PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
National Security - 14 May 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Before we come to the national security statement, I should say two things in relation to matters that are sub judice. First, there are a number of live cases relating to recent antisemitic attacks. However, to help manage our discussions on an issue of national importance, I am granting a limited waiver to allow passing references to such incidents, as long as they do not engage in discussion of or speculation around the motivation for, detail of or immediate response to any specific individual incidents.

Secondly, I should inform the House that the case relating to two men spying on behalf of Hong Kong is still technically sub judice until sentencing. However, I am granting a limited waiver so that Members may discuss wider issues raised in the context of this case. Members should not speculate about sentencing issues.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on recent national security developments, including the increase in the national terrorism threat level.

The events of the last few weeks have illustrated the breadth and seriousness of the national security threats that we face from both terrorists and foreign states. In the response to those threats, they have also highlighted the strength and resilience of our world-leading law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Over recent weeks we have seen a series of arson attacks and incidents against British Jews and opponents of the Iranian regime, including the horrifying terror attack in Golders Green, which seriously injured two members of the Jewish community. We have seen the recent conviction of a 21-year-old man who planned to commit a terrorist attack to further his extreme white supremacist agenda. We saw convictions last week against two individuals under the National Security Act 2023 for surveilling and intimidating dissidents on behalf of China, and we are seeing record levels of investigative casework on terror plots, espionage and state-linked threats to individuals.

On 30 April, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre raised the UK national terrorism threat level from “substantial” to “severe”. The decision to change the UK’s terrorism threat level is taken independently of Ministers, based on the very latest intelligence. “Severe” means that a terrorist attack is highly likely in the next six months. The threat level was last at “severe” from November 2021 until February 2022. This increase in the threat from terrorism follows the recent stabbing attack in Golders Green, but it is not solely a result of that attack.

The terrorism threat in the UK has been gradually increasing. It is driven primarily by the broader Islamist and extreme right-wing terrorist threat from individuals and small groups based here in the UK. While the UK national threat level reflects JTAC’s assessment of the terrorist threat in the UK, it comes against a backdrop of increased state-linked physical threats, which is encouraging acts of violence, including against the Jewish community. In response, we have announced £25 million of immediate funding to strengthen policing, protect Jewish communities and provide reassurance. This brings the total protective security funding to £58 million this year, the largest investment a Government have made in protecting Jewish communities.

I have also initiated a review of the national threat level system, which currently captures only the threat from terrorism, to ensure that it remains fully relevant and that we are communicating as clearly as possible with the public about the national security threats we face today.

Contest, the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, sets out a clear framework—prevent, pursue, protect and prepare—which aims to ensure that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. We are broadening our intervention capabilities to better support those at risk of being drawn into terrorism, through the Prevent programme. We have improved training and guidance for frontline professionals and practitioners to better spot the signs of radicalisation. We are working with technology companies, international partners and Ofcom to tackle online content used to radicalise, recruit and incite terrorism.

Co-ordinated intervention is crucial to reduce the terrorist risk, so we are providing children and individuals with the right support with our interventions centre of expertise, which brings together MI5 and Counter Terrorism Policing with expertise from wider public services. MI5 and CTP work tirelessly to stop terrorist attacks, with 19 late-stage attack plots disrupted since 2020, including a chilling ISIS-inspired plot to target Jewish communities in Manchester using firearms.

We have delivered our manifesto commitment to improve the security of public events and venues across the UK through Martyn’s law, and free expert advice, guidance and training are available to owners and operators of venues and public spaces through the ProtectUK website. Through closer working across the emergency services, we are maintaining strong, multi-agency working capabilities to respond to a range of different scenarios. We keep our preparedness under constant review, and the response is exercised regularly, ensuring that our emergency services can respond immediately to terror attacks, as we saw in their brave response to the violent antisemitic attack in Golders Green.

