security Adviser ruled that China could not be defined as a threat and took decisions relating to witnesses or evidence. That is simply untrue. Of course, the NSA takes part in discussions about national security and diplomatic relations—that is literally his job. But any discussions were on the basis that the case would be going ahead and about how to handle the implications. The National Security Adviser was not involved in any decisions about the substance of the evidence. That means, to answer the fourth question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, that he made no decisions about the content of any evidence—[Interruption.] Hon. Members have asked for a thorough explanation and I am giving it to them; they might pay the House the courtesy of listening to the responses.

The National Security Adviser made no decisions about the content of any evidence relating to the case itself. This was a matter for the deputy National Security Adviser—a hugely experienced, highly capable senior official who provided evidence under the previous Administration.

On questions about when I and other Ministers were aware that the case would not be proceeding, I should say that Ministers were informed after the DPP had made his decision and shortly before reporting restrictions were lifted. Hon. Members will note that I came to the House straight away to make a statement.

Finally, on whether it might still have been possible to argue successfully in court that China was a threat regardless of the previous Government’s position not to do so, that was a judgment for the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the deputy National Security Adviser provided evidence reflecting the threats posed by China as the CPS built its case. On the comments, referenced by the right hon. Lady, made by two former Cabinet Secretaries, I note that they have both remarked that the Official Secrets Act was not fit for purpose. Of course, if the Conservatives had been swift in replacing it, we would not be here today.

Safeguarding our national security is the most fundamental responsibility of this Government. In 14 years of rule, the Conservative party was slow both to update our national security laws and to adapt to the national security realities that we face today. If we followed the Conservatives’ approach—to ignore and refuse to engage with China—that would undermine our national security. On this side of the House, we will always defend our national interest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

It seems that there is now case law saying that an enemy is a threat to national security. Frankly, that seems to be a lower test not a higher test. But if, in 2024, there was evidence that China was an enemy and the Crown Prosecution Service had made a decision to prosecute on that basis, I cannot understand why there has been a change now. The only other answer is that the Crown Prosecution Service did not properly assess the evidence before making those charges. Moving away from all the light, heat and fury, it seems to me that those are the central points.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. She talked about muddle and confusion: she is right that there has been a lot of ill-informed commentary in previous days. That is precisely why the Government have proactively brought a statement to the House to set out the facts of the trial, and I am very happy to be able to do that.

Let me do that again for my right hon. Friend. The DPP has set out the reasons at the heart of his decision not to take this case to trial. He believed that the evidential test was not met. The DPP took an independent decision on the evidence, as was set out in his letter of 7 October. The DNSA did not materially change his evidence and was under no pressure from anyone to do so. As the Prime Minister, her constituency neighbour, has explained very clearly, the current Government’s policy position was immaterial to this assessment. It is only the Government’s policy at the time that the alleged offences were committed that is relevant.

My right hon. Friend will understand that the CPS decision to drop the case was not influenced by any member of this Government, special adviser or senior official. I have been crystal clear about that today. The Director of Public Prosecutions has given his assurance that the CPS was not influenced by any external party. As the Government have already stated, the suggestions that the Government concealed evidence or withdrew or leant on witnesses are all untrue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Over the weekend, Sir John Sawers became the latest former intelligence chief to express disbelief at the collapse of this espionage case, and our intelligence allies are now also questioning whether the UK can be trusted to counter China’s growing threat. It is vital that we have a clear answer about who in Government is responsible for the failure to bring this case to trial. Sadly, instead of clear answers, over the weekend we have heard Ministers delivering vague and cryptic lines to take.

The nation has a right to understand which figures within Government were involved in the process not to proceed with a prosecution. Given the Minister’s statement that the Government have not concealed the evidence or suppressed anything, will the Minister commit to publishing a timeline showing who knew what and when, and who said what and when? Will he publish correspondence between all officials, politicians and advisers involved with the CPS? If he will do that, we can gain the clarity that we and the British public need.

Will the Minister confirm again, with full confidence, that the Prime Minister, or any individuals who act on his behalf, played no role in any decision to prevent the supply of relevant evidence to the CPS, which might or might not include words of gentle encouragement either way? We must learn the lessons from this appalling episode so that we can have confidence in the ability of our national security laws to protect our interests and protect our democracy. That is our job in this House. This is the only way to provide the British public with the answers that they deserve and demand, and to rebuild the UK’s credibility with Five Eyes allies.

