National Security
Monday, 12 October 2026
Contributions
Mr SpeakerSpeaker
Before we come to the Home Secretary’s statement, I note that Joshua Kerry has been charged with a number of offences, including the murder of Ann Widdecombe and engaging in conduct in preparation of acts of terrorism, including against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Those cases are therefore sub judice. I am granting a limited waiver so that Members can refer to the fact that those charges have been brought, and the way in which related matters have been handled by the police. However, Members should not discuss the details of those cases or speculate on the guilt or innocence of the individual while it is rightly being dealt with in the courts. I also say to the House that I have not been told which Members were on the list—I have had no information. I only know when Members personally contact me, which means I find it difficult to help and support. I think that this is not being handled well, and I wonder what we are going to do in the future. If Members have concerns, please let me know privately. Obviously, it is very hard to know without the list.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)Labour
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on national security. Since the House last sat, we have received a reminder of the threats ranged against this country. That has included the danger posed not only by extremists and terrorists, but by foreign powers seeking to undermine our nation’s security. Those threats have targeted people, businesses and critical infrastructure, but above all else, they are attacks on our values and way of life. The first duty of Government is the security of the nation, so I will update the House on our response to those threats, and how we are acting to keep our country and citizens safe. I start with the threat posed by terrorists and extremists, and I know one case will be on the minds of many in this House today. It is now three months since the murder of Ann Widdecombe at her home in Devon. We continue to mourn her loss. On 2 October, the suspect was charged with a terrorism offence, including preparing an act of terror against the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I know that this news will have been deeply distressing for the hon. Member, so I say to him and his family that they have my profoundest sympathies at what must be an awful time. As I have said before, an attack on any one of us is an attack on us all. I know other Members, as well as people outside of this House, have recently been contacted by the police in connection with that case. To all those affected, I offer the same sympathies and solidarity as I do to the hon. Member for Clacton. At times like these, we must stand together as one House. For those who serve, politics is a calling. Robust debate and criticism are part of this job; threats, abuse and violence are not. Today, as on so many other days, we remember Ann Widdecombe, Sir David Amess and Jo Cox—three beloved colleagues, and three champions of our democracy. We owe it to them, and to everyone who believes in a fair and open country, to ensure that those who serve, at all levels, receive the protection they deserve. We must first ensure that every opportunity was taken in this particular case to stop the attacker. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating the response to an attempted break-in at the hon. Member for Clacton’s home last year. I have asked it to conduct that investigation both thoroughly and swiftly, and we expect it to conclude early next year. I would caution everyone not to pre-empt that investigation. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that there is insufficient protection for those who serve. I can therefore announce that I will expand, with immediate effect, police support to political figures who are not currently Members of Parliament. This will include former Members of Parliament, peers and party spokespeople, giving them access to a named police officer, as well as help with wider security measures. However, we must go further. Today, I also announce an independent, root-and-branch review of the protective security provided by the state to those in public life. The review will be led by Sir Stephen Lovegrove, the former National Security Adviser. It will examine protective security from every angle, including physical threats, online risks, and the dangers posed within our more polarised society. It will hear directly from Ministers, Members of Parliament and other high-profile people in public life, and it will report within six months. It will complement Sir Robert Buckland’s ongoing review into the killing of Sir David Amess. It is rightly an independent review, but my commitment is that its findings must and will lead to tangible change, and that the state’s resources will be rebalanced to protect those people and places that need it most. The terrorist threat is not only ranged at those who serve in public life. In recent days, we marked the first anniversary of the terror attack at the Heaton Park synagogue. On that awful day in October last year, as our Jewish community celebrated Yom Kippur, two brave men, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, lost their lives and three others were seriously injured. What happened that day must be fully understood so, as requested by the coroner, I can today announce a public inquiry into the deaths of Mr Cravitz and Mr Daulby. This will ensure that all evidence can be heard, including any sensitive national security material that could not otherwise be fully heard in the coroner’s court. Tragically, Heaton Park is just one of a series of attacks on our Jewish community that, in the year since, have included: the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green, north London, with a trial now set for March 2027; a failed attack on the Israeli embassy, for which the attacker was jailed last week for 20 years; a spate of arson attacks across north London; and last month, just hours before Yom Kippur began, a foiled but potentially lethal plot on the Jewish community in Manchester. In that case, two men, both Iranian nationals, have now been charged with terrorism offences. I pay tribute to the police and the security services for what was a long-running investigation conducted with their customary professionalism and skill. Faced with the threat posed to our Jewish community, we have increased funding to the police by an additional £250 million to boost police presence in key Jewish areas and to tackle antisemitism on our streets, but I know we cannot simply build higher walls around our Jewish community and expect them to live in fear. We must root out the evil of antisemitism wherever it lurks in society, and this Government are committed to that effort and are tackling antisemitism wherever it is found, be it online, in our schools and universities, in our public services or on our streets. The threat posed to our Jewish community shows us how the lines are increasingly blurring between extremism and state threats. We know that the Iranian state is targeting our Jewish community. Earlier this year, the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right claimed responsibility for the arson attacks in north London. We know that members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were behind that group and most certainly directed its other attacks across Europe. This speaks to a wider trend. States like Iran are using proxies to conduct hostile activity here in Britain. They pay criminals or exploit naive volunteers to attack our country and its citizens while maintaining an air of plausible deniability. It is a brazen threat, but it is one that we are alert to and will not tolerate. That is why, this summer, we fast-tracked the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 through Parliament, which created stronger powers and tougher punishments to deal with state-backed threats to domestic security. Under these new powers, we have designated both the IMCR and the IRGC. That brings us to the recent events at RAF Fairford. As the Prime Minister has said, our assessment is that it is highly likely to have been co-ordinated by a known individual based in Iran, and almost certainly directed by Iran’s IRGC. The Foreign Secretary has today summoned the Iranian ambassador, and he will condemn Iran’s continued attempts to undermine our safety. We are also sanctioning two individuals involved in conducting espionage and attacks in Europe and the US on