Terrorism and state threats are sometimes interrelated, as we have seen with threats from states such as Iran, and the wider use of both terrorist groups and proxies by state actors, including Russia. We face a sophisticated and persistent challenge in responding to China, which presents a unique set of threats to the United Kingdom. The case last week demonstrates that we have the tools to successfully respond to that challenge, and Members across the House will know that a jury delivered its verdict following the nine-week trial of Bill Yuen and Peter Wai. The jury found both individuals guilty of assisting a foreign intelligence service—in this case, the Hong Kong police force—under the National Security Act. Wai was also found guilty of misconduct in public office.

The verdict represents the first convictions under the National Security Act related to China, and it sends a strong message that the full force of the law will be applied to anyone who carries out hostile acts in the UK on behalf of any foreign state. Both individuals held positions of power, leveraging these to conduct hostile activity on UK soil on behalf of China. It is simply unacceptable that an employee of a foreign power was conducting a shadow policing operation in the United Kingdom. That is why the Chinese ambassador has been summoned, and the Foreign Secretary will be making it clear to Hong Kong’s Chief Executive that this type of activity was, and will always be, unacceptable in the United Kingdom. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has also made it clear that Yuen’s employment at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office must be terminated immediately.

The trial has understandably caused considerable concern within the UK among the Hong Kong community. The safety and security of Hongkongers in the UK is paramount. That is why my officials have been working closely with the National Protective Security Authority to deliver new guidance on transnational repression. The guidance provides examples of what transnational repression might look like and what to do if anyone feels under threat from any state.

Transnational repression from China, however, is just one type of state threat activity. That is why the Government are taking decisive action across a much broader range of state threats. We are: rolling out new training for police officers and staff to increase their understanding of state threats; driving forward the counter-political interference and espionage plan, to protect the UK’s democratic institutions and processes; bringing forward in the coming weeks fast-track legislation that will clamp down on individuals and groups carrying out hostile activity for foreign states, including those who act as their proxies, and which will include new proscription-like powers to ban the activities of state-backed organisations that pose a threat to the UK’s national security; and implementing all the recommendations made last year by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threats legislation. We are responding to state threats in all their forms.

National security is the first duty of Government. As this House knows, that duty includes being able to respond to a range of threats. We are giving our police and intelligence services the resources they need for that vital role. Last year we provided an extra £140 million for Counter Terrorism Policing, plus nearly £600 million more for our intelligence services. This takes their funding to record levels.

Protecting our communities and standing up to hatred and intolerance is a shared responsibility of every person in the UK. I urge the public to remain vigilant and report any concerns they have to the police. Their contribution is a vital part of our efforts to keep our country safe.

Support to the victims of terrorism is a moral duty, and I would like to acknowledge the profound and enduring impact on the survivors and families of those affected by the attacks in Golders Green, and all terrorist attacks, whose lives have been forever changed.

I want to close by thanking those individuals serving in our police and security services for their dedication to keeping our country safe, and the public for their continued vigilance. We owe them all a debt of gratitude. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Minister for advanced sight of his statement and for his recognition of the importance of working together across the House to make our country safer.

The attacks against the Jewish community in recent months have been devastating. As the Leader of the Opposition and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation have said, this is a national emergency. The Government noted that the raising of the terror threat level was not solely a consequence of the attack in Golders Green, but we can all see how this community has been targeted. Our thoughts remain with the victims and their families.

We have to speak honestly about what is going on. We have to call out hate when we see it. Jewish people in Britain are 12 times more likely to be a victim of hate crime than any other group. We cannot allow this to go on. That requires not just warm words but robust action. That means authorising the surveillance powers usually reserved for counter-terrorism, which the Minister referenced today, to identify and prevent antisemitic attacks that are being planned. Furthermore, foreign nationals who express antisemitism, support extremism or endorse terrorism should be deported. The Government should place a moratorium on hate-fuelled pro-Palestine marches, because we can see the way in which they are being used as a cover to promote violence and intimidation against Jewish people.