Will the Government commit today to holding a statutory independent inquiry into the China spying case? We know that China poses a clear threat to this country’s interests and values, a view that is shared by Liberal Democrat Members, as well as by our intelligence chiefs. Yet the Government’s approach to this case is only the latest example of their unwillingness to challenge Beijing’s efforts to expand its espionage capabilities in the UK and export transnational repression to our shores.

It is time for the Government to take the steps necessary to protect our interests and those of our citizens. Working with the CPS, will the Government look at all legislative options to prosecute the two individuals involved? Those options are still available. Will the Government block the application for the Chinese mega-embassy? And will the Minister add China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

[Dan Jarvis]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role. As he may know, I am a regular visitor to his constituency and I pay tribute to the important national security work that takes place there. He asked me a number of questions and, with great respect to him, I hope that he will concede that I have responded to a number of them already.

On his point about releasing information, which is an entirely reasonable question, it is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in any further ongoing legal processes, so I hope he understands the reason that I am unable to commit to doing that at the moment.

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the Government’s relationship with China, particularly on transnational repression. I hope that he will accept that the Government take that very seriously. We have done a lot of work through the defending democracy taskforce to ensure that we have the right resources in the right place to protect all those who live here in the UK from the impact of transnational repression, but I am happy to discuss that with him further.

The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the importance of our Five Eyes alliance, about which I agree with him. That is precisely why the UK recently hosted the ministerial gathering of the five countries in London, where we cemented our excellent relationship with our Five Eyes partners. As he will know, we share intelligence with them on a very regular basis. That relationship is in good health and has in no way been undermined by recent events.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Government have made it clear that they regret the fact that this case is not going ahead. The Minister rightly says that the CPS acts independently when making charging decisions, but will he go further than regret and say that, as a matter of law and evidence, this prosecution should have gone ahead and that the issue of innocence or guilt should have been determined by a judge and jury?

[Dan Jarvis]

I have a huge amount of time for my hon. Friend. The expression that I used both on 15 September and again today, on behalf of the Government, was that we are “extremely disappointed”. I hope that he will understand, not least given the Select Committee that he chairs, that it is not appropriate for Ministers to give advice to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the CPS on matters of law. The CPS and the DPP are rightly independent of Government. Frankly, we go down quite a dangerous road if we get into a situation of politicians and Ministers seeking to advise them and to influence their decisions. That is not the approach that this Government will take.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Dan Jarvis

2nd reading
Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is. Perhaps he did not hear me make that point earlier, but I specifically said that one of the reasons for the Bill was to prevent someone who is outside the UK, and who poses a risk to our national security, from returning when a further appeal may be upheld by the Home Secretary’s decision. He is right: that is a potential scenario that we have to guard against, and the Bill will enable us to do that, just as Governments could prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court. I hope he finds that reassuring.

As I set out, deprivation is one of the most powerful tools we have in our ongoing efforts to protect the United Kingdom and its citizens from harm. For it to remain an effective part of our armoury, we need to legislate. Before I finish, I pay tribute to our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In turbulent and uncertain times, their tireless work to maintain stability and security at home has never been more crucial. They must be supported at every turn, because the safety of our country stands apart from everything else we do. It is the cornerstone of our society, and ensuring that safety is the primary purpose of everyone involved in public service, including in this House. It is a responsibility borne not just by those of us on the Government Benches, but by parliamentarians of all parties. In that spirit, I urge Members to support the Bill, which is required to preserve our national security. I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Dan Jarvis

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.

Prevent: Learning Review

Debate between Judith Cummins and Dan Jarvis

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the publication of the Prevent learning review into the perpetrator of the attack that tragically killed Sir David Amess on 15 October 2021.

Sir David Amess was a beloved Member of this House. A hugely respected parliamentarian, his popularity extended right across the political divide. To win and keep the respect of those outside one’s own party is, as we all know, a rare accomplishment. Over nearly 40 years of service in this place, Sir David fought every day for his constituents. He advanced numerous causes with compassion, persistence and skill, and Members on all sides of the House knew him as a warm, respectful and always fair parliamentarian. His legacy lives on, not least in Southend, which now has the city status he campaigned so determinedly for. He will never be forgotten, and as the motto on Sir David’s memorial shield behind me states, “His Light Remains”. While this House lost a hugely valued Member on that terrible day, Sir David’s wife and children lost a loving husband and a devoted father. They are in our thoughts and prayers today and always.