behalf of the Government of Iran, and we will not hesitate to take further action to restrict Iran’s capacity to threaten international security. The threat is not contained to Iran, of course. As the invasion of Ukraine enters its fifth winter, the Kremlin continues to lash out at European countries. Together with the EU, we attributed to Russia an attack on Poland’s energy grid last December that could have caused half a million citizens to lose electricity. Similarly, we are acting against the threat on our shores. Last month, a British man was charged under the National Security Act 2023 over alleged contact with Russia’s military intelligence agency, and in recent days a Royal Navy sailor, accused of spying on behalf of Russia, has been charged under the same Act. We remain vigilant to the threats posed by China, too. MI5 recently warned universities and academics to cut ties with the China General Technology Research Institute, which had been funding research in the UK with the “primary purpose” of improving China’s espionage operations. Those who continue to work with this group will face criminal charges for aiding a foreign state, and lengthy prison sentences as a result. The threats we face today are complex and often interconnected. They target communities and citizens, the critical infrastructure that we depend on, and the institutions and individuals that make up our democracy. Our response to this growing threat is rightly multifaceted. We are tackling extremism in our communities and in the online world. In “Protecting What Matters”, our social cohesion plan, we set out a range of measures to tackle this threat, including banning those who seek to come to this country to spread hatred, and committing to publishing an annual “State of Extremism” report, which will identify the threats we face and, crucially, equip frontline professionals to counter them. We are also adapting to the changing nature of the violent threats we face. Following the horrors of Southport, we have taken action to curb the threat posed by individuals fixated on violence. This has included strengthening the handling of repeat Prevent referrals, and making it clear that referrals can be made to Prevent without a clearly identifiable ideology. The Online Safety Act 2023 has also ensured that thousands of services now have stronger age checks and safety measures. In addressing the threat posed by states, make no mistake: our police and security services are on permanent watch. Since 2023, more than 23 people have been charged under the National Security Act, leading to five convictions and sentences totalling more than 48 years’ imprisonment so far, including 18 years for two men convicted of spying for China. We have imposed more than 4,000 sanctions linked to Russia and Iran, and we have placed both on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which means that anyone conducting activity on their behalf must register it or face the prospect of prison. But more is required, and as I have noted already, the National Security (State Threats) Act has given us powerful new tools to tackle state threats. We are also building a specialist mission in Counter Terrorism Policing to disrupt state threats, and we are tightening security around military bases. Of course, resilience is about more than our physical defences. We are also establishing a national centre for information defence to tackle disinformation from states. Our Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill will protect everyday services by strengthening national defences against cyber-attacks. We will go further with our upcoming national security Bill and give intelligence agencies and the police stronger powers to bear down on cyber-criminals. Mr Speaker, let me say this to the public: if you are ever worried about someone you know, tell a teacher, a doctor or someone else you trust. Institutions like Prevent exist to stop people following a dark path from which there may be no return. If ever you see something suspicious, report it immediately to the police or a relevant authority. To businesses, in an increasingly online world, consider the cyber-threats that you face and strengthen your defences. Finally, to those responsible for some part of our critical infrastructure, we will work with you. The National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre stand ready to help. We can defeat those who mean us harm, but we are strongest when we act together. In a more dangerous world, we are faced by threats from without and within that target our democracy and our way of life. In response, we are adapting and strengthening our defences. As ever, I commend the work of the police and our security services who labour in silence to keep us safe, and I am sure the whole House joins me in offering thanks to them for that vital, lifesaving work. This Government are taking action in support of that effort, but as I have set out in this statement, I know there is more that we must do to protect this country, to protect our citizens and to protect our democracy. I hope the whole House can join together in that vital work, which is so much greater than any of our differences, because I know that those of us who choose to serve all share a belief: we will never be defeated by those who mean us harm. Mr Speaker, with my thanks to you for allowing it to run a little longer than would usually be the case, I commend this statement to the House.
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)Conservative
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The whole House supports the security services and the police for their work. I pay tribute to the brave men and women who serve our country in that way. On RAF Fairford, seven suspects were arrested, one a dual UK-Iranian national. These men were all released quickly on bail, about which senior US officials have expressed surprise. Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether she thinks it was reasonable to release those men so quickly, and whether she believes they pose any risk? Will she also tell the House whether the Government were aware in advance of any threat to RAF Fairford and, if so, what action they took? As the Prime Minister and, just now, the Home Secretary have said, it is highly likely that the Iranian state directed this. It is not acceptable for a state like Iran to organise hostile activity on our soil. After the Salisbury attacks by Russia, then Prime Minister Theresa May expelled 23 Russian diplomats. Will the Government now take similar action and expel Iranian diplomats, especially those thought to be involved in hostile activity or espionage? Does she agree that in these circumstances it was unwise of the Foreign Secretary to publicly shake hands with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 24 September, in contravention of long-standing Foreign Office policy? I note that on 4 October the US withdrew all its B-1 bombers from RAF Fairford, and both the President and vice-president of the US ascribed this to security concerns. Will the Home Secretary confirm that that is indeed why the B-1s left, and does she have any concerns about the safety of US military assets here in the UK? Shortly after the RAF incident, two Latvian men were arrested inside RAF Molesworth, which also hosts US forces? Can she comment on whether any foreign state may also have been involved in that incident? I thank the Home Secretary for her update on the police response to the terrible murder of Ann Widdecombe. The whole House mourns her, and those who knew Ann will miss her. This comes on the heels of the tragic murders of our dear colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess not that long ago. The threat against current and former Members of Parliament is clearly a very real one. Joshua Kerry, the man accused of murdering Ann, is said by prosecutors to have an “extreme left-wing mindset”, suggesting that this was a politically motivated murder. He is also accused of conducting online reconnaissance on over 100 public figures and trying to break into the home of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) last year. It has been reported that despite recovering substantial amounts of CCTV, that case was closed. It was then reopened—
Order. We need to be very careful about where we are going on motivation. We are creeping into what a court might decide, and we are not the court. Please can we steer a little bit away from that? We all want a prosecution. I want nothing to risk this case, because she was a friend to all.