Furthermore, although I welcome the Government’s announcement of legislation in the King’s Speech, they need to act at speed. Steps need to be taken to proscribe groups that fuel this hatred, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This was recommended almost 12 months ago. I hope it is now a top priority for the Government. Conservative Members on this side of the House stand ready to support its implementation.

Ultimately, the measures outlined do not begin to cover the full extent of the action needed to stop this evil. We need to tackle the underlying ideologies that threaten our national security. It is therefore critical that the Government focus on the ideologies that pose the greatest threat. As I told the House during the statement on antisemitic attacks in April, 75% of MI5’s terrorism caseload relates to Islamist extremism, and 94% of terrorist murders over the past 25 years have been perpetrated by Islamist extremists. However, we have seen a decrease in Prevent referrals relating to Islamist extremism. Only 10% of the current Prevent caseload relates to Islamist extremism. Can the Minister explain what more the Government will do to address that disparity and ensure that we tackle Islamist extremism effectively?

Equally, talking about the threat posed by China is not an abstract matter. There are people in this country who have had bounties placed on them and who face threats because of the Chinese regime. Police officer David Wilson recently published his report into Chinese organised crime links to the Chinese state, including its intelligence services, diplomatic service and the United Front Work Department. The report demonstrates how Chinese intelligence services, and even diplomats, work with organised crime networks to supress dissidents and intimidate British-Chinese communities and students into compliance. I therefore ask the Government, as many of my colleagues have before, to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme.

We share the Government’s concerns about the continued threat posed by Russia. Will the Minister join me in condemning the fact that Russia has issued an arrest warrant for our former colleague Ben Wallace? Does he agree that this is totally unacceptable, and will he endeavour to look into the matter?

The increase in the threat level illustrates the risks posed to this country. Many of the measures set out by the Minister will be welcomed, but I believe we need a fundamental shift that reflects the scale of the threats facing the country, and particularly the Jewish community. We must maintain an absolute focus on stamping out the ideologies that fuel hatred and undermine our national security. I believe that is how we pay tribute to those who have been victims of these devastating terrorist attacks.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his sensible and reasonable approach this morning. I agree that, wherever possible, we should seek to work on these matters on a cross-party basis, and that is absolutely my approach.

I agree with the shadow Minister about the appalling and abhorrent attacks on the Jewish community that we have seen recently. I hope that he understands that the Government are absolutely committed to dealing with that poisonous hatred. I spelled out in my statement some of the measures that the Government have taken and will continue to take. However, the shadow Minister is right to hold us to account. This is not about warm words; this needs to be about deeds. That is precisely why we have allocated more funding to support that activity than has previously been the case.

We will take every opportunity to ensure that our response, collectively as a nation, is proportionate to the nature of the threat faced by British Jews across the country. It is abhorrent that any British Jew might feel the need to lead a smaller Jewish life, and I hope that there is complete agreement on that across this House. I give the shadow Minister and the House my absolute assurance that we will do everything we can to ensure that our Jewish communities not only are safe, but feel safe.

Entirely reasonably, the shadow Minister raised concerns about hate marches and protest activities that have taken place, and that may seek to take place in the future. Again, I hope that it is a point of consensus to say that the right to protest is fundamental to our democracy. At the same time, however, this cannot cross the line into unlawful or violent behaviour.

The police do have a range of existing powers that enable them to tackle unlawful behaviour, including at marches. It is important to note that new powers will soon be introduced by measures contained in the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent at the end of April, to further restrict intimidatory protests, particularly around places of worship, with the addition of new offences around face coverings at protests. The Act also places a duty on senior officers to take account of the cumulative impact of protest activity when considering whether to impose conditions on a protest, so the police will be able to force protests that follow the same routes time and again to change the route or time of a protest. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the Home Secretary has asked Lord Macdonald to lead an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, and we look forward to receiving his recommendations in the near future.

The hon. Gentleman made an entirely reasonable point about the disparity in the Prevent caseload. Although he is right about that, I hope he would acknowledge that that is not a new challenge; it has been faced by both the previous Government and this Government. As he will be aware, we have appointed a new independent Prevent commissioner. I will be meeting him later today, and I categorically guarantee that this matter will be on the agenda for our discussion. We take the hon. Gentleman’s point very seriously, but I know that he will understand that it is not a new challenge for Government.