Together with the Home Secretary, who spoke with Sir David’s family recently, I recognise the courage and persistence they have shown in seeking the answers that they deserve. As the House will know, it was a heinous act of violence on 15 October 2021 that took Sir David away from those who knew and loved him. The killer, Ali Harbi Ali—and I will not say his name again—was convicted of murder in April 2022 and received a whole-life sentence. The judge said that this

“was a murder that struck at the heart of our democracy”,

and he had “no doubt whatsoever” that the nature of this case meant that the perpetrator

“must be kept in prison for the rest of his life.”

The perpetrator had previously been referred to the Prevent programme and subsequently to the specialist Channel programme between 2014 and 2016, or between five and seven years before the attack took place. Immediately after the attack, a Prevent learning review was jointly commissioned by the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing to examine what happened in the case and see whether lessons needed to be rapidly learned. It was completed in February 2022.

Last week, I made a statement to the House on the Government’s publication of the Prevent learning review concerning the perpetrator of the abhorrent attack in Southport. Today, we are taking a further step to enable public scrutiny of Prevent, and in recognition of the seriousness of the terrible attack on Sir David, by publishing the Prevent learning review conducted in this case, too.

The perpetrator of the attack on Sir David became known to Prevent in October 2014, when he was referred by his school after teachers identified a change in his behaviour. The case was adopted by the Channel multi-agency early intervention programme in November 2014. An intervention provider who specialised in tackling Islamist extremism was assigned to work with him. The perpetrator was exited from Channel in April 2015 after his terrorism risk was assessed as low. A 12-month post-exit police review in 2016 also found no terrorism concerns. The case was closed to Prevent at that point. There were no further Prevent referrals in the five years between the case being closed and the attack.

The Prevent learning review examined how Prevent dealt with the perpetrator’s risk, and how far the improvements made to Prevent since he was referred seven years prior would have impacted on his management. The review considered both the handling of the case at the time and the changes that had been made to Prevent since the referral in 2014. It examined how far those changes addressed any problems identified, and then made a series of recommendations.

The reviewer found that

“from the material reviewed, the assessment in terms of”

the perpetrator’s

“vulnerabilities was problematic and this ultimately led to questionable decision making and sub-optimal handling of the case during the time he was engaged with Prevent and Channel.”

It identified that the vulnerability assessment framework was not followed, with the perpetrator’s symptoms being prioritised over addressing the underlying causes of his vulnerabilities. The reviewer ultimately found that, while Prevent policy and guidance at the time were mostly followed, the case was exited from Prevent too quickly.

The reviewer identified six issues: the support given did not tackle all of the vulnerabilities identified; record keeping was problematic and the rationale for certain decisions was not explicit; responsibilities between police and the local authority were blurred; the tool used for identifying an individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation was outdated; the school that made the referral to Prevent should have been involved in discussions to help determine risk and appropriate support; and the tasking of the intervention provider was problematic, with a miscommunication leading to only one session being provided instead of two.

The reviewer then examined how far changes in the Prevent programme since 2016 had addressed these issues. The reviewer recognised the significant changes that had been made to Prevent since the perpetrator was managed, in particular the introduction of the statutory Prevent and Channel duties under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The reviewer concluded that over the intervening period there have been considerable changes to policy and guidance for both the police and the wider Prevent arena, including Channel.

While a number of the issues in the perpetrator’s case would most likely not be repeated today, there were still a number of areas that could be considered as requiring further work to mitigate future failures. The reviewer made four recommendations for actions to further strengthen Prevent. These were to improve the referral process, strengthen the initial intelligence assessment process, update the tool used to identify vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism, and to not reduce data retention periods.

Since the report, the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing have fully implemented all four recommendations. First, a single national referral form was launched to encourage a consistent approach to referrals, building this into new training packages and mandating its use via statutory guidance. Secondly, training has been delivered to police staff to strengthen the initial intelligence check stage, ensuring their understanding of Prevent is robust. Thirdly, a new Prevent assessment framework was rolled out in September 2024, which replaces the tools previously used to assess all referrals and cases in the Prevent system. Fourthly, data retention periods were fully reviewed in 2023, and a joint decision was taken by the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing to maintain retention review periods at six years, or six years after the 12-month review for Channel cases.