I was quoting what the prosecutor said, Mr Speaker, but I will of course take your advice, as always. I was going to ask whether the Home Secretary shares my concern, which she alluded to in her statement, that the cancellation of the earlier investigation may have meant that opportunities to prevent the later tragedy were missed. I understand that a number of current and former MPs have very recently been contacted to be told that they appeared on a list made by Kerry. Kerry was arrested on 11 July, but it was not until last week—nearly three months later—that some on that list, including current and former MPs, were notified. Can the Home Secretary tell the House when she knew about that list? Does she agree that it would be wrong if those on it had had that information withheld from them for a period of time, potentially as long as three months? Threats to democratically elected representatives are threats to democracy itself, so I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement on protective security, including for those outside Parliament—recognising, of course, that it is Mr Speaker who plays the leading role in protecting Members of Parliament. I would also like to mark the anniversary of the terrible deaths of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby at Heaton Park synagogue in an antisemitic attack perpetrated by an Islamist extremist. In the year since, I have twice visited Golders Green in the aftermath of antisemitic attacks. As the Home Secretary said, in the last 10 days two Iranian small boat illegal immigrants have been charged with plotting a further antisemitic terror attack in Manchester. It is more important than ever that we redouble our efforts to fight antisemitism and Islamist extremism with all our might. On that topic, I wrote to the Home Secretary on 27 September asking her to deny an entry visa to Randa Abdel-Fattah, who praised the appalling terrorist massacre on 7 October as “exhilarating”. But the Home Secretary allowed her into our country anyway. Why did the Home Secretary do that, given the obvious risk that Abdel-Fattah might radicalise others with her antisemitic and pro-terror views? I really think that demands a specific answer. There are clearly a wide range of serious threats to the safety of our country, political leaders across the political spectrum and our Jewish community. I know that the whole House will be united in wanting to fight those threats. I thank again those serving in the security services and the police, who work tirelessly to keep us safe. The whole House supports them in their vital work.
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his comments and questions, though much of what he has asked, as I believe he knows full well, relates to ongoing investigations. As such, there are limits to what I can share with the House today. I also observe that there are limits to what is appropriate to be said publicly while investigations are ongoing. That is not just a restriction that we impose on ourselves for the sake of it; it is an important part of ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system and the independence of police investigations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will therefore understand, even if his questions do not suggest so, that in relation to RAF Fairford and the decision to bail suspects, that was entirely an operational decision for the police, who are solely responsible for that investigation. I have full confidence in the police as they carry out that investigation. Because it is ongoing, more facts will be established, and I am sure that the police will take appropriate action when they come to light. Those suspects are bailed under strict conditions, and no one—certainly no one in our legal jurisdiction—should be commenting on the rightness or wrongness of that, because it is in our jurisdiction and we have a responsibility to ensure that the investigation has full integrity. If there are criminal proceedings to follow, those proceedings must not be prejudiced by commentary beforehand. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands why I will not go further than what I have said in my statement on that point. I think that a more responsible approach from all Members of this House on this matter is required. I would not comment on intelligence briefings, and nor have other Home Secretaries. I will not compromise an ongoing investigation. As more facts are established, they will be public when it is appropriate for them to be made so. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about action taken by the previous Government after the Salisbury attack and laid out his suggested actions against the Iranians at this stage. I set out the actions that the Foreign Secretary is already taking, but we will not take anything off the table as the investigation matures, more facts are established, and more detail is known on exactly what happened. The Government will always keep under review all the methods we have at our disposal for responding to any hostile state carrying out activity in our country. On RAF Molesworth, again, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman knows this, but the police have said that their investigation is at a very early stage. At the moment, there is nothing to suggest that this incident is connected to the events at RAF Fairford. The police are continuing to investigate. It would not be appropriate to provide a wider running commentary on that investigation while it is still in its early stages. The shadow Home Secretary moved on to the circumstances relating to the murder of Ann Widdecombe and the recent charging decisions against Joshua Kerry on terror charges. Again, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on conversations between me and counter-terror policing, but I do not believe that information has been withheld from anybody at any point in an inappropriate manner. This is a thorough investigation whereby the police have been checking devices and other material at the property of that individual to establish a fuller picture. As that fuller picture has emerged, they have been sharing information; they have sought to do so appropriately, in my view. I know that people have been contacted by the police. That is a matter for the police to pursue. I think the implication of the shadow Home Secretary’s questions was that potentially there was a withholding of information or that it had taken too long for it to be shared with individuals—both Members of Parliament and former Members of Parliament. I do not believe that anything has happened in this investigation that is inappropriate; that is how I will respond. The shadow Home Secretary went on to ask questions relating to attacks on our Jewish community. In relation to the Home Secretary’s powers for excluding individuals from entering our country—we have had these exchanges on a number of occasions across the Dispatch Box—I will always use my powers appropriately by looking at both threat and risk as well as the wider impact on communities. I have used those powers in some instances where that threshold has been met. I have not used them in every single one—it would not be appropriate to do so—but let me tell him that I take a robust approach to the exercise of my powers and will always use them in an appropriate way to limit the threat to our communities here at home. I think that I have covered everything that the shadow Home Secretary said. I will ensure that I respond to his letter as soon as I finish the statement.