The hon. Gentleman referred to China. I hope I was clear earlier about my concern over the unique range of threats that China levels against the United Kingdom. I hope that he would accept that there are areas where we need to co-operate closely with China, and that there is always a balance to be struck, but I do give him an absolute assurance that national security will always be our priority.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned FIRS, which I suspect other hon. Members may also take this opportunity to mention. FIRS is still a relatively new tool. I am making sure that we are able to draw the maximum operational benefit from it, and any decisions will be communicated to Parliament in the normal way.

Finally, I want to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Ben Wallace. Let me be crystal clear: the accusations that have been made about Ben Wallace are completely unacceptable. Ben Wallace has served our country. For reasons that the hon. Gentleman will completely understand, I am not going to get into the individual security arrangements for Mr Wallace— I cannot and will not comment on operational or intelligence matters—but I can say that I have met Ben Wallace to discuss the concerns that have understandably been raised. I am in touch with him. I will ensure that we continually assess the nature of the threats to individuals and their safety, and that the Government will absolutely be on the front foot in identifying and investigating such threats and will use all appropriate measures to defend against those threats. Any attempt by any foreign Government to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics in the United Kingdom, including Mr Wallace, will not be tolerated.

I thank the Minister for his statement on national security threats and the swift response to this heightened threat. The horrific recent increase we have seen in antisemitic attacks and acts of anti-Muslim hatred is causing understandable anxiety in diverse communities such as mine in Luton South and South Bedfordshire, despite great partnership working between Luton council, Bedfordshire police and our voluntary and community sector. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will continue to work with local authorities and police forces to provide the guidance and resources needed to keep communities safe and build social cohesion efforts to support strong and unified communities?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. The relationship with local government is absolutely mission critical, and I work very closely with not only local government right across the country and the devolved Administrations, but ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. She is right to raise the importance of social cohesion. She will know that that Department has led a piece of work recently, but it is very important that that is wired right across Government. The defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, provides a fulcrum point across Government to work closely with the police, local authorities and the security services to ensure that we have the right approach and response to the threats we face. Ensuring social cohesion and tackling the kind of vile online abuse that we have seen in recent times is an absolute priority for this Government.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Week after week, British Jews are being attacked, intimidated and persecuted. We have seen what has happened at Heaton Park synagogue, Kenton United synagogue, Finchley Reform synagogue, and Jewish Futures in Hendon, and to the Hatzola ambulances, and more recently, there have been the Golders Green stabbings.

The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, is right to call these appalling levels of antisemitism a “national security emergency”. He is also right to say that laws must be properly enforced, especially as the UK’s terror threat was raised to severe last month. Members of the Jewish faith in my constituency attend the North West Surrey synagogue, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer)—I call him my hon. Friend, despite the normal convention, because on this issue, in this House, I hope there is more that unites us than divides us. We must collectively fight antisemitism.

I want a future in which Jewish congregations can gather free of fear and have a Government who support their safety. In this climate, it is absolutely right that the Government take urgent action, but I question whether broadening the scope of Prevent will be enough, given the modern threats that we face. In the Southport and Golders Green attacks, we saw the abject failure of Prevent. It is clear that a full overhaul of Prevent is needed; warning signs must not be missed again. Yesterday’s King’s Speech confirmed the Government’s intention to introduce national security legislation, but this must be a priority. Please can the Minister confirm that the legislation will include an overhaul of Prevent, and set out the timetable for the Bill’s introduction?

Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be proscribed. As Jonathan Hall has made clear, existing powers are already sufficient to proscribe the IRGC. That being the case, why have this Government dragged their feet and delayed action to proscribe the IRGC and keep British Jews safe?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions. I agree with the concerns that he rightly expressed about antisemitic activity in our country. He will have heard the points that I made about protective security, but protective security is only part of our response. It is very important that we tackle the underlying causes. That is why—I hope that he will acknowledge this—there is a lot of activity in different parts of Government to attack antisemitic activity and behaviour wherever it rears its ugly head, whether in our NHS or our schools, colleges and universities. It is a real priority for the Government that we not only provide appropriate protective security but tackle the underlying causes of the abhorrent antisemitism that we have seen in recent weeks.

The hon. Member mentioned Southport. Sir Adrian Fulford recently published his response to phase 1 of the Southport inquiry, and I met him to discuss it. He has already got phase 2 under way. It is a hugely important piece of work that he is undertaking, and he will obviously have the Government’s full support in completing it. We look forward to receiving his recommendations in due course.

The hon. Member referenced Jonathan Hall KC and forthcoming legislation. I made a commitment in my introductory remarks to enacting all the recommendations that Jonathan Hall made in the previous parliamentary Session. I can give an assurance that the state proscription tool that we have committed to introducing will be fast-tracked. That piece of legislation was announced in the King’s Speech, and we will move as quickly as we can to get it on the statute book. I look forward to hopefully having his support, and the support of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House.

I thank the Minister for his statement. As Members of the House will be all too painfully aware, our Jewish community in north-west London, including in my constituency, has been subject to repeated despicable antisemitic attacks in past weeks. Our Iranian community has also been attacked. In my constituency, I also have many members of the Hong Kong community, who live under the shadow of transnational repression.

Given that context, I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement in the King’s Speech of fast-tracked legislation to deal with hostile state threats. Can the Minister share more details of the timetable, so that we can get that welcome and essential piece of legislation on the statute book as quickly as possible?

My hon. Friend has been a diligent representative of his constituency, and I know that he takes these matters incredibly seriously. I hope that he understands this Government’s commitment to tackling antisemitism. He mentioned that in his constituency he has members of the UK Hong Kong community, so let me briefly say a word about them. Any foreign state-directed crime against an individual in the UK will never be tolerated, and the attempt to intimidate and harass members of the Hong Kong community is absolutely unacceptable. Hongkongers play an incredibly important role in our public life. I give him and them an absolute assurance that we will do everything we can to protect them.

My hon. Friend asked specifically about forthcoming legislation. He will understand that we take a range of measures to guard against the threat we face from malign actors and hostile states. It is a priority to introduce this legislation as soon as we are able. I will take it through Parliament, and we intend to fast-track it. I intend to bring it forward in the near future.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points, and for his acknowledgment of our intention to introduce legislation that would allow the UK Government to proscribe state-backed entities. He will know that a range of measures have already been leveraged against the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. I think it was back in November last year that I announced a range of measures to defend against the threat that we undoubtedly face from Iran.

The hon. Gentleman’s point about charities is entirely reasonable. We work across Government, including with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Charity Commission, to tackle the kinds of behaviours he describes. He makes a reasonable point; I will take it away, and come back to him with a further update on the work we are doing. Good work is under way. I hope that he gets a sense, not just from the statement but from the various interactions and exchanges we have had over many months, of how seriously we take these issues. If he wants to discuss them with me further, I would be happy to.

I thank the Minister for his statement and his unequivocal support for the Jewish community. I am proud to have an Iranian community in Edinburgh South West. They are concerned about people in that community who speak out against the Iranian regime, particularly journalists, who they fear may be persecuted in the UK. What are the Minister and the Government doing to protect people who speak out against that awful regime? I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is a fantastic champion for the Jewish community in the UK: if we have any evidence that Iran is behind some of the attacks we have seen on British soil, why do we not simply close its embassy? We do not have to wait for legislation to do that.