In addition to the publication of the Prevent learning review, we recognise the significant concerns that remain over the way in which Prevent dealt with the perpetrator, as well as the need to ensure that the recommendations it suggested for improving the scheme have been properly implemented. Last week, I set out to the House a series of new reforms instituted by the Government to strengthen the Prevent programme, recognising the vital work done by officers across the country to keep people safe. That included the creation of a new independent Prevent commissioner. I can today inform the House that the Home Secretary has asked the Prevent commissioner to review the Prevent programme’s interactions with the perpetrator in this case, and ensure the implementation of all relevant recommendations. We will ensure that the Amess family have the support they need to engage with the Prevent commissioner in this work, so that they can have confidence that it will get to the truth about any failings in the scheme.

Two further important issues have been raised that are relevant to this case—local policing and Members’ security. On local policing, concerns have been raised by the Amess family about the way in which Essex police handled this case. A complaint has been made, and referred back to the local force by the Independent Office for Police Conduct for consideration. That process must be allowed to follow its course. However, I can inform the House that the Home Secretary has written to the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner of Essex police asking them to set out how the investigation will be conducted, and to be kept updated as the investigation progresses.

Members’ security is something the Home Secretary and I care deeply about, and I know it is a matter to which Mr Speaker attaches the utmost importance, as will all Members across the House. A review of security measures for MPs commissioned under the previous Government has concluded, and all the recommendations have been implemented. We must ensure that the learnings from this case have been properly implemented.

I take this opportunity to thank Mr Speaker for his continued leadership on these matters. The Speaker’s Conference is specifically considering what reforms are necessary further to improve MPs’ security and safety, which is another important step. The Leader of the House, the Home Secretary and I look forward to working closely with Mr Speaker and all Members to ensure that the facts of the appalling murder of Sir David are properly considered as part of the Speaker’s Conference’s work, and that the Parliamentary Security Department implements the recommendations it made following the review it conducted in the aftermath of Sir David’s death.

I am also grateful to previous Home Secretaries and Security Ministers for their efforts in this area. Our democracy is precious, and this Government will defend it against any and all threats, not least through the defending democracy taskforce, where we are mounting a whole-of-government response to combat these threats, including ensuring that elected representatives can perform their duties safely and without fear.

To conclude, I pay tribute once more to Sir David. He was a giant of this House and we miss him dearly. In all that he did, Sir David epitomised public service at its best. It is beyond a tragedy that we can no longer seek his advice or rely on his wisdom. We can, though, follow his example and devote ourselves every day to the task of building a better, safer Britain. That is our shared challenge, and under this Government, nothing will matter more. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I very grateful to my hon. Friend, not least because this is an issue of the most profound importance to his constituents. He is completely right that we must hold Sir David’s family in our thoughts and in our hearts today. He is also completely right that we should strive to ensure— and I know that we will—that we never forget Sir David.

My hon. Friend is in his place close to where I remember Sir David used to stand. Sir David was, among many other things, a complete master of the pre-recess Adjournment debate. I can see him now standing there confidently, expertly and authoritatively reeling off a very long list of requests that he completely expected the Government to get on with and deliver for his constituents. He was truly inspirational. We will never forget him.

I absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks that we will continue to work closely with the family and with all hon. Members to ensure that, through the work of the independent Prevent commissioner and the work I referenced earlier with regard to the Home Secretary writing to Essex police, the family get the answers that they rightly deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Southport Attack

Debate between Judith Cummins and Dan Jarvis

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement updating the House on the Government’s response to the Southport murders.

The attack in Southport in July last year was one of the most appalling and barbaric crimes committed in this country. For young children and adults to be attacked in this way, and three young girls killed, is utterly heartbreaking. The Home Secretary and I would like to thank those people who showed great bravery in attempting to stop the attack. For this foul act of violence to happen while children were enjoying themselves at a dance class at the beginning of the school holidays is beyond comprehension. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the three girls, and with all those injured as they continue to live with the trauma of that dark day. No one should have to go through what they have, and we are steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that they get every possible support.