I gently say to the Home Secretary that it is much harder to read in a newspaper about which MPs have been targeted and named when we have no knowledge of that. That puts us all at a disadvantage, especially as we give health and wellbeing support as well as security. I think there is a gap that has not been closed.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)Labour (Co-op)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and recognise the dignified way in which she, as a woman of colour, carries out her duties in trying to help and support all of us, having been at the receiving end of quite a lot of this stuff herself over many years. I say that because in the two years that I have been back here, I have lost count of how many times we have stood here to discuss the activities and antics of people in this country who want to come after MPs, peers and minority communities. Whether those are the so-called patriots who do their patrols around the streets targeting migrant communities or the virulent antisemites who go after the Jewish community, they do so seemingly because they fear very little. I agree with the Home Secretary that we can put up walls to protect those communities—but at some point the state is going to have to say: “Enough of this; we are coming after them.” As well as all the welcome protections that the Home Secretary is putting in place for the victims, what more can we all do collectively to bring the perpetrators to the place they deserve to be, which is probably in front of a judge and then in jail?
Mr Speaker, before I answer my hon. Friend’s question, may I say that, on sharing of information, you will know that that is a matter for counter-terror policing? They are in charge of the investigation and they have got to ensure that all their actions can survive future contact with a court of law. Nobody wants to do anything that might be prejudicial in any way. I hear the case made by you, Mr Speaker, and by other Members of the House. Let me assure you that I will pick up those conversations with counter-terror policing and wider criminal justice system partners to ensure that we have stress-tested the robustness of our arrangements in such cases. I will come back to you directly, Mr Speaker, as well as updating the House in the future.
And the Lord Speaker.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will also ensure that I update the Lord Speaker. My hon. Friend will know that the Government have announced substantial new additional funding for the protection of our Jewish community: about £250 million of additional money committed over a three-year period to ensure an enhanced policing posture in key Jewish community sites. That is an important step forward and a recognition of the ongoing nature of the threat that our community faces. My hon. Friend is right on the issue of putting up ever higher walls: we have got to ensure that the security system is robust and can respond effectively. Let me say again to him that, as we can see from the sheer number of cases now appearing before the courts, the police and our security services are working around the clock to bring people to justice and to foil plots—they have done so on many occasions and will continue to do so—but we must have a wider national conversation about the cultural changes we have seen. We need a wider societal response against antisemitism, because we cannot simply put security guards everywhere. We need our citizens to be able to live together in harmony and respect, for the betterment of everyone.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)Liberal Democrat
I start by sharing my support for the police and security services. As the MP for GCHQ, that means a great deal to me, given that so many of my constituents work there. The murder of Ann Widdecombe shocked us all, and the revelations about the suspect’s plans apparently to attack other MPs are deeply concerning to all of us in the House. Those of us who want protection for politicians must demand it for all, no matter the political persuasion of those politicians; that needs to be said on the record. In return, we must hope that all politicians on all sides moderate their language when necessary to lower the temperature of debate and reduce the threat against us all. That is an important part of the debate that must not be lost. Those who target politicians must not be allowed to impose their intended chilling effect on our democracy. My thoughts remain with Ann’s family, including my constituent Rev. Roger Widdecombe who leads the congregation at St Paul’s in Cheltenham. Sadly, the public discourse aimed at politicians has coarsened in the last decade, which has resulted in increased hatred, abuse and offences against politicians and retired politicians at all levels, and politically motivated killings. We must never forget what happened to Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. It is important that we can all do our jobs without intimidation, fear or worse. I know that the Speaker takes that seriously. We therefore welcome the review into the protective security provided to those in public life. It is right that it will be done swiftly. On another of the many elements of the statement, we must be clearly ever more mindful of the threat to this country from our enemies on the global stage—and those at home, too. We must do all we can to prevent those threats: especially, as we have seen in recent months, those that have wickedly targeted the Jewish community in this country. It is right that today we remember Melvin Kravitz and Adrian Daulby. We welcome the Home Secretary’s comments on an inquiry for the Heaton Park attacks. Let us all remain vigilant to antisemitism and supportive of our Jewish communities—that goes for all political parties. In April, I wrote to Ministers seeking additional support for the police to account for the added strain on their resources in areas around military bases. Ministers told me that the police should work within their existing budgets without extra support, but given what has recently happened will Ministers look again at how they can support the police forces responsible for the areas around RAF Fairford and other bases? Will the Home Secretary push Ministers to accelerate the previously announced security review and set out what she will do to strengthen the security of all bases in general? Earlier, the Prime Minister stated that Iran and the IRGC were “highly likely” to have been behind the incident at RAF Fairford. So, finally, what action is being taken against Iranian operatives involved in that activity? Is the expulsion of diplomats being considered?