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and let me reiterate the Government’s position that the targeting, harassment and coercion of anybody here in the United Kingdom, including, of course, the Iranian community and journalists, is completely unacceptable. On what we are doing to counter the threat from Iran, we have now sanctioned more than 550 Iranian individuals and entities and have placed the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran’s intelligence services, the IRGC and MOIS—the Ministry of Intelligence and Security—on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Importantly, we have also rolled out new training for all frontline police officers on state threats, so at a localised level—of course, this will be the case in Scotland as well—police forces have the insight and knowledge to identify and investigate the type of activity that he describes. But I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we treat it, and we will stand firmly against the threat from Iran.

I want to touch on state threats. I appreciate what the Minister said about the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme as it applies to China. Could he inform the House whether Bill Yuen and Peter Wai were registered on FIRS for their role as Chinese state employees? On Russia, on 5 May the Amur-class repair ship PM-82 was spotted around the Galloper wind farm. What steps is he taking to ensure that our offshore infrastructure is protected from Russian-state threats?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his continued advocacy of FIRS. It is an important operational tool. It is still relatively new—it will be a year old on 1 June—and it is the Government’s intention to bring forward an annual report to update Parliament on the progress that we are making with it. I cannot get into the specific registration of the two individuals that he has referenced, but I can tell him—I think he will know this, because he knows a lot about FIRS, but I say it for the benefit of other Members—that countries are considered separately, and decisions are made on a robust evidence base. I am not able to get into speculation about what further decisions may be made, but those will be communicated to Parliament in the normal way.

On the hon. Member’s second point about our wider resilience, that relates to my Cabinet Office responsibilities, but I give him an assurance that we are working across Government, including with partners in the Ministry of Defence, to guard robustly against the kind of threats that he describes.

I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, and for the work that the Government are doing to protect the Jewish community. My thoughts are with all those who have been victims of these attacks, and of antisemitism and hate crime. In my constituency of Southend West and Leigh, we have quite a significant and diverse Jewish community—Orthodox, Reform and Haredi. They are scared and concerned, and my concern after meeting some of those communities over recent weeks is that some do not know how to access the support available to them. Could my hon. Friend give them some advice?

I am grateful for the points that my hon. Friend has raised, and for his reference to the importance of remembering the victims of terrorism. It is an important part of my responsibility that we ensure that we have appropriate support for those who have been subject to terrorist activity. That is why we are progressing, as a priority, work to deliver a new victims hub, which will offer an enhanced service for those who have been victims and their families, as well as developing a proposal to hold a national day of reflection to properly remember all those who have been the victim of terrorism.

On the points that my hon. Friend makes about British Jews in his constituency, I completely share other hon. Members’ thoughts about the unacceptable nature of the threats that we have seen in recent times. It is the responsibility of all of us to stand against those threats. That is an important priority for the Government, as I am sure it is for local authorities and police forces right around the country. If he has specific points of concern about the way that we are communicating information to members of that community, I would be happy to take that up with him offline.

I commend the Minister on his statement, particularly his peroration about how standing up to hatred and intolerance is the shared responsibility of every person in these islands. The Scottish Government have been working closely with Police Scotland and relevant partners to ensure that safety for Jewish communities and their places of worships is protected, and they will continue to do so throughout the new Scottish parliamentary Session. The additional funding of £25 million to protect Jewish communities and deal with the other threats that the Minister described is welcome. Can he confirm that full Barnett consequentials will be made available to help Police Scotland with its work in that area?

I am grateful to the hon. Member and he is right: I believe that this is a shared endeavour across the House and across our country. I was pleased to discuss these matters recently with the First Minister, and I have received positive correspondence from him. I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not respond to him now on the precise point about Barnett consequentials, but I will write to him.

I join colleagues across the House in strongly condemning the ongoing campaign of attacks and intimidation against our British communities, and I thank the Minister for his leadership on those and other security matters. He said that he has initiated a review of the national threat level system, which currently captures only the threat from terrorism. Can he expand on that? Does he mean that, following review, it will now capture the threat from state-based actors and other countries? Can he do that in the light of the fact that one key theme of last year’s strategic defence review was that we need an open, national conversation that is not behind closed doors, in the light of both ongoing delays to the defence investment plan and many colleagues across the House needing to understand better the threat that this country is under, and some of the funding decisions that we need to make to keep our citizens safe?