Responsibility for this abhorrent attack lies with the perpetrator. Axel Rudakubana has been sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum of 52 years in prison, and Mr Justice Goose said it is highly likely that he will never be released. When the Home Secretary addressed the House on this case last month, she outlined the multiple interactions that the perpetrator had with state bodies in the years before the attack. Those included police, social services and mental health services. There are serious questions about how various agencies failed to identify and collectively act on the warning signs. All those questions must be answered—we owe that to the families who deserve the truth about what went wrong. That is why the Government are committed to understanding and addressing the failings in this tragic case through a comprehensive public inquiry. It will examine the issues raised in this case, but also wider challenges around rising youth violence. We are moving swiftly to set up the inquiry. We will consult the families to ensure that all critical issues are addressed, while remaining sensitive to the needs of those most affected. We expect to announce further details about the inquiry next month.

Although we do not pre-empt the conclusions of the inquiry, there are areas where action can and must be progressed immediately. Prevent is a vital part of our counter-terrorism system. We must endeavour to identify those susceptible to radicalisation early and before they go on to commit terrorist acts. Prevent receives nearly 7,000 referrals every year, and our hard-working frontline staff have supported nearly 5,000 people away from terrorism since 2015. We must get Prevent right. That is why the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing commissioned a rapid Prevent learning review immediately after the attack. These are usually internal technical reviews intended to identify swift learning and improvement for Prevent. However, the importance of the families needing answers has meant that today, following close engagement with them, we are taking the unusual step of publishing the Prevent learning review.

I can update the House that the perpetrator was referred to Prevent three times between December 2019, when he was aged 13, and April 2021, when he was 14. Those referrals were made by his schools. The first referral reported concerns about him carrying a knife and searching for school shootings on the internet. The second referral was focused on his online activity relating to Libya and Gaddafi. His third referral was for searching for London bombings, the IRA and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

On each of those occasions, the decision at the time was that the perpetrator should not progress to the Channel multi-agency process, but the Prevent learning review found that there was sufficient risk for the perpetrator to have been managed through Prevent. It found that the referral was closed prematurely and that there was sufficient concern to keep the case active while further information was collected.

The review is clear on the concerning behaviours that the perpetrator demonstrated. It highlights his interest in the Manchester Arena attack and that he talked about stabbing people, and it flags that some of the grievances that could have been a motivation were not fully considered. The review also highlights the perpetrator’s clear vulnerabilities and complex needs, which may have made him more susceptible to being drawn into terrorism.

The review concluded that too much focus was placed on the absence of a distinct ideology, to the detriment of considering the perpetrator’s susceptibility, grievances and complex needs. There was an under-exploration of the significance of his repeat referrals and the cumulative risk, including his history of violence. There were potentially incomplete lines of inquiry. At the time, the perpetrator could have fallen into a mixed, unclear or unstable category for Channel, due to his potential interest in mass violence. Indeed, the overall conclusion of the review is that he should have been case-managed through the Channel multi-agency process, rather than closed to Prevent. That would have enabled co-ordinated multi-agency risk management and support.

The Prevent learning review made 14 recommendations for improvements to Prevent. We have accepted those findings and rapid action has been taken to implement the recommendations. Counter-terrorism policing has conducted in-depth assurance visits to every region to determine whether the issues identified in this case have been resolved by operational improvements made since 2021. Urgent work is underway to address the findings.

The Prevent assessment framework was launched in September and is now in place across all regions. It was developed by experts and is being used to triage and risk-assess all Prevent referrals. It will improve decision making at all stages of the Prevent system. Roll-out of this tool has been accompanied by rigorous mandatory training. We have begun an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds to ensure that Prevent can deal with the full range of threats we see today, from Islamist extremism, which is the most significant terrorist threat the UK faces, through to the fascination with mass violence we saw in the Southport case. This internal review will complete in April and further strengthen the approach to repeat referrals and ensure that clear policy, guidance and training are in place.

We have completed the first stage of a policy review into how Prevent supports referrals who have mental ill-health or are neurodivergent. Actions for improving the operational approach have been identified and will be implemented swiftly, with oversight from the new Prevent commissioner. We are also strengthening our approach to the oversight of referrals that do not meet Prevent thresholds to make sure that people receive the right support. Next week, a pilot starts in several local areas to test new approaches to cases that are transferred to other services.