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and questions. On the issues relating to the murder of Ann Widdecombe, he made a point about our responsibility to lower the temperature. I observe that it is possible to have very robust debate and a thorough contest of ideas without having to cross a line and call into question our collective security. I urge all Members as ever to reflect on their own behaviour to ensure that we are modelling the right behaviour, which we expect our citizens to see. We lead the national discourse and we should seek to do it in an appropriate way without losing all of the political contestation that is a hallmark of a thriving democracy. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on remaining vigilant on antisemitism as a collective, whole of society response. All political parties have a responsibility to ensure that they are active partners in the fight against antisemitism, which is a pernicious form of hatred. We know that it has increased substantially in recent years, and we all have a responsibility there. The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of military bases is primarily one for the Ministry of Defence, but of course it works closely with the police and with us at the Home Office. Let me assure him that I am in good discussions with the Defence Secretary to ensure that all appropriate measures are being taken at our military bases, that we are aware of all the risks and that there are good security measures. It is my belief that there are, but of course we are never going to be complacent on that matter and will always review and ensure that our response is appropriate. I would be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman as well, if needed. If he writes to me again, I can make sure that he gets an updated response that reflects the current and recent events.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)Labour
British Jews like me find the vote by the Greens to declare Zionism racism deeply disturbing. Perhaps some Greens were misled, for Zionism is simply the belief that Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. So I am a Zionist, and who here is not a Zionist? British Jews, some of whom live in areas controlled by Green councils, are worried. How can they be reassured that they will not be the subject of political prejudice?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The policies of another political party are a matter primarily for that political party, and I would expect it to have to explain the impact of its motion on the safety and security of Jews. I believe that there are questions for the Green party leadership to look at and to answer. On the issue of Green councils, every council, regardless of which political party is running it, has to follow the law, and the law will not allow any prejudicial treatment of any of our citizens based on their protected characteristics, whether that is their race or their religion. That applies with as much fervour to the Jewish community as it does to any other community in this country, and I would expect all councils to ensure that they comply with the law. Nobody has the right to freelance on equality policy. It is set by the Government. There is a clear legal framework and every council has to follow it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)Labour
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)Conservative
I cannot be alone in having had many colleagues over the years report to me instances where they have received threats and the police have simply not taken them seriously. It is only when those threats have escalated and further action has been taken that the police have finally intervened, and that is simply not good enough. We have also seen in this recent case that the police communications are not appropriate and that Mr Speaker and Mr Lord Speaker are unable to offer the necessary support to those Members who have been victims. What conversation is the Home Secretary having with the police about their attitude to threats to Members of Parliament? These threats need to be taken seriously. We do not want to see another plaque put up in this Chamber for another murdered colleague.
I absolutely agree with the final remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee. None of us wants to be mourning another of our colleagues, either current or former, and that is why I believe that change is needed. The right hon. Lady will know that the responsibilities for the protective security system as it stands today are shared across multiple Departments, including the Parliamentary Security Department, individual local police forces, the Home Office and RAVEC—the Royal and VIP Executive Committee. It is a fragmented system and I am acknowledging today that, while everybody works hard within that system to provide a good security response for individuals in public life, it needs to be looked at again because of the range of threats that we now see, and the complexity of the changing environment. When the system was first set up, nobody had in mind that we would have high-profile political leaders who were not in Parliament. That was not how our political culture used to work, but things have changed and the system has not been able to keep up in the way that it needs to do so. That is why I have announced the expansion of Operation Ford to cover more people, so that at least they have some contact with police, can access advice and, where necessary, can have an assessment of their risk with other security measures attached to it. However, the system needs an overhaul, and that is why the review is an important step forward. I will be finalising official terms of reference with Stephen Lovegrove, the independent reviewer, and I will obviously ensure that the House is updated. As I say, I want this done within six months because I recognise the urgency of the situation.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)Labour (Co-op)
Faith matters in this country, and nothing strikes our shared British values more than attacks on places of worship. It is absolutely right that this Government call out the attacks on synagogues and other Jewish communal organisations, and it is right that Members of this House push the Government to do more to tackle antisemitism and make the resources available. There is also a wider hatred against other faiths in this country, and I am aware that in my gurdwaras, mosques and places of other religious faiths, people are worried about attacks on their communal spaces and their sacred ability to worship freely as part of modern Britain. What more can my right hon. Friend do to focus not just on antisemitism, which it is right to do, but on what support and funding are available to other places of worship, to ensure that modern Britain is a place where all our faiths have a place and are represented and protected?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a sacred ability of all our citizens who have a faith to practise their faith freely in their places of worship—a freedom that I have availed myself of on many occasions—but I understand people’s fear whenever they hear of an attack, whether on a synagogue, a mosque, a gurdwara or any other place of worship. My hon. Friend might be aware that the Government have already allocated record funding of over £70 million for the protective security schemes for faith communities. That includes all faith communities. Of that money, £40 million is for the protective security for mosques scheme. I have already updated Members on the money made available to the Jewish community, given the particular range of threats to our Jewish community, but there is funding for which other faith groups can apply, for assistance with security measures. At the Home Office, we are obviously downstream of many of these issues. We are involved when things are about to go wrong or have gone wrong, and what we can offer in terms of policy are things like security measures. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need a wider societal conversation on how we change our culture, so that we can stop the descent into a more polarised society that we have seen in recent years, and do more to build a cohesive society that is confident and whose citizens can live freely alongside one another.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)Reform UK
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. My colleagues will ask questions about MPs’ security, but I want to touch on RAF Fairford. The Government’s own terrorism tsar, Jonathan Hall KC, has said that in incidents of serious terrorism, more information should be put out faster, sooner and in more detail to prevent misinformation. I asked the Prime Minister earlier whether there was any truth in the suggestion that some of those arrested and then bailed had Iranian diplomatic immunity. He gave the hospital pass to the Home Secretary, so let me repeat the question. Can any more be said about that, and about whether those arrested could be not only British nationals but dual Iranian-British nationals?