My hon. and gallant Friend has asked an astute question. He obviously heard my reference to the initiation of an internal piece of work, and a review of the national terrorism threat level. In truth, that has long been on my mind, and I want to satisfy myself that current arrangements are fit for purpose. Those current arrangements have served our country fairly well for a number of years, but I feel as if they have now been overtaken by events. It is therefore appropriate to look carefully at the way the threat level is not only calibrated, but communicated, and I want a system that makes some sense to the public. We will look carefully at that.

I will consider the recommendations over the coming months, and I am obviously happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend and other Members. He made a further important point about the strategic defence review and the need to have an ongoing conversation with the public, and he is right to remind us of that. I discuss such matters not only with colleagues across Government, but also with our European partners who, it is not unreasonable to say, have taken a somewhat more forward-leaning approach than UK Governments going back a number of years. We must ensure that the public understand the nature of the threats we face, and do so in a way that ensures they are alert but not alarmed.

I welcome the statement because the issues that the Minister raises, particularly the antisemitism that we have seen grow exponentially and frighteningly in this country, and issues with the Chinese embassy, which are particularly relevant in my constituency, are concerns that we hear from our constituents all the time. For that reason, will he tell us a little more about the tackling state threats Bill and the national security Bill, as well as measures to tackle antisemitism, which he says must be passed without delay? What sort of timetable are we looking at, and how quickly can we have those measures to reassure the public that everything is being done?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as I always am, for the points that she has made. She mentioned the Chinese embassy, so I hope she will forgive me if I seek to provide her with a word of reassurance on that matter, because I know it has been somewhat controversial in this House and elsewhere. Our intelligence agencies have been involved throughout the process, and an extensive range of measures has been developed to manage any risks. Following extensive negotiations, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate their current seven sites in London into one site. I hope she will acknowledge that that brings very clear national security advantages.

As for the timeframe, we are seeking to fast-track the legislation through Parliament, and it is a priority. I intend to bring it forward very soon and to do it in a way that I hope will be collegiate, with Members right across the House. We made a commitment that we would introduce this legislation; we need to get on and do it, and that is what I intend to do.

I thank the Minister for his careful and considered remarks and for setting out very clearly in his statement that the safety and security of Hongkongers in the UK is paramount. I also thank him for his remarks about new legislation announced in the King’s Speech to tackle hostile state threats and about the two convictions under the National Security Act last week, which regard the activities of two individuals on UK soil who leaked to the Chinese foreign intelligence service.

Hongkongers in my constituency live with the threat of transnational repression day in, day out, and they are petrified of the activities of Beijing and Hong Kong authorities on British soil. What assurances can the Minister give me that the activities of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office are being properly monitored and that the UK Government will not allow for that institution to be misused by Chinese or Hong Kong authorities to engage in that form of transnational repression?

My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. He will have heard in my introductory remarks that the Chinese ambassador has been summonsed, and he will have heard the determination of the Foreign Secretary to illustrate the completely unacceptable nature of the kind of activities that we have seen in recent times. I have personally been in touch with members of the Hongkonger community just this week to provide reassurances, but I want to work closely with my hon. Friend to ensure that those assurances are not only heard, but felt. If he thinks that we can and should be doing more, I would be very grateful to be able to discuss that with him.

The level of fear felt by British Jews is nothing short of a national emergency and requires the most urgent and rapid action. The last time that the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box, just before the last Session ended, I raised with him the case of the south Buckinghamshire Jewish community. While I welcome his commitment to increased funds, they still find themselves falling between the cracks for grant funding, because they do not have a building of their own and meet in different venues from time to time. I have sent him the details, so may I plead with him to look at that issue very urgently? Will he help me find a way to ensure that all my constituents and British Jews from neighbouring constituencies who are members of the south Buckinghamshire Jewish community can genuinely feel safe and that action comes very rapidly?