The Government have appointed Lord Anderson as interim Prevent commissioner. This is the first time in its history that Prevent will have dedicated independent oversight. That will help ensure that Prevent is always held to the highest standards. Lord Anderson’s first task is to review the perpetrator’s Prevent history, drawing on the Prevent learning review. That will identify whether there is further learning, examine improvements made to Prevent since 2021 and identify any remaining gaps that require further improvement. He will complete the review within his term as interim commissioner, which will end with the appointment of a permanent commissioner this summer.

However, it is simply not enough to focus only on this case. We need to take an even more robust approach to identifying learning swiftly and driving that learning through the Prevent system. The Prevent commissioner will be tasked with overseeing a new approach to Prevent learning reviews that enables rapid debriefing and urgent action after incidents, but also that provides a clear framework that binds other agencies into the joint learning process. Transparency and enabling public scrutiny are also fundamental. That is why we will take steps to publish the findings of other independent Prevent learning reviews where there has been an incident of national significance. Next week, we will publish the Prevent learning review into the appalling attack on Sir David Amess, to enable further public scrutiny of this important programme.

The first duty of Government is to ensure the security of our country and the safety of our people, because nothing matters more. While we can never undo the hurt and pain caused by this unthinkably wretched attack, we can, we must and we will do everything in our power to prevent further atrocities. As the Prime Minister said, Southport must be

“a line in the sand”

for our country. If that means asking difficult questions about shortcomings or failures, so be it. If it means holding institutions and processes to account, we will do so without fear or favour. If changes are required to protect the public and combat the threats we face, this Government will not hesitate to act. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank my hon. Friend for the exceptional job that he has done representing his constituents and constituency through the darkest of days. I can give him the assurances that he seeks. The public inquiry will seek to get to the heart of the issues that he raised, but I can say to him and to the House that we will not hesitate to act in the meantime. It is vital that our response is joined up locally and nationally. The measures that the Home Secretary has announced and that I have reiterated today should ensure that that is the case, but we will not hesitate to act further if that is required.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend has been a tireless champion for her constituents. It was humbling to meet Gary and Jan Furlong recently with her; they are incredible people whose decency is inspiring. As she knows, the terrible Forbury Gardens incident occurred before the formalisation of the learning review process. However, thorough scrutiny was given to the Prevent case management of the perpetrator through the coronial process.

The Government are committed to learning from these previous failings and from the experience of Gary and Jan Furlong. The Home Secretary has written to the Furlongs and the other families of the victims of the terrible Forbury Gardens attack, and I know she will want to meet with them soon; I recommend that Lord Anderson does so too, so that collectively, as a Government, we can learn everything possible from that terrible attack.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Father of the House.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Dan Jarvis

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am conscious of time, so I will keep going, not least because I want to briefly reflect on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). He spoke with personal conviction and experience, and I know that he understands the importance of preparation and planning—I will not say the second bit of that phrase. He also rightly paid tribute to our intelligence services, and I echo that tribute.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) spoke with authority, not just as a Member of this House but as a church warden, and made a really interesting point about critical challenge. I hope he will appreciate this point: the Bill is the result of two very extensive public consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny. It is forged from all that work. That is why I am confident that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and reasonable. However, I was grateful for the constructive challenge he offered.

The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made a number of constructive points about thresholds. I hope the responses I have already given have provided him and the venue in his constituency with the reassurance they want. Finally, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke with passion, as he always does, and raised a number of entirely reasonable concerns. I am afraid that we will not agree on every aspect of them this evening, but I hope that he will at least acknowledge that the Government have worked incredibly hard to ensure that the Bill is proportionate and not unreasonable, given the nature of the threat we face.

I will touch briefly on the Government amendments, which make only very minor and technical changes to the Bill to ensure that its purpose and intent is clear. They include small drafting changes for consistency, to remove unnecessary text, and to clarify technical detail.

In closing, I again pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team, and thank them. Their campaigning for this legislation has been an inspiration to us all. Figen’s son Martyn lost his life in the Manchester bombing. As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading,

“To suffer such a horrendous loss and somehow find the strength to fight for changes…is heroic.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 624.]

This is a vitally important Bill. The public deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. It is therefore right that appropriate and reasonably practical steps be taken to protect staff and the public from the impact of terrorism. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Security will always be the foundation on which everything else is built, and for this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.