No one had or has diplomatic immunity—I can put that on the record immediately. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the Jonathan Hall recommendations that followed the horrific attacks in Southport. We always seek to work with partners in the criminal justice system to make sure that information is shared as quickly as possible in order to prevent disinformation from spreading and to prevent people from succeeding in sowing fear in our communities. The hon. Gentleman will also understand, I hope, that the investigation is live, and how an investigation starts is not always how it ultimately ends. There are many developments along the way. If we think that the police should always have an open mind about an investigation, and if we want to protect the integrity of future court proceedings, it is important that we proceed with care. Let me assure him that I will always ensure that we put accurate information into the public domain as soon as we are able to do so, in a way that does not compromise an investigation. This investigation is still at an early stage.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)Labour
I thank the Minister for her statement. Recently, constituents have been contacting me with concerns about self-appointed uniformed groups, sometimes masked, patrolling our local area. This is becoming a nationwide phenomenon. They tell me that it is frightening and that it is stopping them going about their daily lives. Does the Home Secretary feel that the national guidance and legislation around these self-appointed patrol groups is sufficient, given that such behaviour falls outside normal protest?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the behaviour of some of these groups, and particularly of masked individuals, is causing fear across communities. It is designed to do that. We expect the police to use all the powers at their disposal, including, where appropriate, powers to require the removal of face coverings. I assure her that as groups develop their approach to protest-like activity, I will always keep these matters under review. It is important that we respect the right to protest and to political dissent, and that we take an active approach to allowing people to show their political dissent, which is a key hallmark of our democracy, but it is important that it does not happen in a way that has a chilling effect on the freedoms of others. I am committed to ensuring that this Government get that balance right. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the experiences in her constituency and region to ensure that our response is appropriate.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)Liberal Democrat
RAF Fairford is in my constituency. On the night of the incident, the residents of Whelford, a nearby village, were woken in the wee small hours by police hammering at the door and were given just a few minutes to leave their home, in many cases, leaving behind pets and medication. That was obviously a very unsettling experience, and many of them still feel quite deep anxiety. What assessment has been made of the ongoing risks? Will the Home Secretary meet me and local parish councils to discuss lessons learned, and to ensure that residents’ concerns are addressed before US bombers return to RAF Fairford?
Of course, I recognise the deep anxiety that will have been felt by the residents of Whelford; it must have been a terrifying experience for them. The hon. Lady will understand that the police have to act quickly to safeguard life and have to take every risk seriously, and I am sure that that is what they sought to do in this case, but there is no getting away from the fact that, although they were doing their jobs, this would still have been unsettling for residents. I am happy to ensure that residents’ concerns are listened to. I will arrange a meeting for her with the Security Minister, in the first instance, to go through those concerns, and will ensure that I am also kept updated.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)Labour
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Adults in the UK seeking to access pornographic material online are now required to upload identification to pass age verification checks, yet those choosing to share extremist material or incite hate and terrorism on social media can enjoy anonymity. What consideration has the Home Office given to ensuring that social media users can be identified? My constituents, some of whom have been victims of online harassment, simply do not understand why anonymity is allowed.
I understand the concern raised by my hon. Friend. He will know that this is a matter of policy for colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Secretary of State has made it clear that she believes there is further work to do on ensuring online safety for everyone. More generally, age verification has had a good impact in relation to the viewing of pornographic material. When it comes to material that is in the more contested space of cultural issues, we would still have the issue of where we draw the line between content that, although it might be horrible, is lawful; content that is lawful but harmful; and content that slips into illegality. Those questions remain, regardless of whether we have age verification.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)Conservative
I put on record my thanks to Counter Terrorism Policing West Midlands and West Mercia police’s special branch for all they are doing in their regions and areas for all Members, across parties. In reply to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who is no longer in her place, the Home Secretary mentioned that the system was “fragmented”. In her statement, she also said, “We are also building a specialist mission in Counter Terrorism Policing to disrupt state threats”. The Home Secretary will know that the Security Service—she knows what branch—plays a major part in counter-espionage and counter-terrorism. We also have counter-terror police and the National Crime Agency. Given that, as she said, more deniable proxy attacks are happening through criminal gangs, is this not creating another silo, at a time when we need to break down the silos and have all these agencies and forces working together?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments on supporting the work of counter-terror police. So much of that work is not public, but it is crucial to the safety and security of our nation; it is right that we place on record our thanks to them. He makes a good point about silos. That is one of the reasons why I am setting up the national police service, which will bring together the National Crime Agency and Counter Terrorism Policing into one service. I am doing so because I recognise that placing those two agencies together puts us in the best possible place to face these growing and complex threats, which are changing all the time. I believe that the National Crime Agency and Counter Terrorism Policing work very effectively together. They have built up good arrangements over the years to ensure that when allegedly criminal activity strays across the boundaries into what their organisations look at, they work closely together. I meet all of them, alongside other partners, weekly, as does the Security Minister. We work very hard to ensure that there are not silos. The reason for setting up the new state threats mission is that the nature of state threats has changed so significantly. We see this, and other Five Eyes partner countries see the same trend. It is important to be at the cutting edge of understanding how our enemies want to do us harm, so that we can meet that challenge. I commit to the right hon. Gentleman that I will not allow any silos to exist. The national police service will have a key role in ensuring that that never happens.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)Labour
I join the House in expressing my sympathies to the family of Ann Widdecombe, as a fellow Devon resident. The number of antisemitic and other hate crimes has risen in recent years. When I talk to young Jewish people in my constituency, they are fearful and unable to live their full Jewish lives freely. I am particularly worried about new self-appointed groups who are door-knocking in Jewish communities under the guise of, for example, being anti-apartheid. That strikes me as being a bit closer to harassment than anything else. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that she, the security services and the police have the right tools to combat this new activity, which is increasing across the country?
I thank my hon. Friend, who raises a similar point to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham). The self-appointed groups are showing a new form of protest-type activity, which is not quite the same as traditional protest. Whether they come from the far right or the far left, no one is allowed to break the law of our land, harass people, threaten or intimidate. Wherever a crime has taken place, I expect the police to respond robustly and to ensure that communities and individuals are not living in fear. I reassure him that I am discussing the emerging picture of this type of activity with all appropriate partners. I am happy to discuss with him the experience in his area, and to work with hon. Members to ensure that the legitimate expression of the freedom to protest, freedom of conscience, freedom of political speech and so on does not chill the freedoms, or indeed the safety, of anyone else.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)Scottish National Party
It is not always the most high-profile or senior politicians who are targeted; we know that in this House, to our cost. The Speaker’s Conference on security looked at the views of Members and candidates from all parts of these islands, and it specifically sought evidence from Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh candidates and MPs, who may not have the same jurisdictional or geographical issues as English MPs. Can the Home Secretary reassure me that Sir Stephen Lovegrove will listen to a range of voices and experiences, from different jurisdictions and geographies, so that appropriate recommendations can be made?