I feel that fear, as I think we all do in this place. The hon. Gentleman has assiduously represented the concerns of Jewish communities in his constituency. I knew that he would send a letter, having given a commitment to do so, but I confess that it has not been put in front of me. I give him a guarantee that I will go back to my desk and look at his letter straight away.

I thank the Minister very much for his determination and the determination of his Government to protect all the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I endorse his comments about the police, MI5 and MI6. We have individuals collectively doing the hard work to try to worm out the malcontents.

I have long bemoaned the lack of action against Chinese overreach, which sees spy work carried out against British nationals in this country. Some Hongkongers living in my constituency feel threatened daily by Chinese officials, whether it be from someone spying on them or following them. I have railed against the blatant antisemitism culminating in the stabbings in Golders Green. Along with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I stand alongside the Iranian Government in exile and Maryam Rajavi. The Iranians tell us that they feel threatened daily in this country for standing up for liberty and freedom in Iran. I have highlighted the sop to republicans that embraces republican glorification of terrorism, which led to car bombs in Northen Ireland just last month. This nation’s security is tied to our ability to act, so what will the Government do to secure our national interest and the safety of all our citizens in this great democracy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am. He has a very long and proud record of standing against terrorism—he knows a lot about it from his experiences in Northern Ireland—and he is also right to pay tribute to those who serve in our police forces and our intelligence services, who work tirelessly around the clock to keep us safe. We all owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

The hon. Member is right to highlight a number of concerns. I can assure him that we take these matters incredibly seriously; he will have seen the measures that were announced in the King’s Speech yesterday, which will complement our existing legislative framework. However, I give him an assurance that if there is a requirement to do more—to add to our toolkit, to make sure we are best prepared to guard against the nature of the threats we face—we will not hesitate to act.

I thank the Minister for his statement today, and for the gravity with which he has approached this statement and his job while others in Westminster are being distracted by noises off. I completely agree with him that it is totally unacceptable for a foreign state to be conducting shadow policing operations on UK soil, and I welcome that he said that the Foreign Secretary has called in the Chinese ambassador. However, he will also be aware that, if press reports are to be believed, the Chinese embassy in London issued a statement on Sunday in which it called on the UK Government to

“stop wantonly arresting and convicting Chinese citizens”

on “trumped-up” charges. It is clear that we are miles away from one another, so will the Minister encourage the Foreign Secretary to throw the book at them?

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his contribution, as I always am. He knows me well enough that I can be quite candid with him in saying that I do not think the Foreign Secretary will need any encouragement from me. She will share the concern of Ministers right across this Government about the recent activity—she will have seen that very clearly when she served as Home Secretary. I agree that the kind of activity he describes is totally unacceptable, and this Government will absolutely stand against it. We are constantly making sure that we have the right legislative framework, toolkit and resources to guard against the nature of the threats we face, including from China. It is completely unacceptable that any nation, whoever they are, think that they can undermine our freedom of speech, our democracy and our sovereignty. It is not going to be allowed to happen.

I thank the Minister for his statement. He has confirmed the roll-out of new training for police officers and staff to increase their understanding of state threats. Will that training be mandatory for officers in all police forces and all police roles, including police community support officers and special constables as well as back-office staff? How will it be implemented? Will it be in person or online? If it is online, will it be passive or active? Are participants just going to tick a series of boxes when they have read stuff, or are they actually going to be in an interactive session? How long will the first sweep of those staff take? I am very happy for the Minister to write to me about these matters, but the sweep through existing staff might take quite a long time. Has he given any consideration to including in that training people who have a lot of frontline experience, such as staff from the Department for Work and Pensions, health, social services and local authorities?

The hon. Lady makes an important and helpful point. I can give her an assurance that I discuss these matters with policing colleagues regularly. I hope she will understand that it is probably not for me, as the Security Minister, to be delving into the individual arrangements that different police forces have, but I am confident that all police forces understand the benefit and the importance of this training activity in the way that she has described. Let me consider further what she has said, and I will write to her with a more considered response.