Let me give that assurance immediately to the hon. Lady. The Government already recognise that there is a different picture for devolved Administrations. Op Ford is extended to all devolved Administrations, and the review will take into account the many different ways in which democracy is expressed in our country, whether in metro mayoralties or devolved Administrations, including by current and former Members of those Administrations and local councillors, of whom there are many thousands across the country. I can give her that reassurance. The review will be a full, end-to-end look at the whole picture of protective security for those in public life.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)Labour
This follows on from hon. Friends’ questions. We are seeing more masked gangs and people who seek to intimidate our communities, but often following them are the new self-proclaimed auditors, who are there to film them, and who often fund these gangs. Unfortunately, this trend has grown dramatically in Blackpool. People recently entered the council chamber during a full council meeting to intimidate councillors of all parties, screaming and demanding that councillors identified what political party they were from. During the recent by-election campaign in Claremont, people harassed and intimidated local activists of all parties as they went about. What measures are in place to allow councils to ban these “auditors” from certain areas of towns, and especially town centres? We also see this trend growing in the night-time economy; these people often prey on vulnerable individuals. This is becoming a real problem, and it has been highlighted by the leader of Blackpool council as well. What more can we do, or what new powers need to be implemented, to stop this wave of “auditors”?
I am sorry to hear of the experiences of people in my hon. Friend’s local community. I restate that we expect the police to use the full range of their powers. People have the right to show their political dissent in this country—that is an important freedom that everybody has—but nobody has the right to break the law, threaten or harass individuals, or otherwise engage in criminal acts. I encourage his local council leaders to work with their local police, but I will also meet all colleagues who have raised similar concerns to talk through the current policy environment, and to ensure, as I said in response to previous questions, that we get the balance right, and maintain the freedoms that make our country great without chilling the freedoms of others in our society.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)Conservative
RAF Molesworth is in my constituency, and the break-in last week has caused concern locally, it being next to a very small village. People are rightly concerned that the base is vulnerable, whether this was criminal activity or a foreign actor intervening. We have three bases in my constituency, two for US visiting forces, and one UK base. Two of them are among the most strategically sensitive sites in western Europe, and we have a small and quite underfunded police force. I appreciate that the situation is complicated, because it mixes Cambridgeshire constabulary, Ministry of Defence police, Counter Terrorism Policing and US visiting forces. I went out with Ministry of Defence police the other day on Project Servator, which acts as a deterrent locally, but it was not something that I had heard of, and it certainly is not something that local people are aware of. There is a real opportunity for briefings or encouragement in areas like mine, to make people more vigilant about this type of activity and the vulnerability of those military bases.
I thank the hon. Member and, if he is amenable, I would be happy to ensure that he can meet the Security Minister. I will also personally pick up those issues with the Defence Secretary. The hon. Member is right to note that many different organisations are involved in the security of bases across the country and in his constituency. I will follow up to ensure that everything is happening as it should in his constituency, and to ensure better sharing of information, where that is appropriate.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)Liberal Democrat
The Government have reported that there are 20 active terror plots, just recently two Iranians have been arrested, and now the Prime Minister is telling us that there are Iranian links to the Fairford incident. I think it is safe to say that there is a systematic Iranian campaign on British soil. The measures that the Home Secretary has announced today and recently are really welcome, but they are largely defensive in nature. Sometimes offence is the best form of defence. Has the Home Secretary considered whether we perhaps need to increase the costs on the Iranians for their actions? Has she considered signalling that fact to the Iranians to deter them from future activity?
Let me simply say to the hon. Member that we work very closely with all our allies. These are threats that are shared and are felt by many of our allies and colleagues in other countries. We will always ensure that we take both collective action to deal with the threats we all face, but also ensure that we are always protecting the British national interest. I will not give a running commentary on wider discussions, but let me say that this Government will always take every appropriate measure to keep our people safe.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)Reform UK
Last week I got a telephone call from Nottinghamshire police to tell me that I was on a kill list of 100 MPs, former MPs and VIPs. I strongly believe that it took a leak to the press before the police actually contacted me and my Reform colleagues sitting here. Can the Home Secretary tell me when she first became aware of that list?
I do not believe, as I said in answer to previous questions, that anything inappropriate has happened in relation to the list. I am not going to give a running commentary on intelligence discussions, but nothing inappropriate has happened, in my view. I will ensure that I am able to share more information with the House, as I referenced in my earlier answer to Mr Speaker, and the concerns that have been raised about who has knowledge of those names, but the investigation is led by the police—I do not get a running commentary or an update, and it would be inappropriate for that to happen. The police are operationally independent, they must go where the evidence takes them, and no politician should ever have a directive hand in such proceedings.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)Liberal Democrat
I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of the independent review of protective security provided by the state to those in public life. The statement mentions former MPs and party spokespeople, and I am glad that she said from the Dispatch Box that it will also include elected councillors, because it cannot be the case that good people are being put off from standing to represent their community because of a fear of violence, intimidation and abuse. The reality for too many councillors, though, is that Operation Ford is inconsistent and is not rising to the moment. I welcome her widening the scope of Operation Ford, but could she explain how she plans to strengthen the operation itself, so that elected councillors and candidates get the support and protection they deserve?
I am happy to pick up any specific concerns that the hon. Lady has, or with councillors whom she has been discussing the problems of Operation Ford with, to ensure that those are dealt with. I would observe that when Operation Bridger first started—I say this as a Member of Parliament rather than as the Home Secretary—it maybe was not as effective. Each time it has done anything, Members have been able to shape how it works based on their own lived experience. That engagement between Members, the parliamentary authorities and the police themselves has been crucial in improving Operation Bridger. It has been an iterative process. The nature of these threats is very complex—it varies from place to place, from person to person—so it is right that it adapts as circumstances change and that it is responsive. I expect Operation Ford to respond in the same way to the threats faced by other elected officials. I say to the hon. Lady that I will ensure that is the case and that there is good learning across all the Operation Ford network to ensure that there is a consistent standard. It is not unusual for MPs still to say that Operation Bridger can be inconsistent, so it is a work in progress, but I do believe that the wider review gives us the best opportunity to have a single system with a clear approach, based on threat and risk management, which is crucial for everyone.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)Ulster Unionist Party
On the National Protective Security Authority and the national centre for information defence, may I seek an assurance from the Home Secretary that infrastructure in Northern Ireland and the misinformation that is portrayed into Northern Ireland politics are also a focus of this Government’s work?
Let me absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that infrastructure in Northern Ireland is just as important as infrastructure in any other part of the United Kingdom, and, whether the work we do is through the new national centre or our current arrangements, there will be no discrepancy in the way the Government approach the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland, or indeed critical national infrastructure in Northern Ireland, compared with any other part of the United Kingdom.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)Liberal Democrat
One of the greatest strengths of British democracy is that constituents can meet their Member of Parliament face to face. Does the Secretary of State agree that although we must keep elected representatives safe from violence, the basic right of people to speak to their Member of Parliament must always be championed?
I agree that it is a really important way in which this country and our democracy function. I do not think of it as a right so much, but it is part of our political culture. It has always been the case that people can freely turn up to this, the nation’s House, themselves and that they can meet their local Member of Parliament and also their councillors. It is also normal in our country for MPs to offer advice surgeries and to go out door-knocking. Those are important parts of our political culture that I do not wish to see change. But we must also be mindful of the new risks posed to elected officials. As a Member noted earlier, we do not want people to be put off from entering public life, so it is important that our arrangements adapt in a way that protects our political culture.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)Liberal Democrat
The Home Secretary rightly asks that the public play their part in national security, but we have no serious national framework for civilian resilience. Finland and other countries have demonstrated the value of preparing the civilian population before a crisis. So will the Government seriously consider the Liberal Democrat proposal to establish a dedicated civil defence office and civil volunteer reserve, which would bring together volunteers trained in cyber-security, emergency response and protection of critical national infrastructure?
The Government take very seriously the need to be prepared for all the threats we face across a whole range of public policy concerns, whether national security matters or those related to the environment, and other issues as well. I am sure that I and colleagues across government will always look at all proposals designed to help us be more resilient as a nation, and I know the Prime Minister will have more to say on this in due course.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)Reform UK
It is abundantly clear to me that if the attack on the home of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) had been properly investigated, instead of brushed aside in some combination of incompetence and political bias, Ann Widdecombe would still be alive today. Instead, she was brutally murdered because of two-tier Britain. Let that sink in to everyone in this place. Why did it take the death of Ann Widdecombe for people to begin at least to wake up to what is happening in this country?
I appreciate that the circumstances of Ann Widdecombe’s murder and also the additional information that has come to light are very distressing, and I have offered sympathy and support from this Dispatch Box before, and I do so again. But I do not think that the distressing nature of these events justifies the charge that the right hon. Member makes, and I do reject that charge. He, as a former Minister, knows how these things work. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating. It is independent of Government and of the police. It will go where the facts take it on the additional incident that is being investigated in relation to the property of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), and it is important that it is able to get on with the job. It is also important that we do not pre-empt the findings of that IOPC investigation. It is working swiftly and will have answers for us quickly, and I know those answers will be debated in this Chamber, but it is important that we do not make findings of fact before the facts are known.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)Liberal Democrat
The RAF Fairford plot was reported in the press as having been foiled by a local resident. She described parked vans as having “strange signage” on them. She said: “I looked at it and thought, ‘That is not real.’” Will the Home Secretary credit this alertness from a member of the public, and will the Government be doing more to encourage this whole-of-society approach to security?
I repeat what I said to all members of the public in my statement: if they see anything suspicious, they should contact the police, as residents did in relation to the incident at RAF Fairford. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the Defence Secretary has said, there is more to the investigation and how the incident unfolded than is known or said publicly at the moment. That is because the investigation has to be able to continue in the normal way—so there is more to those circumstances. But let me commend the resident in question and all others for doing their civic duty in spotting something suspicious and making sure they call the police. I would urge everybody else, if the same ever happens again, to do the same.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)Democratic Unionist Party
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. My constituents are deeply proud of Northern Ireland’s unmatched cyber-security and resilience, but they are also deeply worried about the modern, multi-layered threats confronting our nation. We are seeing unprecedented levels of foreign interference, state-sponsored cyber-warfare, and trans-national repression from hostile states such as China, Iran and Russia, targeting democratic institutions and communities on our own soil. At a time when global instability is worsening, will the Home Secretary reassure the House that this Government will stand firmly behind our intelligence-sharing networks with key democratic allies such as Israel, rather than risking them through short-sighted, one-sided trade or diplomatic restrictions, such as those against Israel?
I assure the hon. Member, as I assured the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) earlier, that the Government approach in relation to our people and our places in Northern Ireland is no different from our approach anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Let me also say that the Government value our defence and security and intelligence relationships with all of our allies and partners, and those relationships are important and strong, and they continue. That is also the case in relation to Israel, and we will continue working with our allies and partners to make sure that we are collectively doing everything we can to keep our people safe.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5413436.